As we know Nanny firmly believes that all adults are paedophiles, unless they prove otherwise.
It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Nanny's minions are officially vetting parents who want to accompany their children to Christmas carol services and other festive activities.
Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire is taking no chances that any of its pupils' parents may in fact be child predators. Therefore any parent who wishes to accompany their own child/children on the 10 minute (yes I said 10 minute) walk to a morning carol service must be vetted first.
At this point I would like to mention the obvious:
1 It is a 10 minute walk
2 It is in broad daylight
3 There will be several adults (parents, police and teachers there)
What the fark can seriously happen?
Somersham isn't the only school to be infected with the anti adult hysteria that has infected our "beloved" child centred government and tabloid driven political agenda (isn't it ironic that the shouty tabloids who are saying this vetting is stupid, are the same shouty tabloids who bleated for stronger child protection laws a few years ago and conducted a witch hunt for paedophiles?). Other primaries have instituted vetting for parents attending Christmas discos on school premises. Some schools require checks on parents who volunteer to walk with children from the school to post letters to Father Christmas.
Parents will have to provide schools with proof of their identity, such as a passport, as well as their address, so their records can be checked.
People with even a modicum of commonsense can see that not only is this absurd, it is dangerous (as it institutes fear and mistrust between adults and children, thus creating an even greater gap between them).
However, those who worship Nanny (eg bureaucrats, local government staff, politicians and seemingly a large number of teachers) have long since lost any commonsense that they may have once had. In fact it would seem that these professions now only attract people with zero commonsense, a fear of any form of risk and a rabid enthusiasm for state control.
This form of action is tantamount to child abuse, as it poisons the relationship between adult and child.
The people who institute this vetting should be removed from office and prosecuted for child abuse.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I agree with what you say....Another more sinister thought; Children can be very manipulative and will notice the hysteria and perhaps use the threat of reporting an adult as a way to control them....With regard to offences against kids, you are guilty until proven innocent and even once found innocent, the accusation will still remain on your file...A no win situation.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is all a ploy to butter people up to accepting their EUSSR ID card....Perhaps the chip can say whether you can have access to children or not....Its a sick society Nanny has created.
On 1st March 2010, I'll be a proud first time dad. The thought of facing all this in five year's time (when I'll be taking my daughter to school) isn't a happy one... not least because I won't be co-operating with the authorities in any shape or form should these kind of "requests" be made.
ReplyDeleteI'd opt for home-schooling, but no doubt that would only make me more of a threat to my child...
Are the checks just criminal or also with hearsay?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, the state is made to look like the grate protector & safe; adults ar made to look like pre-criminals to the kids; the state gets between real community ie bottom-up, spontaneous friendships and community - teachers & parents & kids. The state gains control & normalises itself as the controller and interferer in relationships, including in the ommunity. State interference is normalised, to adults & children. Children grow up used to abnormal community and state behaviour. Kids & adults will stop developing and using judgement with respect in a healthy way. Real perps will charm or evade the system. Real innocent people will be framed. People in the community (& state) will know too much about people too much of the time - its called spying. The state has forgotten it is in loco parentis, on the few occasions it should interfere, let alone this morass.
What can I say? Its abnormal, unhealthy & not the way to bring up children or treat citizens or prevent all abuse (100% impossible in a healthy society) - but this is 100% state abuse, even where unintended (or not), & will 100% lead to some kids becoming neurotic as well as some adults, lives ruined, more abuses of power etc.etc.etc.
How unhealthy states hate healthy communities including churches, pubs & any normal meeting of the "dangerous pre-criminals" out there. It was after all, churches and other communities which helped bring down the Berlin Wall.
Are the checks just criminal or also with hearsay?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, the state is made to look like the grate protector & safe; adults ar made to look like pre-criminals to the kids; the state gets between real community ie bottom-up, spontaneous friendships and community - teachers & parents & kids. The state gains control & normalises itself as the controller and interferer in relationships, including in the ommunity. State interference is normalised, to adults & children. Children grow up used to abnormal community and state behaviour. Kids & adults will stop developing and using judgement with respect in a healthy way. Real perps will charm or evade the system. Real innocent people will be framed. People in the community (& state) will know too much about people too much of the time - its called spying. The state has forgotten it is in loco parentis, on the few occasions it should interfere, let alone this morass.
What can I say? Its abnormal, unhealthy & not the way to bring up children or treat citizens or prevent all abuse (100% impossible in a healthy society) - but this is 100% state abuse, even where unintended (or not), & will 100% lead to some kids becoming neurotic as well as some adults, lives ruined, more abuses of power etc.etc.etc.
How unhealthy states hate healthy communities including churches, pubs & any normal meeting of the "dangerous pre-criminals" out there. It was after all, churches and other communities which helped bring down the Berlin Wall.
This trend is going to create a real dilemma for parents. On one hand they will want to be involved with their childrens' activities at school, while at the same time want to resist our nanny/surveillance/police state.
ReplyDeleteMy kids are grown up and I don't honestly know how I would deal with a situation where my child wanted me to be involved with, or attend a school activity. Could I disappoint my son or daughter by refusing to play Nanny's games or would I have to lose my self respect and go along with Nanny's evil plot.
What a choice for a parent, disappoint their child or go along with Nanny. While I hope all parents will resist Nanny, I would also feel obliged to respect their decision, whatever it was.
Sadly though, every time any one of us gives in to Nanny, she becomes that little bit more powerful and evil.
I have already acquiesced once to Nanny. I drive steam engines on a heritage railway and like many such railways we run "A day out with Thomas" events. A couple of years ago HIT who own the rights to Thomas insisted that ALL staff involved with these events undergo an enhanced CRB check.
Furthermore, staff who had not had a check would be banned from the railway for the duration of the event. Some staff were exempted because they worked in areas not normally open to the public but they too were banned from travelling on any of the Thomas trains. However, the same individuals could travel on the same trains as parents accompanying their children.
How mad is that!
Fortunately, HIT have recently had a serious attack of common sense and have dropped the CRB requirement.
Anon 11:02am said: "I'd opt for home-schooling, but no doubt that would only make me more of a threat to my child..."
ReplyDeleteSorry to spoil your day, but even that is going to require a CRB check:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231947/Home-schooling-parents-criminal-checks-ensure-theyre-paedophiles.html
Darn it! All those wasted hours I had driving to and attending school events when my kids were in education! And to think that now I could exempt myself on the basis of no record check. (Mostly they didn't want to be there either ...)
ReplyDeleteOn the brighter side, slightly, if either of them should end up spewing offspring I will have the perfect grandparent excuse for dipping out of support activities - assuming that all such interaction has not been entirely banned by then anyway.
(An asied - the verification word is lessedi. Why demand that? I always thought that EDI, though technically imperfect, was a useful concept. Or is it merely reporting that there is less EDI these days? Confused ...)
;-)
Microdave: thanks for the heads-up; it may well be time to seriously consider emigrating...
ReplyDeleteDo you remember a campaign, in the 80s I think, by the cast of Grange Hill? It was called "Just Say No" and was aimed at children to keep them from taking drugs. Remember it?
ReplyDeleteWell I think we need to revamp that campaign for a more modern age. It should be aimed at adults saying no to the government everytime they come up with some new bullshit.
Grant
ReplyDelete"lessedi" - is that a polite way for the computer to ask us to be quiet?
I would like less EDI. Less EDI = less data & less control by the state & hackers. And more dignity.
One of the problems of Nanny-types is that they think that all electronic data interchange (correct me if I am wrong) is the transmission of relevant facts. In truth, sadly, it is a mixture of the correct & in context & necessary & ...hearsay, inaccuracies, mistakes, half-truths, hacked data, frames & smears, biased data(determined by the filler in of the form, not the object of the data), corrupted data, data entered in fields with bad labels &/or badly designed systems, data out of context including cultural or departmental or system or industry context, obsolete data, falsely entered data, data from others' records, data that should never be held because it is not needed and too easily abused, & some things should never be asked or recorded, especially on computers - because of dignity & privacy issues. (I have probably missed a load) Sometimes things are not asked or held which should be, and which would vindicate some of the "prec-criminals" in certain systems. The systems often seem geared to the state or holder of the info (including businesses and others) at the expense of the less powerful ie the one(s) on whom the data is held.
"Lessedi" of data about people would undoubtedly lead to less EDI in correcting mistakes or resolving unnecessary harm or misunderstandings caused by the data state, let alone EDI cuased by blogging & commenting on the data state & abuses thereof. How sad.
But how do we know that those who are going to do the vetting aren't paedophiles themselves?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Tonk, any child with a grudge against a particular adult (real or imaginary) will use laws like this either to settle a score or for the purpose of blackmail. 'That wouldn't happen', I hear the defenders of this nonsense cry. Really? Check out the upcoming storyline on Coronation Street involving Rosie Webster and John Stopes. Then ask yourselves who the "authorities" would believe in such a situation? What about the men who have been falsely accused of rape?
Exactly, M'Lord. Quis custodiet custodes? if I remember my school Latin correctly.
ReplyDeleteIf I were Nanny - now there's a thought! - I would short-circuit all this rigmarole by requiring all prospective parents to be vetted and certified (by me) as fit and proper persons before being allowed to procreate.
When I think back to my 1930s and '40s schooldays, all this totalitarian stuff is mind-boggling. Admittedly, I was educated at private schools but it was taken for granted at my and every other school, state or private, I'm aware of that the teachers were in loco parentis during school hours, and that they were accountable to the parents for childrens' wellbeing - not vice versa. My parents would have hit the roof if they had been told they must be vetted as 'suitable' to attend my school sports day.
The world has gone competely mad, and you only have to look at Blinky Balls to see that he is bonkers.
Oh come on people, what's all this about allowing people to be parents? Damned silly idea.
ReplyDeleteAl of this rubbish can be avoided if only we let Nanny do all the breeding - something along the lines that Aldous Huxley described in Brave New World. Except I seem to recall that he described the decanted ones on their outings from the development units and to be quite frank I think he was being more than a little soft on that. Perhaps he had one eye on the book market of the time but if I was writing that book now I think I would avoid any serious mention of ankle biters at all. Certainly there seems to be no need for them to be seen in public - in which case the question and risk of abuse is eliminated. Plus we would not have to import all those plastic toys form China and there must be economies of scale available by grouping them in one place for the first 18 years or so.
So, cut taxes, bureaucratic overheads, food waste, CO2 emissions, oil consumption and make the adult world a better place to exist.
What could be better?
The verification word is meaningless this time. It's probably rude in Bolivian.
microdave said:
ReplyDelete"I'd opt for home-schooling, but no doubt that would only make me more of a threat to my child..."
Sorry to spoil your day, but even that is going to require a CRB check"
Ah, but what if parents want to molest their kids out of school hours?
Verification word "acemen" - I think not!?
Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells said...
ReplyDelete"Ah, but what if parents want to molest their kids out of school hours?"
But that's the whole absurd point of this story - Unless Nanny watches all parents 24/7 (and I'm sure she really wants to) this CRB requirement will achieve nothing....
part 1 - its been a bad day..
ReplyDeleteNanny-types either don't think they were ever naughty as kids or think their own kids never are. Maybe their kids are so scared of Nanny that they hide their foibles let alone known-wrongs from Nanny, as Nannies themselves do, maybe because a few are narcissistic or psychopathic. (Thank heaven for real Nannies out there - their profession has been tarnished by these officious Nanny-types in & outside of education).
Kids don't know all right from all wrong, they also copy & test boundaries & they change. Parents are imperfect but most are "good-enough" (a pshychological term Nanny is abusing) especially in light of their circumstances. Maybe government might concentrate on some of the circumstances that parents and children face as traditional governments did - crime, ability to earn a living etc. Hungry kids can't concentrate nor those who are anxious or whose sleep is harmed in crime-ridden areas (nor their parents). Parents & kids harried by officials unnecessaily, or parents not allowed to nurture & occasionally discipline kids appropriately don't do well - not because they are bad at parenting or being kids, but becuase government interference is harming their capacity to do the right thing and to thrive. Sometimes info and help is needed. But never abuse by the state. Nanny cannot solve all problems - Nanny might also work on her perfectionism. No human is perfect. Demanding perfection creates nervous wrecks.
These forms are abusive. Labelling kids and permanently tracking them will lead to kids becoming neurotic +/or criminal - if they get the feeling that they will carry a label(including fasle labels) for years or life or be overly criticised including being misunderstood no matter what they do, or over-monitered (taking the fun & any fairness or mercy out of much of life),focusing on what Nanny & others think - rather on just being themselves, their lives will be harmed and sometimes wrecked. Nanny has forgotten that children learn & need to be told & retold about a few things, but not about everything. That is over-bearing. Also, it is healthy to focus on the behaviour when occasionally telling off a kid, not to overly label (or adults) - that is standard dyfunctional behaviour. None of us are pefect but Nanny is going too far.
Ditto parents & society. Also, once someone has labelled a kid as "something", the next reader of the "notes" won't be independent in relating to the child but influenced by the "notes". It's unhealthy & abnormal & abusive to track a child(or adult) like a widget in a production process.
There are also issues of informed consent. Nanny appears ro be looking for certain imperfect parental-child relationships & child development or "pre-criminality" in a way which is impossible: Nanny can't be impartially omniscient or all-wise. God made thoughts private on purpose. Even parents shouldn't know or control everything about their children. Imperfections are a continuum. Most shouldn't be tracked or interfered with & absusive over-monitering, bossing & interference in the lives of parents & their children distorts people's personalities & increases vulnerability & bad behaviour as well as creating unnecessary brokenness & criminal behaviour. It also kills the freedom to be imperfectly conformed or not as people choose ie for kids & parents to be themselves (with healthy boundaries & healthy definitions of forbidden no's & criminality), as well as the British tradition of eccentricity where people so choose..