Nanny's "Won't someone think of the children?" agenda continues apace.All adults in the UK are now presumed to be paedophiles, unless they can prove otherwise.
The fact that an offence may not yet have been committed, or indeed may not have been reported, does not preclude the adult from committing such an act in the future. However, in Nanny's world of "box ticking" that doesn't matter so long as you have your piece of paper proving you are "innocent" up until now.
Dick Puddlecote had an "amusing" encounter with the "Paedo Police" from his local school the other day:
"Last week, the boy Puddlecote's school e-mailed their regular newsletter. At the end of the sterile but cheery message was a plea for parent participation.
'The children are always pleased when parents hear them sing at our assembly shows, so please come along if you can. Remember to bring your CRB checks with you'.
Now, I'm CRB checked but was working. However, there are plenty others who would be able to attend but have never required clearance from the CRB in work or voluntary activities. And seeing as the process, in my experience, can take up to three months, anyone without clearance who wished to attend was effectively barred on the remote premise that they might be a paedophile.
Sorry if that appears simplistic, but how else can one view it? Guilty until proven innocent by the state machine."
Read the full article here.
Bottom line, Nanny has eliminated one of the basic tenets of English law "innocent until proven guilty".
The only way for this nonsense to be stopped is for every parent to effectively go on strike, and to refuse to attend or help out any school activity whatsoever; until Nanny's absurd "tick box" requirements for "proof of innocence" are removed.
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
Having a CRB check does nothing to protect children, as it only shows those who have had a previous conviction for this sort of thing: there are plenty of paedophiles who are not in the 'system' as they have so far escaped justice. All this does is discriminate against the majority of innocent parents, in accordance with the way this society has changed in recent years: whereas it used to be the case that one was innocent until guilt had been proved'beyond reasonable doubt', it is now the case that one is presumed guilty unless innocence can be proved absolutely. And they call this a free country!
ReplyDeleteI suspect it is all part of Nanny's agenda to remove power from adults.....The kids are well aware of the hysteria surrounding child protection/safeguarding and some use it as a way to control adults....I have heard stories of teachers being threatened by young kids if they don't do as the kids want....The teacher is automatically assumed to be guilty and is suspended....Even if then found innocent, that accusation follows him or now, her around like a bad smell....When the kid becomes an adult, it knows the power dynamics and, because they grew up with the silly policy, they believe it to be the norm....It will take many generations to return to a more commonsense approach to the relationship between the state, adults and children.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how long it will be before one needs a breeding license from nanny just to have a child....With a fee attached of course...Kerching!!!
Word verification....KIDEO
"Bottom line, Nanny has eliminated one of the basic tenets of English law "innocent until proven guilty"."
ReplyDeleteThat first disappeared when fixed speed cameras were introduced. Nobody seemed to mind at the time, so Nanny knew she was onto a "good thing"...
I believe it was the self-same "Nanny" who threw up her hands in horror at the notion of locking Paedophiles away for ever, where they could do no further harm ..
ReplyDelete"Oh, no" they cried .. "We mustn't demonise these people" .. "We must help them re-integrate into society" .. And promptly patted themselves on the head for their so-called "enlightened" attitude ..
The result of having these animals back living amongst us is now becoming crystal clear .. as it always was to anyone with a single iota of common sense ..
The people responsible for this situation should be forcibly stuffed with the rough end of a Pineapple ..
Just how many convictions for paedophilic abuse happen each year in England these days?
ReplyDeleteUs outsiders would like to know.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Just how many convictions for paedophilic abuse happen each year in England these days? Us outsiders would like to know."
I don't know the actual figure but I've been reliably informed that it's no more than when I was a kiddy back in the 1950s.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered whether or not the easier availability of photos on the internet might actually reduce the number of physical abuse cases on a per-capita basis. I would imagine it would be very difficult to assess one way or the other but I suspect that D,TW's suggestion of little or no change since the 50s (and likely long before) is about right.
ReplyDeleteTonk, the older I get the more the idea of having to pass a test and obtain a licence to breed seems to make sense. I know it goes against the grain but ... but.... but it just seems like such a good idea! It works in some ways for breeding other things.
The problem with having a licence to breed is that it would create yet another Government body or Quango, with all the associated beaurocracy .. which we, the Taxpayers would be expected to fund ..
ReplyDeleteFar easier to identify those unfit to breed (think of your local "sink" estate .. every town has one .. or more) and sterilise them before they have the chance .. and a lot cheaper in the long run, I would suggest.
Mr Frost sir,
ReplyDeleteOff topic, sorry - but how the hell is it going to cost £6.5 million to police MPs' expenses as reported today. The company I work for employs 122 people and we just have 8 of those, on fairly average wages, who process all of our sales and purchases, all of our banking, all of our payroll, all of our tax stuff, all of the year end work, annual accounts up to trial balance before the auditors come in - and as an aside all of our expenses.
So why £6.5 million for just the expenses bit for some 600 tossers, sorry MPs.