Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Lawyers Cancel School Trip II

LawyersThose loyal readers with long memories, not addled by Nanny's banned substances of booze and fags etc, may recall that back in January I wrote about the rather sad story of a school trip to an outdoor activity centre in Craggan in the Cairngorms being cancelled because the mother of a disabled girl objected to it.

Yesterday one of the other parents (who by happenstance I knew at university), who has a child at the school, posted an update on the article:

"Hullo Ken

An update from a parent of a child at the school.

Highland Council have now created a trip to another outdoor centre but the mother of the disabled child has removed her child from the school in protest. The mother claims NO child should be allowed to enjoy ANY activity her severely disabled child cannot take part in. That is NOT the law and is unfair, in that it would restrict options for able bodied children.

The action of Highland Council in giving way is very odd. We have not had an explanation of why the council felt it had "no alternative" but to cancel the trip. I have requested details (under Freedom of Information rules) of which clause in the Disability Discrimination Act was not complied with or which section of the Council's "Trip Planning Guide" was not followed.

I suspect that the "guidance" was not fully followed so they felt nervous. I have suggested that such guidance "gold plates" the DDA and makes it easier to challenge a trip.
"

How on earth does removing the girl from the school "in protest" help this child in anyway shape or form?

I am at a total loss to understand the rationale behind this woman's actions.

It is a very sad story, and one that reflects quite how dysfunctional our society has become under the weight of legislation and climate of fear generated by the Nanny state.

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

16 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:37 AM

    Putting the schools’ obvious cowardice in cancelling the school trip to one side, I wonder if the mother of the disabled girl might be playing in system in trying to get her daughter into an alternative school.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mmmmmm...Sounds like the "Protest" will result in a conditional fee law suit which, due to financial restraints, the council will not fight and thus, compo will be the prize.
    It also highlights another "Principle" that Nanny loves; Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator in the name of so called equality.....I wonder why, under Nanny, equality and fairness(sic) always mean reducing everyone downwards rather than raising people upwards....Still, that's socialism for you.

    Enjoy exploiting disabled children for power and financial gain responsibly.

    www.compoaware.co.uk

    Search online for Most popular Kid in the School.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tonk, you said what I wanted to say about dragging everyone down to the LCD.
    It seems to be much easier for these cowards to bring us all down than it does to bring themselves up.
    Thats why so many people are jealous of those that are successful and well off. They cant make the enormous effort required to become successful themselves so they take the much easier option of demanding some kind of "spread the wealth" in the name of fairness.

    It doesnt quite apply to a disabled person - they definately cant do everything an able bodied person can. However, they can still get a lot of enjoyment out of life without spoiling the enjoyment of others.

    I fear this silly, self centred woman is doing a lot of damage to her child by acting in this manner.

    ReplyDelete
  4. microdave12:45 PM

    I DEMAND the same lifestyle that our host Ken obviously enjoys. The fact that I have neither the know how, or inclination is neither here nor there....

    Under Nu Liebors "social revolution" it's my right!




    I was joking, by the way.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:10 PM

    If the child in question was dead and blind, would the other children be forced to wear blindfolds and ear plugs all day so they didn't have an unfair advantage?

    It's interesting that we often observe two extremes of society on this blog. One panders down to every stupid whim and threat from cretins and society, the other bullies ordinary people due to cretins in power.

    I see a common factor with our problems here! Is this really down to the Nanny state? I'm not so sure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:12 PM

    *dead = deaf, obviously.... :)

    Although...

    ReplyDelete
  8. This perfectly highlights the insanity of government rule over us. Parties are incentivised to please as many citizens as possible, in gaining votes enough to stay in power. And so you have the government bending over backwards for the masses in pure vanity.

    This creates a sense of entitlement as opposed to responsibility, in people, until you have what we have today: the nanny/blame/welfare culture. More laws are being passed daily for trivial things, and our privacy is being stripped away like bark off a mighty English oak. Soon they'll be after our very sap.

    Concerning this article, it goes without saying that there is no rational human alive that could feel anything other than compassion for parents of disabled children, and as humans, we naturally would do anything we could to help make these people's lives a bit easier. But shackling an entire group to spare one person's feelings is absurd.

    We haven't come this far as a nation by living by such idiotic philosophy. Big government is ruining our race. It's extinguishing the very spirit that made us rise so high, and is replacing it with a roof that is lowering itself so quickly, that you can't walk without banging your head.

    I read an article yesterday at the Daily Mail website about families of three generation single mothers that are completely state-dependent - without a father in sight. The quote from Harriet Harman on Tory plans of tax-breaks for married couples (to curb welfare-dependency) illustrates our rulers' idiocy best:

    [Tax breaks] 'will not encourage one single couple to get married or to make them happy in their marriage. But it does send - and I think this is why it's cruel - because it sends a very clear message to children in families where the parents are divorced. It says to them: "There's something wrong with your family therefore there must be something wrong with you". And that's another reason why we will never introduce it.'

    I personally think that any welfare whatsoever begets the dependency to match it. And where does all this money come from that supports this crazy system? The pockets of our very own, hard-earned trousers.

    Great blog - I am a regular reader. It's refreshing to know that others in the UK still hold values such accountability, responsibility and rationality as virtues, as opposed to vices.

    - End rant! -

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stupid cow.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:50 PM

    The woman who has stopped all the other children from going on the trip is bad enough, in fact in my opinion a truly dreadful person, but the "sheep in sheep's clothing" councillors who made the decision not to go ahead with the trip are far worse.

    Ken;

    "Ken's Blue Blog
    Question For British Gas - Re your insane quote for replacing my mum's boiler, are you farking mad?"

    As there is nowhere to comment on the blue blog, I'm putting my comment here.

    Some years ago we had a Three Star Plan with British Gas. We paid a lot of money each year to ensure we had this cover in case of emergencies etc and it included an annual service. One year the service engineer went straight to the boiler and condemned it. Looking back it seems that he had already decided on that plan of action before even arriving at the house. And we had paid them to send him to do so!

    Then they sent a salesman round to "sell" us a new boiler. For £3200 quid! We went through a private, but corgi registered, plumber and got the equivalent boiler brand new and fitted for £1400.

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm. Makes ye think.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lord of Atlantis3:34 PM

    "Highland Council have now created a trip to another outdoor centre but the mother of the disabled child has removed her child from the school in protest. The mother claims NO child should be allowed to enjoy ANY activity her severely disabled child cannot take part in. That is NOT the law and is unfair, in that it would restrict options for able bodied children."

    Not only unfair, but downright selfish! It is a plain fact that the disabled simply cannot do some things, and they have to accept the fact. I happen to be utterly useless at DIY. I accept that
    limitation but am very glad others are able to excel in it, because we'd be in a real mess if society took the attitude that since I was useless at it, nobody else should be allowed to be any better! This socialist-communist dogma of 'one size fits all' helps noone!

    Scotty Stevens said:
    "Concerning this article, it goes without saying that there is no rational human alive that could feel anything other than compassion for parents of disabled children, and as humans, we naturally would do anything we could to help make these people's lives a bit easier." But shackling an entire group to spare one person's feelings is absurd."

    I quite agree! I have a great deal of sympathy for the disabled, but attitudes such as that displayed by the mother of the disabled child in this incident do nothing to help the disabled: on the contrary, they invite and reinforce prejudices and hatred towards them. I don't really think you can blame the local authority for taking the attitude they did as, with our judicial system and a 'no win, no fee' lawyer, they might have ended up with a hefty bill. Personally, I think any case should have been thrown out of court, but our judiciary seem to live in ivory towers and on a different planet to the rest of us!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Number 65:38 PM

    I am not as rich as Richard Branson. It is not fair, I am removing myself from work until I get paid the same as him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:09 AM

    it also shows how meek the other parents are. There is more than one of them.
    After all the mother could have been leaned on as could the council members but nothing done is nothing achieved.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The school / council came up with activities for the disabled girl on the original trip but this "wasn't good enough" for the mother. Somehow I doubt she bothered to ask her daughter.

    As far as I can ascertain (and this was discussed in one of my tutorials recently - I'm a student teacher covering Outdoor Activities as one of my extended subjects), the council and school both acted within the guidelines in offering the alternative. They can't discriminate, certainly, but the DDA does state that discrimination can occur in two ways:

    - by treating the disabled pupil or prospective pupil less favourably
    - by failing to make reasonable adjustments to make sure that the disabled pupil or prospective pupil is not placed at a substantial disadvantage to a non-disabled person.

    In my opinion, the mother is guilty of the former (by withdrawing her) and the school/authority well within their rights to claim they have attempted to prevent the latter by offering alternative activities to the poor child.

    I would agree with some of the other posters. The mother is (imho - I still think I'm allowed an opinion without being sued) an attention-seeker and possibly just looking for a cash handout in compensation. In return for which, she's prepared to make her child a social pariah and ruin an otherwise well-run and annually attended event which the rest of the school were looking forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous8:51 AM

    What people seem to have forgotten, maybe as a result of the attempt to rename disabled people as 'physically challenged' or whatever, is the meaning of the word 'disabled', i.e. not able to do what a typical human can do. As a sufferer from a disability myself, I can assure you all that it is only when one comes to terms with the fact that certain things taken for granted by other people are off limits to you that you can come to terms with your problem and focus on getting fulfilment from the things you can do.

    Terrible harm is likely to be done to this child, and others led to delusions about their disabilities by the ridiculous legislation and pathetic political correctness - which latter would be better termed political obfuscation.

    The effect it has already had on the genration that includes this child's mother is plan to see.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John B Stryge11:52 AM

    Lord of Atlantis said
    "Not only unfair, but downright selfish! It is a plain fact that the disabled simply cannot do some things, and they have to accept the fact. I happen to be utterly useless at DIY. I accept that
    limitation but am very glad others are able to excel in it, because we'd be in a real mess if society took the attitude that since I was useless at it, nobody else should be allowed to be any better! This socialist-communist dogma of 'one size fits all' helps noone!"

    But, my Lord, are things not even worse. Is Nanny not distorting the honourable sentiment "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

    I hope I can get away with just using "his". After all, the Interpretation Act 1978 still says
    a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
    (b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

    ReplyDelete