Let The Book Burning Begin!

As loyal readers know, Nanny imposes her will upon us by direct legislation, petty rules and by encouraging our fellow citizens and trouble makers to kick up a fuss over something.

Case in point being what public libraries "allow" us to read.

Sadly, because of the actions of a few intolerant people who have nothing better to do with their lives then stick their noses into other people's business, some public libraries (backing off from a fight) have withdrawn a number of books from their shelves.

For why?

In the view of the intolerant few, we should not be allowed to read them because the intolerant few find them to be offensive.

I dare say, if you asked every human being on the planet to judge what is offensive or not we would end up with having zero books to read.

Like it or not, some people will always be offended by something.

The solution?

If you are offended, then don't read the book; but allow others to make their own decisions.

Anyhoo, on the list of books destined for the incinerator:

• Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes and Even More Revolting Rhymes - supposedly coarse language .

• The Nutcracker and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves - too sinister or frightening for children.

• Babar and Tintin -  exposing children to ethnic stereotypes.

• David McKee's Tusk Tusk - racist elephants, and a wealthy main character Denver promoted the idea of an unfair gap between rich and poor.

• Two Monsters - 'twit' and 'dumbo' words deemed too aggressive.

• Nicholas Allan's More and More Rabbits - the content was inappropriate (sex between rabbits!)

As can be seen, the single issue views of a minority of feeble minded busybodies has been given disproportionate weight by weak and timid libraries.

To repeat, if you don't like a book then don't read it or give it to your child. However, it is not your place to dictate to others what they and their children may read.

Where first you burn books, next you will burn people!
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"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny Bans Herge

I see that one of Herge's Tintin books has fallen foul of the pc brigade.

Apparently publishers of "Tintin in the Congo", Egmont UK, want to shrink wrap the book and attach a warning to perspective purchasers about its content.

For why?

In the view of the publishers there are certain scenes within the book (reworked in 1946) that are racist, and they feel that some readers may be offended.

The warning reads:

"In his portrayal of the Belgian Congo, the young Hergé reflects the colonial attitudes of the time.

He depicted the African people according to the bourgeois, paternalistic stereotypes of the period – an interpretation that some of today’s readers may find offensive."

It seems to me that so long as it is clear that the book was written at a time when attitudes where very different, then instead of "placing it off limits" in this way it would actually serve as an excellent educational tool for demonstrating how society has progressed.

Additionally, by making it "top shelf" material it will make it highly attractive to certain people for all the wrong reasons.




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!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Beware The Dinosaur

Oh dear, someone seems to have reanimated one of Nanny's chums from the world of the dinosaurs long since thought to have become extinct.

Those of you with long memories will recall the "heady" days of the 1960's and 70's (I am still so young, that I can barely recall that period) when the "brothers" in the TUC held sway over this country, and did a fine job of almost destroying it.

In the 1980's Maggie Thatcher, with the support of general public who were revolted by the excesses of the TUC, more or less killed the unions off.

Unfortunately, there are still some old fossils who haven't quite realised that their day is long since gone. The TUC recently made a bold attempt to capture the headlines by calling for a boycott of Lonely Planet guidebooks.

I am sure that resulted in a downturn of sales of literally one or two.

What was the crime of Lonely Planet, in the eyes of the "brothers" at the TUC bunker?

Seemingly the Lonely Planet have the temerity to publish a guide about Burma. The TUC does not approve of Burma, therefore it wants Lonely Plant to stop writing about it.

Ah the good old Nanny ideal of censorship and dictating what is fit to read!

I wonder what gives the dinosaurs in the TUC the right to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not read?

The "brothers" say that travel to Burma is unethical, and helps prop up the military government.

The TUC, Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist have launched an online petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the book.

New Internationalist co-editor, Chris Brazier, went into full moralising mode:

"Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime.

The Lonely Planet guide to Burma should be immediately withdrawn."

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber also waded in:

"The very existence of a travel guide to Burma encourages people to visit a country they might not otherwise consider."


"Where first you burn books, next you will burn people."

Where do they get these people from?

Needles to say, the TUC by raising Burma as a possible travel destination have doubtless increased the number of bookings there.

I can think of many other places in the world where there are "issues", surely if the TUC is going to try to show moral integrity it must ban travel to all of those places too?

Let me see now..hmmm..some argue the following places are not very nice:

- China has been ticked off for censorship etc
- USA does waterboarding, invading other countries and rendition
- Various Asian economies use low cost labour (well below TUC approved minimum wages)
- Cuba is a bit dodgy
- Saudi Arabia etc have "issues" wrt their treatment of women
- Russia appears to be lurching to a one party state
- Africa is most certainly riddled with "issues"

Will the "brothers" in the TUC be banning travel books that write about those places too?

Will they be banning people and TUC members from travelling there?

No...I thought not!

TUC influence and power in this country was destroyed because it was arrogant, corrupt and dictatorial.

We live in a free society (almost), it is up to the individual to decide where he/she goes and what he/she reads/buys. The TUC has no right to interfere, or to dictate in that decision making process.

However, this call for a boycott has served one valuable purpose. It is nice to see the "brothers" reminding us, by this very ignorant call for a boycott, why they have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Will someone please put them out of our misery once and for all?

Nanny Bans Three Little Pigs

You know folks, initially I had thought of awarding my prestigious "Prats of The Week" award to this shower; but then quickly realised that this is far worse than mere "pratism", it goes into knobhead territory.

What am I talking about?

I shall explain.

Do you recall your childhood days, when you read the story of the three little pigs who built houses of straw, twigs and brick in order to fend off the evil wolf?

A nice, harmless story.

Not so in Nanny's eyes.

For you see, dear reader, the word pig is offensive and evil.

As such, Nanny's thought police in Becta (Nanny's educational technology agency) have banned the story lest it offend Muslims.

A digital book of the tale depicts the pigs as builders, and was up for a book award run by Nanny.

The book "The Three Little Cowboy Builders" is published by Shoo Fly. The BETT awards are run by Becta, Emap Education and the British Educational Suppliers Association (Besa).

Needless to say, the judging panel, consisting of Nanny's finest brain dead thought police, didn't like it one bit. They said that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

Pass the sick bag someone!

What planet do these knobheads come from?

The judges refused to shortlist the product which, by the way has already won awards, and for good measure said that "The Three Little Cowboy Builders" might also "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

Blaaaargh!!!

The judges, in a remarkably patronising and divisive tone, said that they had "concerns about the Asian community" and insisted "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

As a result, they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also had a go at the stereotyping in the story of the pigs:

"Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

-Do these knobheads live in the real world?

-Do they actually know any Muslims or builders?

This absurd ban does nothing to improve "cultural" relations, and further isolates Muslims by tarring by association them with the intolerance and narrow mindedness that clearly the judges of this panel are wallowing in.

I have nothing but contempt for this judgement.

Where first you burn books, next you will burn people.

Here are the names of the joint chairmen of the judges:

Ray Barker
Director, BESA

Dave Hassell
Director, Education Content, Becta

Here are two email addresses where you can write to the BETT knobheads to give them your views on this subject, please make sure that you do:

-bettawards@becta.org.uk

-bettawards@emap.com

Future BETT awards should be boycotted by all publishers.

Here is Christopher Walken reading the original Three Little Pigs.

Nanny's New Book Burners

Are you sitting comfortably children?

Then I'll begin:

"Once upon a time there was a very nasty

bunch of people living in Naziland,

who didn't much care for freedom of speech

or expression.

When they came across 'seditious'

material in a book, magazine or

newspaper they would burn it.

That way all these nasty 'seditious'

thoughts and ideas wouldn't pollute

the pure minds of the citizens of Naziland.

Fortunately the good people of Britain,

and what was left the free world, bombed

the bastards to death.

That, my dears, was the end of book

burning in Western Europe..."

Or was it?

You see there are other forms of "book burning" that don't necessarily require a physical conflagration, and are less obvious.

For example, if Nanny can censor a book before it is even published that removes the need for a public burning.

Nanny's chums in Orchard Books are converts to the 21st Century version of book burning. They were shocked and appalled at the ideas being developed in a book by Lindsey Gardiner, and therefore decided to tell her to remove certain parts from her book before they would publish it.

What were her crimes?

Poetry praising suicide bombers maybe?

No, you go to jail for that in Nanny's Britain (rather odd that Rupert Brooke was praised less than a century ago for his turgid tripe eulogising the glories of war), the book is a children's book.

The crime?

Ms Gardiner featured a fire-breathing dragon, which the book burners at Orchard Books felt to be a health and safety hazard.

What?

I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate?)

I kid you not!

Seemingly, in Britain's new order, the scene showing her dragon toasting marshmallows with his breath was deemed likely to encourage children to do the same.

Errrmm...can anyone spot the rather obvious flaw in this dubious "logic" employed by Orchard?

Yes, that's right, there aren't any farking dragons!

However, those of you who are into dragons may enjoy this episode of "Ivor The Engine" which has escaped the book burners.



Ms Gardiner was also instructed to remove scenes relating to an electric cooker with one element glowing red (it had to be changed to green???), and of a boy on a ladder.

How the fark are children meant to learn about the world, if they are not allowed to read about it?

People have ladders and cookers, you cannot edit them out of real life.

Ms Gardiner noted that her manuscript for "Who Wants A Dragon?" was hardly any more dangerous than Hansel and Gretel, Red Riding Hood etc (all involving death by eating, child molestation scenarios and allegories for the onset of puberty).

Ms Gardiner said:

"It's a sad reflection of modern society."

She is quite right, Nanny and her book burners are destroying society in a way that the people of Naziland could only dream of.

She added:

"I've had books published in Japan,

France, Spain and Holland and

they don't ask for the same changes.

It seems to be in Britain and the U.S.

that there are problems."

We have become what we sought to protect the world from, intolerant book burners.

Orchard Books claim:

"With a wealth of fascinating fiction

and stimulating non-fiction,

we've got everything you'll ever need."

Why not drop them a note and let them know what you think?

Here is the link Orchard Books

The people of Orchard Books should remember this:

"Where first you burn books you next burn people."

Nanny Bans Doormats

"It was Health and Safety what done it!"

That will be the epitaph written on the future tombstone of British freedom. Health and Safety is the fashionable excuse used by Nanny, and all her acolytes, for banning all manner of things with which they disagree.

Now Nanny's chums in Bristol City Council have decided that doormats, used to wipe your feet upon (ie placed in a specific position by an outside door), are a tripping hazard.

Nanny has therefore banned them from communal hallways in council run housing schemes.

Woe betide the hapless tenant who disobeys Nanny, and keeps their doormat by the door, they will have their beloved doormat confiscated and destroyed.

Seemingly, after many decades of use, it has been discovered by Nanny that doormats could hamper escape from a building if a fire broke out.

Now, could anyone tell me precisely how many thousands of people have died because a doormat obstructed their escape path from a burning building?

No idea?

I am 100% certain that Nanny has not a clue either (I would hazard a guess that the figure is less then the fingers on one hand), that doesn't matter though because Nanny doesn't use facts to back up her prejudices.

Needless to say, the good people of Bristol think that this edict is bollocks, and that the council ought to be doing more important things with their time and the tax payers' money.

Chris Evans, who lives in a council-owned block of flats in Henbury, said rather wryly that if the council were so worried about people tripping up, then they should fix the city's pavements.

Rather oddly, the council have graciously allowed people to keep the doormats on the inside of their apartments. So let's get this right, doormats may prevent you from escaping a burning building if they are on the outside but are perfectly safe if they are on the inside?

Can anyone explain that load of bollocks to me?

Nanny's official explanation of this nonsense was communicated to residents, by way of a letter to residents in Brookridge House:

"During a routine Health and Safety inspection of the block,

it was noted that loose mats were present in hallways/corridors

outside of people's flats.

These represent a 'tripping hazard'

and should be removed immediately.

By all means have your own mats inside your front door

but please do not leave them outside, creating a risk to others."

Twats!

Mr Evans vented his spleen at the council:

"It is noted that the council advised of this tripping

hazard on the August 25;

advising that mats were to be removed by September 18.

Presumably it is in order to trip over these mats

during this 24-day interregnum?

This apart, Bristol City Council also says that,

if mats are not removed by the said date,

it will take the initiative and remove and dispose of such mats.

In my book, taking other people's property without their consent

used to be known as theft.

The fact that the council is announcing such theft in advance

only adds to the crass stupidity shown in this foolish episode.

I am minded to say that it is not the mats that need removal

but personnel who inflict such decisions on an unsuspecting public."

Feel free to vent your spleens at Bristol City Council, via this link Twats.