Oh dear, as a result of some alleged occasional injuries, students at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been urged not to throw their mortar boards into the air when they have their graduation photos taken.
Instead they have been asked to mime the throwing action instead, and have hats added digitally to the photo after. Oddly enough, it will cost an extra £8 to have a digital mortar board added to a photo!
The BBC reports that a university spokeswoman said injuries caused by falling mortarboards posed an "unacceptable risk".
Unacceptable to whom?
The students are the ones doing the throwing, and are in the line of fire. Let them determine if they want to take the "risk".
The spokesman went on to say:
"We want to ensure no student's graduation day is ruined by the potential for avoidable injury.
This has been agreed by our academic dress suppliers who often receive back damaged mortarboards, and our photographers."
The university said it had not introduced a specific
policy banning the throwing of mortarboards, but instead had "asked our
photography supplier not to encourage it during large group sessions".
The
university spokeswoman said: "The university accepts some people may
still throw their hats. This is their choice and nothing will happen if
they do."
Hah!
So the university agrees with what I just said about letting students make the decision!
Just to remind you of a key point here, third and fourth-year students had been
sent instructions from a photography company telling them hats could be
added to the photo digitally for £8.
The Health and Safety Executive said the chance of being injured by a flying mortar board is "incredibly small".
"When the concern is actually about the hats being returned in good condition, it's time to stop blaming health and safety."
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
Kudos to Birmingham City Council for demonstrating some first class prattery.
The council, for reasons best known to itself, has banned a group of amateur historians from
taking pictures of the city's historic graves unless they apply in
writing for permission on a ‘case by case’ basis.
Members of the Jewellery Quarter Research Trust in Birmingham had
been compiling an online database of the many famous, and not so famous,
people buried in the historic Warstone Lane and Key Hill Cemeteries.
The voluntary group’s website contains a database with lists of graves
and in some cases biographies, obituaries and photographs or portraits
of the deceased.
There is also a Google Street View-style 360-degree photographic tour of the cemeteries.
However, they have now been banned from taking photos of each gravestone
unless they apply in writing for permission on a ‘case by case’ basis.
For why?
Here is a spokesman from the council explaining to ITV the council's "rationale":
"Permission for this request was declined on the basis that once this
information is held by a third party then the council will have no
control over how it may be used in future, without a formal agreement in
place.
We have not asked for any existing photographs to be removed from the
Jewellery Quarter Research Trust’s website. We have offered to work
with the trust on a case-by-case basis and have advised them that a
formal agreement will be required if they wish to photograph all
memorials at both cemeteries."
What concern is to the council what people do with photographs of gravestones?
Is it now forbidden to take photographs of gravestones?
Birmingham City Council, well deserving Prats of The Week!
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
In Nanny's world the voice of the minority has become the loudest and the one that must be obeyed, even if that voice is spouting bollocks.
Step forward the minority voice (ie the single complaint) that caused Blackheath Primary School in Sandwell to recently ban parents from taking photographs of their own children during a school play.
With just minutes before the performance was due to start, the Mail reports that headteacher Lesley King announced nobody was allowed to film their children because one parent had complained.
In Nanny's world, the minority is always right and we now live under the tyranny of the minority!
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
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
As I know that many of my loyal readers hold the wearers of Hi Vis in particularly "fond" and "high" regard, I thought that you may appreciate this video of an altercation between some Hi Vis wearing security guards outside a Golden Wonder factory in Scunthorpe and a local photographer (known as "Hamst") who was trying to take a picture of the building for his site "Visit Scunthorpe".
The Hi Vis wearers are less than pleased, and shower Hamst with threats and
abuse (at one point, one of them encourages a colleague to run him down
with a car).
I reproduce Hamst's account of his encounter in full below:
"As
many people will be aware over the years I have travelled around the
town taking photographs of buildings, streets, people, event and many
other scenes. I started many years ago both taking and collecting
photographs although the vast majority of my images come from the past 4
to five years. I’ve built up quite a library containing thousands of
pictures for posterity, a historical record and to use in various
articles of local interest of which www.visitscunthorpe.com can be testament to.
A couple of years ago I was challenged whilst taking photo’s at a
local under 14’s football match in which my son was taking part. I’d
taken photo’s at numerous matches over the years and posted them to the
football teams web page on Facebook, something which had caused no
bother and the players loved tagging themselves and using them as
profile pictures, both my sons team and the opposition. However, after
this challenge and thinking I had gone some way to reassure the parent
that there was no malice intended I thought I should look deeper into
the law and photography within the UK than I previously had.
After hours of research and reading I though I’d gained enough
knowledge and understanding to know where I stood within the law should I
ever be confronted again, although I don’t profess to be an outright
expert.
Last year that knowledge was put to the test whilst I was passing the
hospital and decided to take a few pictures to add to my library. The
details of that can be read via this link;
Late last year I was over at the Normanby Park and Foxhills
Industrial Estates taking photo’s of various businesses and on the whole
whilst there was some curiosity by some security guards manning the
gates the only ones that queried what I was doing were at the Two
Sisters plant. Although they weren’t too pleased with me taking pictures
and originally tried to prevent me they conceded I was within my rights,
overall the encounter I had with them was quite amicable.
On Tuesday 17th January I decided I would travel the Midland Road
Industrial Estate via Cottage Beck Road to take some photographs of
industry around this area. Passing the Golden Wonder plant I though it
would be a good opportunity to take a few shots of the site, it quickly
became clear I wasn’t welcome. I was stood on the road outside the site
when a security officer approached. I switched my camera to video mode
to record the encounter to protect both myself and the security guards
from future false accusations. The footage can be seen above. Obviously the conduct and tactics used by the two security officers has to be in question.
At 04:53
an employee, who can be seen just walking past, is getting into a car
behind me can be heard saying, “I’ll run him over ” to which the female
officer actively encourages her by saying, “you do that,” that’s when I
moved onto the path.
What also aggrieves me is that someone in a uniform representing a
company in an apparent position of authority can try and intimidate
members of the public by making up laws that don’t exist. This seemed to
be an attempt to subjugate a member of the public into accepting what
was being told was to be true. Further more hurling offensive insults
and puerile slander, like seen at the end of the video, surely isn’t
something that someone in that position should resort to.
In conclusion I take their actions to be an exception to the
standard practise employed by the many fine security officers up and
down the country and I can only assume these two individuals actions are
not characteristic of the rest of the security team at Golden Wonder."
UPDATED
Those of you with sharp eyes will have noticed that the video (that worked perfectly yesterday) has now been taken down by YouTube.
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
Congratulations to the Braehead shopping centre for winning my prestigious "Knobheads" award.
For why?
Just ask Chris White who was on a shopping trip there and tried to take a photo of his 4 year old daughter.
A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre, and a spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
It seems that the shopping centre was trying to invoke the Terrorism Act.
When Mr White protested that the pictures were solely of his daughter, and that he had already posted a couple to his Facebook page, the police were called.
They pointed out to Mr White that there were signs saying "no photographs", and allegedly threatened to take away Mr White's phone.
Mr White has now launched a Facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre, feel free to pop over to the campaign page.
Oddly enough, since the fuss became public, Capital
Shopping Centres Group PLC (who own the centre) have confirmed that they will be changing
the photography policy at the 11 directly owned centres and that at the
other 3 centres, which are owned in partnership with other companies, they
will be discussing with their partners the policy change and
recommending that it be adopted.
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
Greetings loyal readers from a snow covered Stockholm.
I will keep this article relatively brief, as I am using the world's slowest pc.
Anyhoo, I see that despite the wise words of the Information Commissioner (that parents taking photos of their kids' Nativity plays is not an illegal act) Nanny's drones (as I predicted) are whining back.
Certain teachers and union bods have tried to claim that the advice given is not actually correct.
For why?
It seems that these bans have been put in place because of advice given by our "respected" local councils. In other words, Nanny's drones are attempting to blame another deprtment of Nanny.
Be that as it may this is spurious reasoning:
1 Councils have no business dicatating to parents what they may/may not photograph.
2 Councils talk claptrap.
3 Advice from councils and idiotic bans such as this should be ignored.
Stick a hearty two fingers up to Nanny this Christmas!
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
Contrary to what some of Nanny's acolytes would have us believe (eg those running Applecroft primary school in Welwyn Garden City), the taking of photos by parents of their kids in school nativity plays is not a criminal act.
The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has decreed that parents should be free to photograph their children in nativity plays and that such photos do not breach the data protection laws.
This ruling, whether or not it carries any weight in itself (bear in mind the Nanny drones who try to enforce this nonsense are not trying to hide behind data protection laws, but are using other made up laws to get away with their nonsense), comes as one hapless father in Leicestershire was threatened by a Nanny drone at one school with arrest if he dared take a photo of his child.
The Information Commissioner's Office has now released guidance for schools, after receiving numerous queries from parents.
Mr Graham is quoted by the BBC:
"Having a child perform at a school play or a festive concert is a very proud moment for parents and is understandably a memory that many want to capture on camera.
It is disappointing to hear that the myth that such photos are forbidden by the Data Protection Act still prevails in some schools."
A common sense approach is needed. Clearly, photographs simply taken for a family album are exempt from data protection laws.
Armed with our guidance, parents should feel free to snap away this Christmas and stand ready to challenge any schools or councils that say 'bah, humbug' to a bit of festive fun."
The real question is whether the drones who try to ban photos will listen to this, and whether anyone has the guts to make a scene (at the risk of humiliating their kids) to overturn this nonsensical ban.
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
Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Ample evidence of the madness that is engulfing our country can be found all around us, not least in the hysteria whipped up by the media and dog whistle politicians over the "dangers" of photos being taken at schools during plays and performances etc.
This hysteria manifests itself in various schools, including Applecroft primary school in Welwyn Garden City. Here photos taken of the school's pupils that appear in the school yearbook have the kids' eyes redacted by a crude black line (except for the kids of the parents to whom each book is given - ie each yearbook is customised and manually edited by the teachers for each parent!).
Additionally, parents are banned from taking pictures in school, in case the pictures are then superimposed onto obscene images for later distribution.
Parents of pupils at the school are fed up with this nonsense, and want it stopped in time for the school's nativity play.
The policy was introduced 3 years ago via a 17 page "photography policy":
"The proliferation of internet web pages and social networking sites has given rise to increased concerns that images will be misused and that a child's face or body could be used to represent matters wholly contrary to the wishes of their parents."
Needless to say, the damage that this policy has on the relationships and trust between adults and children is incalculable. I dare say no one has bothered thinking of that.
Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
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
My sympathies to Kevin Geraghty-Shewan, who fell foul of Nanny's Paedofinder General the other day.
Mr Geraghty-Shewan was shopping with his wife and 4 year old son, Ben, at the Bridges Shopping Centre Sunderland. Mr Geraghty-Shewan paid for Ben to ride on a children's train ride outside one of the stores and, at the suggestion of his wife, took a photo of Ben on the ride.
Can you guess what happened next loyal readers?
Yes, that's right, Nanny's Paedofinder General (in the shape of a security guard) appeared and told him that he must not take photos because he might be a paedophile.
The security guard went on to say that Mr Geraghty-Shewan could not prove that he was Ben's father and that "there is a real problem with paedophiles", he then threatened to call the manager.
A few minutes later, as if by magic, a policeman apprehended Mr Geraghty-Shewan and told him that a complaint had been made a about a man fitting Geraghty-Shewan's description taking photos of children.
The policeman then asked what Mr Geraghty-Shewan was doing in Sunderland, asked for his name and address and told him he had the right to delete his pictures.
Then, for good measure, he threatened Mr Geraghty-Shewan with arrest for breach of the peace.
Quite what effect all of this must have had on Ben is anyone's guess. Nanny, of course, doesn't give a damn about that though.
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
Nanny's photo police have been up to their old tricks again, ever fearful that an innocent photo of a child may in fact be for nefarious purposes.
Nanny rigidly follows her mantra "Won't someone think of the children?"
Sheila Campbell, the 85 year old mother of Nicky Campbell (a TV personality), found this to her cost recently when she went with her 4 granddaughters (aged between 5 and 10) to the Royal Commonwealth Pool in Edinburgh.
Mrs Campbell was happily about to take a photo of them when, blinky blonky blimey, one of Nanny's pool attendants popped up from nowhere and forbade her from taking a picture.
There were no other children nearby, therefore it was clear that she was taking a picture of her own grandchildren.
Mrs Campbell was worried that the attendant, were she to take the picture, would have confiscated her camera.
She is old enough to have been in the last war, when we fought against this sort of thing. I wonder if she now feels that the sacrifices that she and her contemporaries made were worth it? My late father (who was in the Atlantic convoys) used to look at how the state (and its minions) behaves, and would muse that the effort and sacrifice had been for nothing.
Nicky Campbell said:
"I am sorry.... I don't think my mother looks like a paedophile or a terrorist."
A spokesman for Edinburgh Leisure, that runs the swimming pool, claims that there is no ban on photography. Therefore why did the lickspittle of an attendant ban Mrs Campbell from taking the photo?
Were the attendant to seriously believe that Mrs Campbell was taking a photo for evil purposes then surely he should have reported her to the police, and had her camera searched for evil pictures. The fact that he didn't shows that he had not the slightest thought in his head about this, other than the power rush a little man gets when he is given a tiny amount of power over another human being.
These "little man" jobsworths need to be expunged from any position of control/power they may have.
Write to Edinburgh Leisure to tell them what you think: Edinburgh Leisure
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
You know how Nanny and her acolytes get very upset when adults (usually) parents try to take harmless photos of their own children (eg at sports days, school plays etc etc)?
Well don't you think that it is rather "ironic" that, having banned parents from photographing their own children, Nanny is happily monitoring kids via CCTV in schools?
Nanny's chums at Stockwell Park High have excelled themselves in their enthusiasm for watching children via CCTV. The school has installed nearly 100 security cameras (costing £60K) to monitor classrooms, corridors and play areas.
In fact, the comprehensive wants to install CCTV in every classroom.
Stockwell Park High currently has two cameras in 28 classrooms (56 in total), and another 40 cameras in corridors, stairwells and outdoor areas.
This of course serves Nanny's ultimate purpose, she wants to condition the kids to accept being watched. That way, when they become adults, they won't object to Nanny continuing to watch them.
Given this predilection of Nanny to video other people's children, why does she forbid parents to do the same to their own kids?
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
Tis the end of the week, and time (methinks) to award one of my coveted and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.
This week it goes to the people who run Haven Holiday Parks.
For why?
Ask Andrew and Dawn Norris who were told by a lifeguard at the Haven holiday park site in Chichester, Sussex, that they were forbidden from taking a photo of their four-month-old son in the holiday park swimming pool.
Haven said that cameras and videos were widely banned at most pools in the UK.
Just because other prats enforce this absurd rule, it doesn't mean to say Haven have to!
Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves?
Do we blindly have to follow what others do, without question?
A statement issued by Haven said:
"We can fully understand the disappointment of parents who are unable photograph their children's early endeavours in the swimming pool.
Unfortunately, the use of cameras, videos and camera phones is now widely prohibited in most council and private swimming pools in the UK.
This also applies to sun bed areas, fitness gyms changing areas, aerobic and fitness classes, crèche and play group areas."
They then drove another nail into their coffin by saying that there were many scenic and suitable areas at its holiday parks for family photographs.
Why, if taking photos in the pool is so evil, do they allow photos to be taken elsewhere?
Surely there is no difference?
Haven Holiday Parks, well deserving Prats of The Week.
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
Here is an amusing little tale from my "beloved" hometown of Croydonia (recently voted Chav Town of the Year!), as told to me by a fellow citizen of PRC (People's Republic of Croydonia).
He told me that he walking around Croydon taking photos for a competition, when he was suddenly stopped and searched by three plain clothed policemen enforcing the anti-terrorist act.
Apparently taking photographs is viewed as a suspicious activity, because we are still at threat level severe.
Nice to see, for once, Nanny didn't use the excuse that children might be present!
The competition?
Oh yes, it is called "Love Croydon".
Were it not for the fact that these restrictions are the thin end of a nasty wedge, this would be highly amusing!
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
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
Did you know that in Nanny Britain, criminals are not just people who commit a criminal act or who even are planning to commit a criminal act, but are also people who look like they might be about to commit a criminal act?
What constitutes looking as though you are about to commit a criminal act?
Leaving a large ticking box in a public place that says "Bomb" on it?
No!
Wearing stocking over your head as you enter a bank?
No!
Photographing buses!
Yes, you did read that correctly!
Rob McCaffrey has found to his cost that his innocent hobby of bus spotting, and photographing buses, is now banned in Nanny's Britain.
Mr McCaffrey (an omniboligist) has been taking pictures of buses all over the world for forty years, but only ever faces problems in Britain. He has a collection of 30,000 photos of buses, trams and coaches.
However, such is the level of paranoia in Britain today (caused by Nanny and egged on by a compliant and ignorant media) that Mr McCaffrey is giving up his hobby because he keeps being mistaken for a terrorist and paedophile
Over the last year he has been questioned twice by the police, and had to give all his personal details after people who saw him innocently snapping buses on public roads reported him.
In Pontypridd, South Wales, last September a bus driver got rather worked up about being photographed and called the police. the police then demanded to see what Mr McCaffrey had on his camera.
In Monmouth a Police Community Support Officer ran Mr McCaffrey's name and address through police computers.
I would remind you all that it is not illegal to take photos in a public place. However, under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, if the area is a likely target for an attack.
Mr McCaffrey said:
"I can deal with the fact someone might think I'm a terrorist, but when they start saying you're a paedophile it really hurts."
The state and a compliant ignorant media are responsible for the level of paranoia in this country. We are building our own prison and hell on earth with our own hands, brick by brick, petty restriction by petty restriction.
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
Dear me it has been while since I have awarded my prestigious, and world famous, "Prats of The Week" award.
This week, without any doubt whatsoever, the judges were unanimous in their decision to award it to Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.
It seems that Nanny's unhealthy obsession with paedophilia has reached new heights of hysteria there, as the school have published photos of their pupils (perfectly innocent and non offensive) with the children's faces hidden by a smiley from the acid house days of the 80's.
For why?
Well, seemingly, the school believes that by showing the actual faces the kids will be exposed to all sorts of paedophile shit.
All very well, if Britain has become a nation of paedophiles and if the kids names and addresses etc were also published.
However, as far as I can tell none of that is the case.
However, in Nanny's world, fear is the key to keeping good order.
Headmistress Clare Reece said:
"The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.
Not all parents want their children's picture on there.
You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures.
In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."
Surely the safety of the kids is the key issue, not the safety of the pictures??
Rather bizarrely, she went on to say that the photographs were printed unaltered in the school newsletter which was sent to parents.
How can the school guarantee that the recipients of the newsletter won't do anything weird with the pictures?
This whole idea is of course bollocks:
1 The children's personal safety is not impaired one way or another by having their face shown, so long as there are no personal details, eg address, disclosed
2 This sends a message to kids that all adults are predators, and should be feared. How healthy a message is that to give them?
3 It also, I have to say, looks very odd indeed and bit weird/sick to do this.
4 Why bother putting photos up at all?
5 School photos have been taken for decades, to show pride and achievement. Millions of us have survived having had our photo taken at school (and displayed), without being dragged off the street by some stalker. The worst that would happen would be the ridicule of one's contemporaries.
I am not alone in thinking this is all bollocks.
Shaun Kelly, spokesman for Children's charity NCH, said:
"The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving?
It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels.
We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."
Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, was even more cutting:
"Every time a school takes silly measures, it says we see the world through the eyes of a paedophile.
They think that any innocent picture of school children will somehow be subverted and manipulated.
These pictures serve a very important purpose of giving children clear images of their experiences, something they can remember later in life.
Depriving ourselves of these experiences is not only irrational but serves no purpose whatsoever."
Rather bizarrely, the school has now taken down the pictures; a message on the website did say:
"Our newsletter section is undergoing maintenance. Back soon!"
However, that has now disappeared too.
I smell a cock up of the first magnitude!
Nanny has a sick mind, and she is trying to infect us with her fears and phobias.
Cann Hall Primary School (or rather those in charge of Cann Hall Primary School) well deserving Prats of The Week.
Oh dear, Nanny does seem to be having trouble these days with the once taken for granted right of the British citizen and Japanese tourist to take photographs of whatever they want.
Mandy Smith found this out to her cost, at the tail end of last year, when she tried to take of a photo of something that Nanny has forbidden to be photographed.
What was Miss Smith trying to photograph?
-A nuclear missile?
No!
-Gordon Brown Smiling?
No!
-The MOD?
No!
I will tell you.
Miss Smith and her partner were out with their 11 month old daughter, playing on the swings in Alexandra Park Oldham.
Wanting to capture the moment, Miss Smith reached for her camera to photograph her daughter playing on the swings.
Big mistake!
As if by magic a park warden appeared, and ordered them to stop taking photographs; even though the shot was only of their daughter, they were her parents and no other children were in shot (or indeed even present)....why the latter point should matter anyway is beyond me.
Nonplussed, Mr Parkie informed them that it was "illegal" to take pictures of children there.
Nanny's chums in Oldham Council claim that it was a "mistake". A spokesman for Oldham Council said parks staff were trained to spot inappropriate behaviour. However, the warden had "interpreted policy incorrectly".
Haven't we heard that excuse before from Nanny's jobsworths, only the other day?
Tis the start of the week, and indeed the start of the year (one week in), time for a Prats of The Week Award.
As if by magic, Nanny's chums in the Fareham Shopping Centre proudly present themselves for the award.
It seems that the jobsworths who are in charge of security of the centre are so worried about the threat of terrorism that they have banned photographs being taken, even when the photographs are being taken by grandparents of their grandchildren.
Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ordered to stop taking photos of their grandchildren, because they were causing a security threat. Then, for good measure, they were banned from the shopping centre for life!
They were thrown out of the centre, after they tried to photograph the look of surprise on their grandchildrens' faces when they turned up unexpectedly.
The Sparshotts were taking a break from their home in Spain, and wanted to surprise their family by arriving at the centre, in Fareham, Hants, while they were shopping.
Mrs Sparshottis quoted:
"I couldn't believe it. I was so shocked.
He said we had committed an act of terrorism."
Errmmmm...wouldn't an act of terrorism actually be a bombing or attempted bombing of said centre?
I suppose they should feel lucky that the guard didn't also try to accuse them of being paedophiles, which is the normal response from Nanny when a parent/grandparent/adult tries to photograph a child these days.
Jobsworth actions like this merely aid the terrorists.
Fareham Shopping Centre, well deserving Prats of The Week.
However, owing to Nanny's dislike of what she perceives to be "unfair" advantages (eg sex, age, looks, race, religion, class, education etc), Nanny tries to skew the rules in order to ensure that some are more equal than others.
Rather Orwellian wouldn't you say?
This habit of Nanny's, to try to distort (sorry "level") the playing field, ignores a fundamental principle of genetic and social evolution; namely, we are all different and gifted with our own specific sets of good/bad attributes which affect the way that we interact with others and how others perceive us.
That's life, get over it!
Anyhoo, Nanny takes her rule bending to some extraordinarily silly lengths at times; I wonder if she ever stops to think how ridiculous she appears?
No, of course she doesn't.
However, I digress, one recent example of Nanny's obsession with the unattainable goal of "equality" was aptly demonstrated by her lackeys in the University and College Union (UCU).
UCU recently held an election, for the UCU general secretary, members of its board of trustees and special committees. However, the officials of UCU became worried that voters may be influenced by a candidate's looks (for good or bad).
Can you guess what happened next?
Yes, that's right, UCU banned the 100 candidates from including their photos with the official details of their policies etc.
Kate Heasman, UCU equality officer (why do we need jobs such as this?), said:
"Photos are a distraction and we should
not be basing decisions on how people look."
Herein lies the problem, Nanny doesn't get that there is a world of difference between what we "should do" and the real world where what we "actually do" rules.
Needless to say some members believe that this policy is utter bollocks.
Fawzi Ibrahim, a lecturer at the College of North London, said that UCU is "out of touch with reality".
Much like the Neo Cons in the US, Nanny lives in a make believe world where her view of the world and her rules dominate; conveniently ignoring the actuality of human interaction (for good or bad).
