Nanny Bans Christians

Nanny's nutters in Birmingham never cease to amaze me. Usually it is the council doing something daft, such as calling Christmas "Wintervall"; now Birmingham University Students' Union, keen not to be left out of Nanny's nonsense, has thrown its hat into the ring.

The Students' Union has frozen the assets of the Evangelical Christian Union, and banned the Christian Union from holding meetings at Birmingham University.

Why?

It seems that the Christian Union has refused membership to non Christians.

Seemingly, in the small world that the Students' Union inhabit, this is discrimination.

Wiser souls might point out that this is just common sense, after all why would a non Christian wish to join a Christian society?

What possible added value to either party would there be from such an occurrence?

Anyhoo, common sense never really plays a part in Nanny's thinking nor in the thinking of her trolls and goblins.

Birmingham University's Student Union Guild has demanded that the Evangelical Christian Union (ECU) amend its constitution to allow people of all faiths to become members and, this is the killer point, sit on its leadership body.

Needless to say the Christians think that this idea is bollocks, and have refused, although I am sure that they put it in a far more polite way!

In retaliation the Students' Union have frozen ECU's assets of £5,500, and blocked it from using student union facilities until it complies.

ECU has been around for 76 years, and has no intention of turning the other cheek (I'm on form today folks!), it has threatened legal action to gain access to its funds ahead of a major religious awareness drive.

Andy Weatherley, a staff worker for the ECU, said:

"Christian unions should be permitted to restrict membership to only those people who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

It is a fundamental right of any organisation to be able to include in its membership only those who abide by the ethos and focus of the organisation.

We believe this to be true for all organisations within the student union, not just religious or ethnic ones."

Pod Bhogal, communications director for the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship - an affiliation of Christian societies - said:

"In all our years of working with hundreds of higher education establishments, this action by Birmingham's guild is unique.

It is over-the-top and looks like political correctness gone mad.

We would not dream of telling a Muslim group or a political society how to elect their leaders or who could or could not become a member.

That's entirely a matter to them, based on their own faith principles. The same applies to a Christian Union."

The guild believes that ECU must open its executive positions to people of all faiths.

Another weighty problem that the guild is wrestling with, in respect of ECU, are references in the constitution of ECU to "men" and "women".

Seemingly these references discriminate against transsexuals.

Birmingham University's Student Guild claims that it is merely enforcing the 1994 Education Act, which states student societies have to be open to all.

So why has it taken them 12 years to get round to doing this then?

I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye.

The good news folks is that one day some of these young men and women (sorry, "persons") will be in positions of power and authority in this country, something to look forward to eh?

Anne's Weakest Link

I don't know what it is about Nanny and Anne Robinson, but they do seem to rub each other up the wrong way.

Maybe it's a personality thing?

Who knows?

Anyhoo, Anne Robinson you may recall had a little run in with Nanny a while back about some alleged anti Welsh comments that she made. Nanny's Welsh police force spent £4K investigating the fact that she called the Welsh "irritating and annoying", on the BBC show Room 101; needless to say that particular investigation came to nowt.

Nanny is never one to give up on a vendetta, and has decided to have another go at Anne. This time Nanny's North Wales Police are assessing a complaint after alleged "anti-Welsh" comments were made during an edition of the BBC's The Weakest Link.

You may recall that this is the same police force that investigated Blairy himself, for allegedly shouting "fucking Welsh" at a TV screen.

It is understood that a viewer, who clearly has nothing better to do in life, complained after contestant Alun Lloyd Jones from Ceredigion was voted off the show.

A fellow contestant told presenter Anne Robinson that Mr Jones was the weakest link because he was Welsh.

The BBC has defended itself, saying all banter was meant to be in good fun and did not linger on Mr Jones being Welsh.

Mr Jones, who runs a village shop and post office and is a Ceredigion councillor, said that he had not complained about the comments himself because The Weakest Link was "tongue in cheek" and he had been expecting some banter.

However, he said he had been unhappy about what had happened.

Quote:

"We're not yet perceived to be a nation in Wales and that along with the comments about me being Welsh stuck in my throat

If I was black, Muslim or gay, I don't think the comments would have been made".

Adding:

"If anti-racism laws are there to protect people from other communities, then they should apply to people in Wales."

I think that Mr Jones is missing a subtle point about life; respect for individuals or groups can only be earned, it cannot be created or enforced by legislation.

However, some "races" appear to be less sensitive than others. The show's producer, Alex McLeod said:

"In the past, Scots have voted off English contestants for being English and so on, but all banter is meant in good fun."

A statement from North Wales police said they had received a complaint about the programme, and were assessing it.

Don't you think that the good people of Wales have a right to expect that their police force spend their time and resources in a more useful and productive manner?

Prats of The Week

Normally my prestigious Prat of the Week Award goes to an individual.

However, I am prepared to make an exception in this case and make a multiple award to Brighton and Hove council.

They are currently insisting that a dead man give notice of his intention to leave sheltered accommodation.

Frank Gajewski died the other week, but his family must keep paying rent, despite clearing the property so that somebody else could use it.

A four-week notice period "is a legal requirement", explained a council spokesman.

Have you noticed how councils seem to only employ narrow minded, braindead, jobsworth bureaucrats?

Well done lads, you are Prats of the Week!

Nanny's Bully Boys

We all know that Nanny is constantly haranguing us about discrimination and bullying in the workplace.

These are behaviour patterns that she simply won't tolerate.

In fact, she is so upset by these lamentable human traits that she has passed a whole raft of laws designed to stamp the problem out. Indeed Nanny is always more than ready to stick her nose into the activities of private companies, when there is the slightest hint of bullying or discrimination.

Now, it seems, that the boot is on the other foot. One of Nanny's own departments has been accused of having an ingrained bullying culture.

How embarrassing!

Can you guess who runs this department?



Yes, that's right, John Prescott - Nanny's Smooth Talking Bar Steward.

The Commons Select Committee on the Orifice (oops, sorry, I meant office!) of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has ruled that the Smooth Talking Bar Steward must take urgent action, to crack down on bullying and discrimination in his department.

How embarrassing!

Who would have thought that such a mild mannered man, as the Smooth Talking Bar Steward, would have run a department with such an abysmal track record of bullying and discrimination?



According to a survey of staff, 10% of the workers at ODPM said that they had been bullied in the past year, and one in twelve had experienced discrimination.

The survey, carried out last summer by ORC International, also showed that 6% had reported harassment and 22% had witnessed unfair treatment. Black and disabled people were more likely to have faced discrimination than other staff.

Details of the survey were published yesterday, by the Commons Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as part of its response to John Prescott's annual report and accounts for last year.

Quote:

"The department should take steps immediately to reinforce the message that bullying and intimidation is unacceptable.

It should ensure all staff are confident such reports will be taken seriously."

The culture of companies and departments are a reflection of the "quality" of the leadership and the behaviour of the people at the top, so I think it is very clear who we can blame for this!

The survey went on to show that many staff were unhappy about the lack of leadership, visibility and openness of senior officials at board level.

Quote:

"Only 20% believed the board had been open and honest in communication with staff.

This figure is 20% less than the benchmark for comparable central government surveys."

The committee then went on to further put the boot into Prescott and his useless department, by stating that the ODPM is spinning out of control and that its annual report showed "an unjustifiable presentation of its achievements"; ie the ODPM has an inflated ego, is all mouth and no trousers and is lying.

One example cited of Prescott bullshit was the reporting of efficiency gains totalling £150K per year as "noticeable" progress towards a target of £620M by 2007-2008!

What a bunch of dishonest, useless wankers!

It also seems that the ODPM has been double-counting its resource management.

Quote:

"Through our efforts to secure further information about the real nature and extent of the department's efficiency plans,

we were able to establish that there is an overlap between two reported efficiency targets."

Needless to say, in keeping with the character of the man, the Smooth Talking Bar Steward has never deigned to appear before the committee; he claimed that he was busy with Britain's presidency of the EU.

We all know that was a useless waste of 6 months, but at least we now know who to blame for it!

The committee then decided to have a go at the ODPM's ability to deal effectively with other departments.

I like this committee, a rare example of a cross party group of MPs united in trying to improve something.

Quote:

"Stronger leadership and greater clarity about the importance of this objective will help the department win its case."

The ODPM was specially created by Nanny as a sop to keep the Smooth Talking Bar Steward happy. It now employs over 6000 people, and claims to be involved in every aspect of life of this country.

Its motto:

"Creating sustainable communities"

sounds very nice.

Yet no one knows what that means, I certainly have no idea what the ODPM is meant to do, indeed the survey of staff revealed that a staggering 40% of the ODPM staff did not understand what they were meant to be doing either.

Just think abou that for minute or two, 40% of the staff don't know what they are meant to be doing! That is disgusting, our money is being poured into this pile of shit and they don't even know what they are there for!

If anyone actually knows what the ODPM is actually on this planet for, please can they enlighten the rest of us; indeed please can you also enlighten the ODPM, via this email address enquiryodpm@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

In the meantime, I am sure that I don't need to remind you that my fine range of T shirts, thongs and coffee mugs bearing the face of our beloved and competent Deputy PM are on sale via this link Bollocks To The Bar Steward.

Nanny Bans Haggis

Last night was Burn's Night, the traditional time when all good Scots and those who love Scotland eat that particularly fine dish - haggis.

However, as we all know, Nanny is a spoil sport; she hates to see people enjoying themselves, and will do anything she can to put a stop to our simple pleasures.

Needless to say she heartily disapproves of haggis.

Nanny's trolls and goblins in the Scottish Executive have issued a nutritional edict, to schools and nurseries for children under five.

These nutritional guidelines have warned schools that haggis has a fat content of up to 20%, and sometimes a high salt content as well.

Ooh, scary!

This in Nanny's eyes makes haggis as evil as burgers and hot dogs in its nutritional content and, according to the Executive, should only be served to youngsters once a week.

Nanny's trolls went on to say that it was as bad for you as twizzlers and fizzy drinks.

Utter bollocks!

Needless to say, the move angered producers of the Scottish delicacy; who say it is far healthier than the other foods on the restricted list.

Exactly!

Alan Pirie of James Pirie and Son, Scottish haggis masters, said:

"With good turnips and potatoes, there's nothing more nutritious than haggis.

It's made of all natural ingredients - there's no rubbish in it at all.

To compare it with processed meat like chicken nuggets or hot dogs is just ridiculous."

Nanny should remember that one particularly popular dish in Scotland is the deep fried Mars bar.

So let's be serious here folks, what is worse?

A deep fried Mars bar, or a haggis?

As usual Nanny forgets to engage that part of her brain that regulates common sense.

Freedom of Speech

My compliments to Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, who has managed to persuade Nanny that his comments on Radio 4; in which he accused gay people of spreading disease, and described civil partnerships as "harmful", were all in the best possible taste and not deserving of prosecution.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie said:

"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society, stability, family relationships

And it is something we would certainly not, in any form, encourage the community to be involved in.

Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful.

I think,

if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there,

surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

These comments drew a protest from some listeners, and the Metropolitan Police launched an inquiry.

However, the police now say that they will not be charging Sir Iqbal.

The Muslim Council of Britain even said that it did not understand why their leader was being investigated.

"To be honest,

we thought it somewhat surprised when we heard that Sir Iqbal was being investigated by the police

for merely articulating the mainstream Islamic viewpoint about homosexuality."

That speaks volumes about their understanding of modern Britain!

As if by coincidence, Sir Ian Blair The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has decided to end costly police inquiries into supposedly politically incorrect views voiced on radio and TV.

Current rules compel police to investigate complaints, but officers are said to be exasperated because they have to treat all of them as potential 'hate' crimes.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said:

"Where complaints are made to police about allegedly discriminatory language,

we have a duty to review what has been said

to ensure that the law has not been broken

and to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision when necessary.

However, in the light of recent complaints generated by comments broadcast in the media,

the Commissioner has asked for a review to examine where the boundary lies between freedom of speech in a democratic society

and the appropriate police response and action to deal with formal complaints alleging the law has been broken.

It will not influence police action in relation to any cases already being looked into. Some cases will always justify investigation by police."

Now the question is, when a gay (or for that matter straight) person makes a public criticism of Islam; will Nanny, the police and the Muslim Council of Britain be so understanding and tolerant?