tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377446.post113397462164110605..comments2024-03-05T17:55:58.806+00:00Comments on Nanny Knows Best: Nanny Bans CrucifixKen Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13568488818950912374noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377446.post-1134050793815028422005-12-08T14:06:00.000+00:002005-12-08T14:06:00.000+00:00Nanny, by enforcing different rules between differ...<I>Nanny, by enforcing different rules between different groups, has ensured that instead of bringing people together she has pushed them apart.<BR/><BR/>A very foolish policy.</I><BR/><BR/>A very deliberate and well-crafted policy. What better way to exercise total control over the masses and hinder collective resistance than to keep them at one another's throats? A classic example of divide and conquer.liberranterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377446.post-1134048695646253532005-12-08T13:31:00.000+00:002005-12-08T13:31:00.000+00:00I don't know where else to raise this question but...I don't know where else to raise this question but can anyone please tell me the answer.<BR/><BR/>Yesterday I was watching a news item on the BBC in which the new leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, was posturing in front of the TV cameras. However, he was at a school for black children!!<BR/><BR/>Now a school for black children - is that not discriminatory??<BR/><BR/>I get so confused about this, seems to me that Nanny views things as being discriminatory when it suits her, yet doesn't when it suits.spivhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13404364711838124485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377446.post-1134045754527758442005-12-08T12:42:00.000+00:002005-12-08T12:42:00.000+00:00I recall there was a court case a few years ago wh...I recall there was a court case a few years ago where a guy was prosecuted for carrying a sword in public. He claimed to be an Odinist, which meant he had to carry the sword at all times to guarantee his place in Valhalla. The result? A conviction for carrying an offensive weapon. Never heard of a Sikh prosecuted for carrying a dagger tho. So it's not just this school where some religions have more rights than others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377446.post-1134039405226911522005-12-08T10:56:00.000+00:002005-12-08T10:56:00.000+00:00Hmm, Sinfin. Probably very wise of the school to b...Hmm, Sinfin. <BR/><BR/>Probably very wise of the school to ban "jewellery" to be frank. Not the mopst salubrious part of the country.<BR/><BR/>A former neighbour of mine used to (maybe still does) teach at a school there. Well, not so much teach as 'look after the needs of'.<BR/><BR/>They had a big problem with one 13year old who insisted on her right to take a mobile phone into class and have it on at all times. Apparently she would get a lot of stick from her "minders" if she didn't - she was one of the voices of a premium rate sex chat line service and had to be available to take a call at any time.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of compulsory religious objects getting a free pass. <BR/><BR/>So if I formed a religion that required me to carry, say, a hand grenade for possible self defence, would that be acceptable? How about a bomb on a belt to be used in the case of a sudden enlightenment and urge to meet the object of worship?<BR/><BR/>No?<BR/><BR/>I thought not. Defining politicaly correct bans is such a difficult thing to do these days.<BR/><BR/><BR/>GrantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com