Cameron Overrules Pope

Following on from an attempt by God (via the Pope) to limit freedom of speech, David Cameron has come out in defence of freedom of speech and the right to offend.

He was speaking on CBS when in the USA last week, and is quoted by the BBC:

"I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion. 

I'm a Christian - if someone says something offensive about Jesus, I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don't have a right to, sort of, wreak my vengeance on them."

Good for him!

I doubt that will have gone down well with the Christian fundamentalists over there; whose priority appears to be to bring about the "Rapture" as quickly as possible, by whatever means possible.

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

The Rapture

Those of you who woke up this morning thankful that the predictions by some old guy in the USA of the end of the world today (known by some as the "Rapture", or is it "Rupture"?) have proven to be false, may need to hold back on popping those champagne corks.

I have bad news for you.

Actually the end of the world did happen, it's just that god has a super injunction and the media is not allowed to mention it.

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

The Dangers of Crosses

I am not in the slightest way religious, I do not believe in god etc. However, so long as people do not try to force their beliefs down my throat, it is an individual's right to follow whatever religion he/she wishes.

Therefore I question the reaction of Wakefiled and District Housing (WDH) to Colin Atkinson's 8 inch cross, that he has displayed on the dashboard of his company vehicle for the last 15 years.

WDH received a complaint from a tenant, who demanded that he remove it for fear it could offend people or suggest that the company favoured Christians.

WDH asked Mr Atkinson to remove it, then called him to a disciplinary hearing after he refused to remove it.

It should be noted that it is not WDH policy to ban religious/political iconography; employees of other faiths are permitted to wear headdresses and turbans, and Mr Atkinson's manager has a poster of Che Guevara on his office wall.

However, following representations from various religious groups (including Muslims, Sikh, Christian, Hindu etc) WDH has decided that commonsense is better than "procedural correctness" and has allowed Mr Atkinson to continue to display his cross.

An absurd and stressful waste of time and energy!

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

Nanny Bans Clothes

Environmental zealots running Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire have put their noses into the usually very private matter of funerals (cremations to be precise), and have ruled that the clothing of the deceased must comply with their/EU pollution laws.

Thus those families who want to cremate their relatives in their favourite football shirts or with soft toys (for children) have had their wishes overruled.

Kirklees Council is the only authority in the country to adopt the approach, according to a national cremation body.

Those who use cremation must spend £60 on natural-fibre shrouds.

The council demand that:

"If a family wishes to cremate their loved one in anything other than a shroud, the funeral director should contact bereavement services so this can be discussed to clarify what type of garments the family wish to use."

Even 100% cotton is banned, Kirklees Council argue that natural fibre clothing could contain man-made dyes or fibres that will impact on emissions.

I would therefore ask, given the alleged "risk" to the environment of burning non Nanny type clothes, why is Nanny allowing coffins (and indeed bodies) to be burned at all?

Surely this constitutes an emission threat?

Why not go the whole hog, and demand that bodies be dipped in a bath of acid?

Whilst in the harsh reality of a universe in which there is no afterlife and no god (my view) what the deceased wears makes no difference in a practical sense, in a personal sense to those families who want some form of comfort to justify human existence this is an unnecessarily cruel rule.

We should, whilst we exist, try to treat each other with a little kindness and empathy; there is nothing to follow once we have breathed our last.

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 champagne. 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

Fire and Brimstone

In the "old days", when God was an Englishman who loved to watch cricket, those who attended church could be sure of a robust sermon promising "fire and brimstone" delivered from the pulpit by a crusty old vicar.

However, in Nanny's Britain, such a verbal ear bashing is now rather unlikely.

For why?

Nanny's chums from the local council's health and safety orifice have decreed that the pulpit in the Church of All Saints, in Wyke Regis Weymouth, presents a clear and present danger to the health of the vicar.

The church has been forced to draw up guidelines after being warned by council officials that the pulpit is "dangerous", and that preachers might be injured while climbing its seven spiral stone steps.

In case you are wondering about the safety record of the church, it was built in 1172and the pulpit was added in the 16th century; there have been no recorded injuries to any member of the clergy mounting the pulpit during this time.

One wonders quite how mankind has survived before Nanny's health and safety Gestapo were created!

Notwithstanding the unblemished safety record, Nanny insists that a modern handrail be added to the pulpit.

As an alternative, churchwarden Gary Hepburn drew up his own safety guidelines.

These state that no one under the influence of drink or drugs will be allowed to use the pulpit. The steps shall not be approached in dim lighting, by anyone with poor vision or wearing bifocals, or by anyone feeling unwell.

Those entering or leaving the pulpit are advised to make maximum use of the structure itself, and the stone column supporting it to steady themselves.

You will be pleased to know that the inspectors from the environmental health department of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have been mollified by these guidelines, Mr Hepburn happens to be a health and safety consultant.

He said:

"The issues were raised when a visit was carried out by council officials on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive. They were looking at the building and its use in relation to the dangers that might be present in a workplace, which is not comparing like with like, in my humble opinion.

The most contentious item was the pulpit and there was no way the church authorities were going to allow a horrible plastic and metal handrail to be installed, so we had to try an alternative tack.

In my professional capacity, I knew the type of things that needed to be said to reassure the inspectors and the way in which they should be expressed.

Fortunately my Safe System Of Work pamphlet was successful and normal service has been resumed – although I must admit even my faith was sorely tested at one stage."

What a waste of time and money!

Nanny is determined to destroy our cultural heritage, and the fabric of our society.

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 champagne. 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

Pray or Go To Detention

Having spent three miserable years at a Catholic school, I have a distinct aversion to religion and people who try to force it down your throat.

I strongly suspect that the methods used at Alsager High School (Stoke on Trent), to teach their pupils about religion, may well have the same result on their pupils.

An RE lesson was being given for 11/12 year olds where the teacher was explaining Islam. During this lesson the teacher reportedly told the pupils that they would then be kneeling down and praying to Allah.

What about the pupils who don't believe in God?

Why should they be forced to pray to any version of him/her, even if it "rolepaly"?

When two schoolboys refused, they were given detention.

Doubtless this will engender a very healthy feeling of tolerance and understanding towards religion.

NOT!

I can only assume that the teacher had gone somewhat off his/her head.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant seems to be as confused as everyone else:

"It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

Were God to exist, he/she would not need human superstitions and mumbo jumbo to justify his/her existence or to make him/her feel better about himself/herself.

Well done Alsager High School for succeeding in putting these pupils off religion for life!

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 champagne. 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

Nanny Bans Jerusalem

Nanny's chums in the Church of Engerlund have banned Jerusalem, or rather they have banned the hymn Jerusalem by William Blake.

Why?

It is too patriotic!

The Very Reverend Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, has banned the hymn Jerusalem from his cathedral (South Bank) because it is "not in the glory of God" and is too nationalistic.

The ban was revealed after the dean advised guests at a recent memorial service that it could not be sung, due to its lack of religious content.

The service was a private memorial service and therefore the choice of music, one would have thought, would be up to the organisers.

Silly Dean Slee!

Doesn't he know that if God existed, he would be English?

This site has no such qualms about playing Jerusalem.

Please sing along, at full volume!

"Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant Land. "

God Bless Heather Mills

God Bless Heather Mills!

Nanny's Body Snatchers

Oh dear, this story has raised its head again.

Sometime ago I wrote about Nanny's plans to harvest the organs from dead people without their explicit consent.

I see that our beloved, unelected Prime Minister has waded into this "debate" and come out in favour of automatic harvesting of organs unless there is an explicit written opt out from the corpse or the corpses' family.

Here's why Nanny is wrong on this:

1 The state does not own our bodies, we do. It is up to us to decide what we do with our bodies.

2 The butcher's profession will be sorely tempted to call death early, if it sees a chance to harvest fresh organs

3 I don't believe in God, but some do; their religious views, as to what happens to their corpse, need to be taken into account in a civilised tolerant society.

4 Any attempt by the state, or butchers' profession, to take organs without prior express consent is theft.

The state does not own our bodies, we do!

The Law is An Arse

Can any please tell me how, in any right minded society, this absurd claim should be allowed to go anywhere near a sensible court?

Graham Hall, a convicted murderer who sexually assaulted his 76 year old victim as she lay dying after receiving over 50 stab wounds, is demanding £50K in compensation because he has had to "slop out" his prison toilet as a result of a breakdown in the plumbing.

In this odious little man's view, this experience is a breach of his human rights.

Hall has been given permission by a judge to sue The Ministry of Justice, and is thought to be receiving legal aid.

A Ministry of Justice source said:

"His case is a test case,

and if successful,

it will allow 40 other prisoners to make similar claims.

All prisoners have toilets which work properly

and there is no slopping out.

But if the night sanitation system fails,

they cannot be let out of their cells

because some of them are too dangerous.

When a toilet breaks down in a home in the UK,

people will use a bucket of water to slop out

until they can get it fixed.

They don't sue."

When people lose all respect for the law, society breaks down.

Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be truly mad!

Nanny Is Mother Nanny Is Father

It seems that Nanny has few views on what constitutes a "good" parent, as Vincent and Pauline Matherick found this week. They have fostered 28 children, but have had their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

They are practising Christians who are worried that the agreement would force them to promote homosexuality.

The 11 year old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

They became foster parents in 2001, but no longer.

Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Nanny's Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Nanny told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11, and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

Mr Matherick said:

"I simply could not agree to do it

because it is against my central beliefs.

We have never discriminated against anybody

but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality

when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

An extra 8,000 foster parents are needed to fill the gaps in the service.

I am not in the slightest bit religious, I don't care for religions very much and don't believe in God.

I don't like bigotry.

However, the Mathericks don't come across bigoted and it seems that commonsense has been thrown out of the window in the interests of policy.

How does this help the 11 year old?

Nanny will be taking the same line with biological parents next.

Nanny Bans Barometers

Once considered to be a harmless, and rather quaint, object in people's homes; the barometer is now deemed by Nanny, and her acolytes, to be a major threat to mankind.

This time Nanny is being helped in her evil work by the "mother of all Nanny's"; the interfering, overpaid, unwanted, ineffective, bureaucratic and totally useless members of the European parliament.

(Editor's note: please feel free to add to the list of adjectives to describe the European parliament, and it's members).

Euro MPs (God bless their little cotton socks!) have decided to ban traditional barometers.

For why? I hear you ejaculate over your banned eggs (can I use the word ejaculate at this time of the morning?).

I shall tell you.

Barometers contain mercury, mercury is evil; therefore barometers must be banned.

The EU, dear readers, is working on banning all products containing mercury in the EU.

Personally I don't know what the fuss is about, I well remember playing with mercury in the school labs (rolling little globules of the stuff around the lab work surfaces etc); as you can see, it never did me any harm!

Anyhoo, Nanny Knows Best!

The EU's environment committee has rejected a bid to exclude barometers from the ban, needless to say the ban will also affect thermometers (what are you mean to insert into your orifices now, to check your temperature with?) and blood pressure gauges.

An amendment to the law supporting the continued manufacture of mercury barometers was passed in the European Parliament last November, but not supported by the member states.

Kudos to one member of the EU parliament who shows some vague signs of intelligence, British Conservative MEP Martin Callanan, he said:

"So the many thousands of people

up and down the country that have

an existing barometer cannot get it

repaired and will therefore throw it

away which will result in more

mercury entering the environment."

Quite!

Where exactly is one meant to dispose of one's stock of mercury then?

Should I pour mine down the toilet then?

Should I sell it to a third world country?

The people need answers!

British Labour MEP, Linda McAvan, true to form as an acolyte of Nanny welcomed the ban:

"Research has shown that even at low doses

mercury is extremely harmful to human health."

Madam, I refer you to my comment earlier about playing with mercury in the school labs.

On the subject of harmful substances, that I don't notice Nanny rushing to ban, what about the emissions from car engines?

That, I guarantee you, does more harm to our health and the health of the young than any number of mercury barometers.

Will Nanny be banning cars, car fumes and emissions?

Will she fark!

Once the legislation is adopted, manufacturers will have two years to switch to alternative ways of making thermometers, barometers, blood pressure gauges, marine instruments, and devices such as hygrometers for measuring humidity.

Some wall clocks have also traditionally been made with mercury.

The EU claim that it will not be illegal to own an old mercury barometer.

Pah!

I spit upon their promises!

How long will they keep their word on that then?

Madness II

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be all well and truly mad for allowing Nanny into our homes, into our lives and into our minds.

It seems that Nanny wishes to extend her "mind control" techniques (I raised this issue earlier, in my article about children being given psychological assessments at the tender age of 4) to drivers.

Nanny's chum Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), has called for psychological assessments to be made part of the UK driving test.

Seemingly these tests could help identify people with the "wrong attitude" to the road.

Quite what the "wrong attitude" is, seems to be a matter of debate.

Gifford is of the belief that the current driving test is inadequate, because it does not look for risk takers.

He believes that psychometric assessment would help identify such "faults", and instructors and examiners would then be able to modify the person's behaviour.

The key phrase that Gifford uses is "modify the person's behaviour". Nanny has no right to "modify" behaviour, if that behaviour is not illegal.

I realise that, at the moment, Nanny is merely "entertaining" this idea in respect of driving. However, fast forward a few years; she will undoubtedly then use her "risk modification" techniques (tested on driver) to modify all of our behaviour, in her never ceasing and impossible quest to eliminate risk.

Since when is risk taking a fault?

Many successful businesses, and indeed empires, have been built by risk takers. Were Nanny to succeed in eliminating risk takers from society, she would in effect destroy our future prosperity and future prospect.

Can you imagine a society populated entirely by "local council/health and safety" types?

PASS THE SICK BAG!!!

Gifford said recently:

"What one would want to do is

- in addition to the multiple choice questions

that there are in the theory test at the moment -

we would give people a series of value judgements.

These could include,

'At what speed would you anticipate driving down this road?'

or

'Have you ever left the traffic lights

while they have been on red?'.

We would ask people the extent to which they

agree or disagree with these statements.

It would be a way of picking up their underlying values

rather than just the facts that they have at their disposal,

which are a series of multiple choice questions."

Errmmmmm...call me stupid...but wouldn't even the dimmest of candidates simply answer "I have never left the traffic lights when they are red"?

Edmund King, the RAC Foundation's executive director, thinks that the idea is a load of bollocks:

"We accept we have to do more about young drivers

who are most at risk on the roads.

We are not opposed to new ideas but the concept of

psychometric testing is not the solution

and a bit of a gimmick, we would like to see

prior training in education."

Aggression and risk taking have driven the human race forward from the caves which they originally inhabited, to try to "modify" these valuable traits will destroy our future.

Utter Bollocks!

Nanny seems to be really losing the plot at the moment, maybe it's because Bliary is about to retire and there is a certain lightheadedness in the bunker at number 10.

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided yet again to come up with another ludicrous "initiative" wrt educashun.

This time she has decided that the centuries old practice of children sticking their paws in the air, when answering a question, needs to be abolished.

For why?

Seemingly it doesn't give the children who are quiet the chance to answer!

Dear God what utter bollocks!

Life in the adult world is tough, no one is going to blow your trumpet for you; you have to blow your own trumpet, and make your own success.

Nanny, by not imparting this lesson early on to the future adults of this country is doing them a major disservice and stunting their intellectual and personality development.

Hey, that's what she does though isn't it?

Anyhoo, Nanny has become concerned about "invisible children", who often try to avoid drawing attention to themselves in lessons.

Their work is neat and they are generally well behaved, but they need a different approach from teachers to help them make progress, Nanny's report found.

Nanny's chum Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said:

"We need to make sure that no-one is left behind at any point

from the most gifted and talented children at the top

of the class, to the quiet child who is well-practised

at hiding from the teacher's gaze at the back of the class."

As an aside, I was always rather reticent at school to stick my paw in the air; but look at me now!...

Oh s**t...maybe Nanny has a point then?

Anyhoo, I digress, Nanny has recommended a range of strategies which teachers could use in the classroom to help these children.

The methods included choosing which child to question in class, instead of inviting all the pupils to put up their hands if they know the answer....wouldn't that humiliate the poor kid if he/she didn't know the answer?

Children could also be given 30 seconds "thinking time" before being asked to answer, or told to discuss, questions in pairs before answering.

Nanny doesn't get it, it's the competitive edge that pushes the children to maximise their performance push their boundaries.

Holding the class back to keep up with the slowest will do neither the brightest nor the slowest any good whatsoever.

Hey, what the fark, let's ban teaching altogether and let pupils "discover" educashun by themselves!

Nanny Bans Prayers

Nanny is a strange old bird, on the one hand Bliary and some of his leading ministers unwisely bring their Christian/Catholic religious beliefs into the political arena (politics and religion do not mix), yet on the other hand Nanny tries to expunge Christianity from British society.

One such instance of "expungement" occurred recently in one of Britain's oldest boroughs, Totnes. Totnes Town Council, for the last 600 years, has opened proceedings with a prayer to God asking for help.

Nanny has now decided to ban this, as it may offend others.

Mayor Pruw Boswell has now ordered that the prayers be replaced with a "quiet moment of reflection", so the council could be "sensitive to others' needs".

The Reverend Gordon Davies, of Totnes Methodist Church, thinks that this idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"I know many non-believers who found the prayers of great comfort

because they are for the good of others.

If people felt it was offensive they didn't have to join in."

The irony being that the one councillor who voted against the ban was in fact an atheist.

Funny old world isn't it?

An Inspector Calls

Nanny believes in being "socially and ethnically" inclusive.

A very noble sentiment, so long as those who are included wish to be part of British society.

As such Nanny's chums in Ofsted have appointed Israr Khan (pictured left), a hardline Muslim and headmaster of an Islamic school, to be a school inspector.

Nothing wrong with that, in principle, until you realise that Khan may not be feeling that "inclusive" towards British society. He once caused a furore by denouncing pupils for celebrating Christmas.

Khan delivered his anti Christmas tirade during a concert rehearsal at Washwood Heath Secondary School in Birmingham in 1996 after the choir, including around 40 Muslim youngsters, had sung a number of Christmas songs and carols.

Seemingly he leapt from his seat, yelling:

"Who is your God?

Why are you saying Jesus and Jesus Christ?

God is not your God - it is Allah."

The children in the audience began booing and clapping, and a number of choir members (white and Asian) walked out, some in tears.

Khan, who was a maths teacher at the time, was asked to work from home pending an investigation but there was no disciplinary action.

FYI Washwood Heath school had Rashid Rauf, the airline terror bomb suspect whose extradition is currently being sought from Pakistan, as a pupil there at that time.

Khan left Washwood Heath a year later to found the independent Islamic Hamd House Preparatory School in Small Heath, Birmingham, where he is headmaster.

Earlier this year, he was appointed as a governor of Anderton Park Primary School, in Sparkbrook, Birmingham.

A former Washwood Heath colleague laughed openly when told of Khan's role as an Ofsted inspector.

Quote:

"Given the man's history, it's absolutely astonishing.

It's just the cheek of the man that he's been able to reach that position.

He always was an extremely clever man.

He gave me many insights into the Islamic cause

and their hatred of the US and the Western World.

He had a big support base among some of the Muslim parents.

But there were some very influential,

radical elements at Washwood Heath at that time

and Israr Khan was very close to all that."

Earlier this year, Anderton Park, received an Ofsted report which branded its teaching and its achievements as inadequate.

An Ofsted spokesman said:

"Israr Khan was appointed as an additional inspector

via a highly competitive recruitment and selection process.

He has undergone all the relevant security checks."

Nanny should remember that inclusion works both ways.

Whom Do You Serve?

Nanny loves to accommodate all views, faiths and political persuasions; so long as she agrees with them that is!

As such, it should come as no surprise to learn that when PC Alexander Omar Basha, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Diplomatic Protection Group, refused to be posted outside of London's Israeli Embassy, because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon on "moral grounds", Nanny bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes and excused him duty.

The only trouble with this "bending" policy (can there be such a thing as a bent police officer?) is that police officers are meant to serve the law:

-NOT THE STATE

-NOT GOD

-NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES

Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Needless to say, now that this incident has become a matter of public knowledge, Nanny has assigned Sir Ian Blair to urgently inquire into the issue.

A senior source in the Metropolitan Police Federation said:

"Officers should not be allowed to pick and choose where they work in this way."

It is ironic that Sir Ian will be investigating this, as many blame him for the culture of political correctness that has infested the Metropolitan Police since he took over in February last year.

PC Nadeem Malik, an executive committee member of the Association of Muslim Police, said:

"There are around 300 Muslim staff working in the Met

and a number of Muslim police working in the diplomatic protection group

who do not have problem covering the Israeli Embassy.

These officers are Londoners, and Met police officers first and foremost."

Exactly, well said!

Ex-Met Flying Squad commander John O'Connor, said:

"This is the beginning of the end for British policing.

If they can allow this,

surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy?

Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches?

Where will it end?

This decision is going to allow officers to act in a discriminating and racist way.

When you join the police, you do so to provide a service to the public.

If you cannot perform those duties, you leave.

The Metropolitan Police are setting a precedent they will come to bitterly regret.

Top brass granted his wish

as they were probably frightened of being accused of racism.

But what they've done is an insult to the Jewish community."

Just in case the Met haven't yet got the message. Police officers are meant to serve the law:

-NOT THE STATE

-NOT GOD

-NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES

Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Write this down and learn it for prep, I will be testing you on it later!

Heil The Pope

Well, well, well, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI has caused something of a stir with his recent remarks at Regensburg.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

He quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

He quoted the emperor:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,

such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope said "I quote" twice to stress that the words were not his, and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

There has been quite a kerfuffle, with various groups of "outraged" people calling for an apology, and even some good old fashioned effigy burning (reminiscent of Belfast in the 70's).

Even in the UK some groups have called for an apology. Baroness Uddin said that politicians must put pressure on Pope Benedict to express regret for the "disappointment and hurt" that he caused by his remarks.

The Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Mohammed Abdul Bari, said that the emperor's views about Islam were "ill informed" and "frankly bigoted".

The British Muslim News newspaper has called for the Pope to apologise and "withdraw the insulting remarks".

Why?

Is it now illegal to quote from the past?

Let me make two points here:

• The Catholic church teaches that the pope is infallible; as such he can say what the fuck he likes, because God is speaking through him.
  
  Ain't religion wonderful?
  
  That being said, given this hotline to God, it would have been self evident that using such a comment from a long dead emperor would have caused a reaction from some quarters.
  
  
  
  Therefore the question not being asked, that should be asked, is why did he say it?
  
  The Vatican is now seeking to clarify the Pope's comments. Given his infallibility, surely this is unnecessary?
  
  Maybe the Pope is not infallible?
  
  That would kind of undermine a central part of Catholic teaching.



• With regard to the hysterical reaction from some Muslims, I would note this; where a religion is mature, intellectually resilient, open to debate and has faith in a "well rounded" deity, comments made by non believers should be easily weathered. Indeed the deity worshipped by that religion, given his all powerful nature, should be well able to stand up to verbal sticks and barbs without the need for hysteria amongst his earthly followers.
  
  It seems that such hysteria indicates that, at least amongst those who are hysterical, their faith and understanding in their own religion is not intellectually based but programmed into them; ie they have no real understanding as to why they are followers of that religion, and are afraid to question their own belief in their religion lest they find an answer that they don't like.

I have said it before, but it is worth saying again, religion has brought nothing but misery and violence to the world.

God, if he exists, does not need the creation of flawed man made religions to validate his existence.

Nanny Bans Catholics

Nanny's chums in the legislature of the People's Republic of Scotland, the protectors of free speech and tolerance (so long as you don't smoke and aren't English), have caused something of a minor storm in a wine chalice by banning the "good old" Catholic practice of crossing oneself.

Needless to say the trouble erupted during a football match between those two stalwarts of religious tolerance, Celtic (the Catholics) and Rangers (the Protestants). Those of you not familiar with some parts of Scotland need to appreciate that in certain areas, the feud between Catholic and Protestant is just one step away from erupting into Belfast in the 1970's.

Anyhoo, way back in February of this year Artur Boruc (goalkeeper) was playing for Celtic in a match against Rangers when he decided to make the sign of the cross.

To the religious scholars of Rangers this was a red rag to a bull, and needless to say there was a barrage of complaints. The police launched an investigation. Last week "judgement" was handed down, and Scottish prosecutors cautioned the hapless Boruc for a breach of the peace.

A Crown Office spokesman said Boruc's actions had "provoked alarm and crowd trouble".

The procurator fiscal had issued the caution as an alternative to prosecution; Boruc now has a criminal record.

Needless to say, Holy Mother Church is none too pleased over this result, and called it "worrying and alarming"; they argue that the sign of the cross was globally accepted as a "gesture of religious reverence".

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, said:

"It's a worrying and alarming development,

especially since the sign of the cross is globally accepted

as a gesture of religious reverence

It's also very common in international football

and was commonplace throughout the World Cup.

It is extremely regrettable that Scotland

seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world

where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence."

Even Ruth "Old Puss Dei" Kelly has waded in, saying she was none too happy with this result.

Now here I must declare an interest, for reasons that are totally unclear to me, my mother persuaded my father that I should be christened a Catholic. Three miserable years at a Catholic school, a system designed to destroy any vestiges of free thought and creativity, convinced me that this was not the path to follow; therefore I can assure you all that I am now a very lapsed ex Catholic.

Anyhoo, I have to say a wry smile crossed my lips when I read of Holy Mother Church's bleating about the ban; you will recall that Holy Mother Church has been more than happy over the centuries to ban all manner of books, films and people. It seems that whilst Holy Mother Church is happy to dish out bans, it is not so happy to be on the receiving end of them!

Hypocrisy, in the church?

Never!

However, as with all things involving Nanny nothing is ever as clear cut as it first may appear. Whilst banning the sign of the cross is to some an over reaction, and to others a necessary ploy to avoid brawls on the streets, there is a more worrying problem here. Nanny on the one hand bans this "inflammatory" gesture, yet all around us (were we inclined to feel offended) we see religious symbolism and gestures from a whole host of differing faiths that could, were one so inclined, be labelled as inflammatory.

Surely Nanny should be banning these as well?

The trouble is, Nanny is selective when she issues her banning orders; ie she is a hypocrite.

This whole sorry story is proof, if ever it were needed, that religion is the cause of most of the trouble in the world today.

I would personally ban all religion, and its symbolism.

God, if he exists, does not need a flawed man made religion to validate his existence.

Nanny Bans Lennon

Oh dear, it seems that Nanny's puritanical feelings from the sixties have been reawakened.

In the sixties, you will recall, Nanny was very upset by all that dope smoking, free love and general disrespect towards God.

I was a mere child at that time, and missed out on all the doings.

Ho hum!

Anyhoo, in a sort of flashback, Nanny's teaching chums at St Leonards Primary in Exeter have decided that a John Lennon song ("Imagine") is anti-religious.

The pupils had spent weeks rehearsing the song for an end of term show. However, the head teacher and governors decided that it was anti-Christian and unsuitable for the school.

The dangerous lyrics include:

"Imagine there's no heaven... and no religion too."

Seems to me the world would be a much better place without religion. However, as my 3 miserable years in a Catholic school taught me I will undoubtedly burn in hell for that comment.

Head teacher Geoff Williams said a teacher approached him, because she did not think the song was appropriate.

The Rev David Harris, a school governor, said:

"The song expresses longing for a different world and for eternal happiness

but it says you can have this without religion."

I would have thought that, if God exists, he doesn't give a stuff about your religion but how you behave towards others.

That being said, what do I know?; I am going to burn in hell.

Anyhoo, "Imagine" was replaced by "The Building Song".