Category Archives: children

The One That Is Shouting ‘Run, You Buggers! RUN!’ . . .

Posted on by
5

Right folks, just sit back, close your eyes and breathe in deeply through your nose.

Smell that?

Mmmmmm. Me too, don’t you just love the smell of cretinous mongtard in the morning?

Yes, Sir Liam Donaldson is at it again.

Schoolchildren could face annual fitness tests under plans laid out by the Government’s chief medical officer.

Sir Liam Donaldson wants pupils to undergo “bleep tests” – similar to schemes already running in California and Texas – to help increase fitness levels.

That’s a good idea. Perhaps we should install telescreens in everyone’s house, then we can have compulsory aerobic sessions in the mornings.

How about some Sokol gymnastics? Or the sort of mass gymnastic demonstrations so beloved of the Communist bloc?

It just goes to show that politicans have no concept of the connection between the decisions they make and policies they implement and the end results.

In the last thirteen years we’ve seen widespread sale of playing fields, a culture of fear that tells us there’s a paedo hiding in the bushes of every park and the obligation for anyone that wants to volunteer to set up kids’ sporting clubs to undergo the macro-examination of their lives because they’re bound to be kiddy fiddlers as well.

Surprisingly, and you yourself would be a racist paedophile to make any connection between the policies and the results, children in this country have never been less fit.

It isn’t the Government’s fault, oh no. It’s the fault of the parents who are scared to let the kids out of the house, or must seem so bloody precious about being screened, to those doing the screening, before they can work with the kids. The ‘authorities’ really do believe it is they who look after the best interests of the kids, rather than those who get of their arses and actually do it.

So how will this work?

The bleep test involves running between two markers laid out 20 metres apart. The child must run from one marker to the other before a beep sounds.

Must run? Or what? Will they be taken into care?

Actually, that’s not funny, as it probably isn’t too far from the truth.

And how will this test be administered? No doubt in some school hall in front of the whole school, where the less fit kids will waddle valiantly between the markers whilst their fitter classmates hoot with derision. Oh, the scope for bullying will be almost boundless.

And how will the kids who fail this test (Is this allowed? Or will they just be given a grade C?) improve their level of fitness? Will they magically be given time on the playing fields the schools had to sell to build houses on during PE lessons that they don’t have anymore because they’re having lessons on diversity, citizenship, Africa and global warming?

It really does beggar belief. We are allowed no responsibility for ourselves, unless we find ourselves disadvantaged because of the things that have been ripped from us, then it is all our fault.

The One That Doesn’t Understand Why He’s Done It. . .

Posted on by
1


Gordon Brown is to apologise for the UK’s role in sending thousands of its
children to former colonies in the 20th century, the BBC has learned.


Right, let’s get something straight what was done to these kids was unspeakable, they were treated in the most apalling fashion. That being said, and without wanting to sound glib, I should imagine the offspring of these people are quite happy to be in Canada, Australia or NZ.

It is a belief of mine that you can and should only apologise for something if you are the one responsible for what happened and you feel genuine sorrow for the results of your actions.

I’ll give Gordon the benefit of the doubt and will accept that he understands what a hurtful course of action sending these kids away was and I would hope that nothing like this would happen again. It seems the Aussies are going to say sorry too, they’ve got form in this area anyway, with the social engineering of the ‘lost generation’* another staggeringly insensitive practive that shows just how cruel and spiteful the Nanny State is.

However, Gordon cannot apologise for this. It is a simple fact that he was nothing to do with it. It is not his sin to atone for.

I don’t mean this in a way to do these people down, and I really do feel for them, but it just isn’t Gordon’s fault. He, like me, can express deep regret at what happened, but he cannot apologise any more than Angela Merkel can apologise for the Holocaust, or Sarko can apologise for Napoleon’s actions, or Berlusconi can apologise for the Roman usurpation of the Iceni lands from Boudica.

He’ll be all too quick to fall to his knees declaring ‘mea culpa!’ He’ll then find someone responsible and sack them. Wildly ironic, given the fact that there is so much which is his fault that he steadfastly refuses to apologise for.

*If you don’t know about the Lost Generation, or even if you do, please read the linked account from the NSW Parliament. It is a most chilling testimony to what happens when people who think they know best get carte-blanche to waltz in and take over peoples’ lives and dictate to them. Leg-Iron talks about this today and history is repeating itself here now. To misquote; ‘We are all Aboriginals now’. The only outcome when The State inveigles itself into personal life is despair, hurt and destroyed lives. The State is incapable of love, that is an act which can only exist between two individuals.

The One That Is Thinking About Flying South . . .

Posted on by
2

It’s all really starting to fall apart now. For the last twelve years, a Labour government and their Righteous infantry have kept tigers as pets. All of a sudden, these tigers don’t want Whiskas for dinner, they want real meat that they’ve caught themselves.

The problem is that when you keep a wild animal in captivity it does not lose its desire to act like a wild animal, but it does lose the skills to live as one.

The first tiger to roar has been Anjem Choudary of a ‘fundamentalist’ (not too much fun, plenty of the mentalist) Islamic organisation who would see the imposition of Sharia Law in the UK. I’ll oppose that as strongly as I would oppose the imposition of any value system in the UK. In his video he basically tells the ‘English Defence League’ that they will lose, that the green flag of Islam will fly over Number 10. Well, he would say that. He also goes on to tell the United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism to go and screw themselves and that they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves, thank you very much.

The tiger has awoken, and he is hungry and wants to stretch his legs.

The English Defence League are not one of the pet tigers that have been kept by The Righteous. They’ve been left out in the cold and have had to fend for themselves. They may not have the lustrous coats and full bellies of Choudary tiger, but they have survived, learned to hunt and have even resisted the urge to kill those who come to take their catch to feed those pet tigers. Until now.

A tiger in captivity will attack its handler as a substitute for the hunting sized hole in its life, it doesn’t do it out of hate, but because hunting and killing is what a tiger does, and it wants to feel more tigerish. A wild tiger will hunt to live, but will only attack another tiger as an absolute last resort. There is the difference between them, the captive tiger wants to fight to prove it is a tiger, the wild tiger knows it is a tiger and knows that the best way to remain being an alive one is not to scrap unless it has to. When that wild tiger fights though, it is to the death. This wild tiger has backed off and backed off and now has nothing more to lose, it is very, very dangerous.

The handler has a dog as well. A big dog. A ferocious yet very obedient dog. He sees the handler feeding his tiger, and as the handler also feeds him, reckons that the tiger is part of his pack. The dog will fight to the death to protect his pack, from the Alpha to the underdog, they stick together and see off any threat to the pack, or die in the attempt. United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are that dog.

The captive tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see a pack member. He doesn’t see a pack. The tiger is a solitary animal. The tiger looks at the dog and sees lunch. He owes no loyalty to the pack, the handler has kept him locked up and prevented him from being a proper tiger.

The wild tiger looks at the dog and doesn’t see an equal. He sees one dog, on his own. More an irritant than a threat. That dog is an irrelevance, he can be dealt with later, the captive tiger is the threat. The pre-fight posturing is now underway, soon the fur will start to fly.

Given the fairly explicit message sent out by Choudary, will United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism re-examine their loyalties? No. They fail to see the irony in combating a group they say are fascist, in support of a theocratic regime which is most certainly fascist by using tools employed by fascist organisations throughout history and around the world. Remember, United in Fascism, sorry, Unite Against Fascism are the dog, and not the Alpha. The handler is the Alpha and will sort out any squabbles within the pack. As far as the dog is concerned, if the Alpha tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Alpha hopes that when he tells Choudary tiger to go to his basket, he will.

Choudary tiger couldn’t care less about his handler, or the smelly dog. It doesn’t matter to him whether they get out of the way or die.

The handler’s wife isn’t concerned with the tiger, she quite liked having him in the enclosure in the back garden at first, but he isn’t very friendly, she concerns herself with the puppies. She loves the puppies, they are very cute and she cares for them very much. The handler’s wife gets very annoyed when people mistreat puppies, and wants to make it as difficult as possible for this to happen. She’s implemented a programme where anyone looking after someone’s puppy whilst they are away, or takes a puppy to puppy classes, or occasionally takes a friend’s puppy out for a walk, or who even stops in the street to give a puppy a pat, has to be checked to make sure they’ve never been mean to a puppy. She’d be much happier to check everyone, whether they have puppies or not, just to be doubly sure.

The vet’s wife has said this is stupid. It is the first time that the vet’s wife and the handler’s wife have ever had a disagreement. It is very odd, especially as the handler’s wife employs the vet’s wife as her lady who does. The next coffee morning could see fireworks. The handler’s wife thinks the vet’s wife is most ungrateful, perhaps she’ll employ someone else to do her cleaning and puppy walking. The handler’s wife doesn’t actually look after the puppies, but she’s still an expert, and knows how everyone else should feed and train their puppies.

The puppies just want to be able to go out and play and to learn some useful tricks. They’re not allowed to go and play though, there could be someone who is nasty to puppies hiding at the park, waiting to get them. When they graduate from puppy classes to go and be a guide dog, or an earthquake search dog, they find out they’ve not been trained to use their noses, and being able to say ‘sausages’, sing along to the theme tune to East Enders and rolling over are not useful skills. Then they grow up into dogs. They aren’t cute puppies anymore, and no-one likes them, they get left on the streets, to rifle through bins and chase the cats.

They then come across the wild tiger and think, ‘well, if it’s good enough for him. . .’

So where do I fit in? I may be the Snowolf, but what I actually am is a swallow. Sat in the trees, looking at the streets below, wondering why some people keep pets. I notice the nights are drawing in and think that winter is coming, it looks like it will be a bad one. Perhaps it is time to fly off somewhere?

The One That Says ‘Really? Is That True?’. . .

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t just in this country where control freakery runs wild.

Turkey has today brought in a smoking ban in its bars, restaurants etc, etc. I’m glad to see that the problems of human rights abuses, censorship of the press etc, have been sorted out to make this such an important issue in the country.

In Italy, the northern city of Milan (a particular favourite of mine) has had a smoking ban for a few years now along with the rest of the country. The fines for breaking this ban are quite steep and it is adhered to. However, as we’ve seen in the UK, once one evil is removed, another great evil is selected for campaigning against. We must be saved, it is for our own good.

Nanny Beeb is reporting that:

Milan has banned the consumption and sale of alcohol to young teenagers in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Parents of children under the age of 16 caught drinking wine or spirits will be liable to heavy fines of up to 500 Euros ($700;£450).

And that is where the theory falls down. Under 16 and drinking wine or spirits? That’s a fine for your parents. End of story. Now if that were the case in this country, the police would be out in force on Sundays, undercover in churches, waiting for the communion.

When I was a teenager, around 15-16, the pub visiting started in earnest. A group of us started. In one particular pub. Not because the licencee had a rather laissez-faire attitude towards the laws regarding the sale of alcohol, although he did. Not because we knew we could get served alcohol in there with the minimum of hassle, although we could. But because we knew the rules surrounding drinking in this establishment. 1: He wouldn’t serve you spirits. Right out. Beer and cider only, it was his pub and if you didn’t like it, you could piss off outside into the cold and rain. 2: Bloody behave yourself. If you didn’t, you were out, never to return. 3: When he said you’d had sufficient, you’d had sufficient and you would say good evening and go home.

This landlord took the opinion that we’d be drinking anyway, and it was better to do it in an environment where there were boundaries and people looking out for each other, rather than a load of teenagers with no experience getting well and truly Flintoffed on the street. I was certainly looked well over 18 by the time I was 16, not an eyelid would have been batted had I walked into the off licence and picked up vodka and special brew, and then my friends and I could have sat on the recreation ground and got absolutely shitfaced. We didn’t, we went to this pub (now sadly no longer) instead. I even recall serving police officers amongst the Friday night crowd (and it was only Friday nights when this happened) the local old bill knew the score.

Of course these days the old sod would have lost his licence, a good deal of money and probably his liberty. Us kids would probably have found ourselves sat in front of social workers and attending alcohol counselling classes. The irony is of course, that we learned a good deal more about how to handle and respect alcohol when in that pub than we would ever have by being forced to attend some 2 day course with a hard-hitting video and *gulp* role-play.

The police knew that we were in there, they knew that we were drinking, they also knew they never got called out to a fight, to a case of vandalism, they never saw an ambulance outside, and never had to scoop some barely alive wreck off the pavement at closing time. They also knew that to close this place down, where there were no problems, would mean that next Friday night, there would be kids getting pissed up on the Rec.

If you’re going to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some groups, it makes much more sense to do it on the basis of attitude rather than age. But we can’t do that. So it is age. And still people don’t like it, they don’t like the sale of alcohol at all, getting rid of tobacco was so easy, surely we could do the same again, with drink? But how?

First we must think of the Children, have they done this in Milan? Check.

However the Children cannot be held responsible. Someone else will carry the can. Is this in place in Milan? Check.

Excellent. Now we need some astonishing, unqualified statistic to make everyone throw their hands in the air. Do we have one of those?

A third of 11-year-olds in the city have alcohol related problems.

What? A third? Right, a little guessing maths. Milan is a metropolitan area with a population of 7.4 million. According to the CIA Factbook, 0-14 year olds make up 13.5% of the national population of Italy. So we’ll assume that is a happy average for each commune, that means 999,000 kids below 14 in ‘Greater’ Milan. So to get a rough guess, let’s assume that the birth rate has been constant for the last 14 years, that means around 71,300 11 year olds.

So you’re telling us that 23,000 11 year olds have alcohol related problems? That is either bullshit, or the biggest collection of juvenile alcoholics in the world, ever. I doubt that a third of 11 year olds are piss heads in Milan. Or anywhere.

But the authorities are deeply concerned about the increase in consumption of alcohol by children as young as 11 in the country’s industrial and financial capital.

Ahhhh, so the mere consumption counts as a ‘problem’, does it? What even in their own home? With their parents? Are the Carabineri to kick down doors and cart parents off for introducing alcohol to their kids in a responsible and measured fashion?

A national law banning the sale of alcohol to under-16s is only loosely enforced, as Italian families are used to sometimes giving young children a teaspoon of wine as a family party treat.

A teaspoon? Oh, how wonderfully twee.

In past centuries, Italian children would sometimes even be given wine to drink in preference to water which was often polluted.

No shit. Not just in Italy, shit for brains. We did it with beer and cider. On account of the fact that the climate has not often been warm enough to grow decent enough grapes for wine.

And here’s the social engineering kicker. The one that tells you that all has, is and will be changing.

There has been a storm of protest by bar owners who refuse to act as alcohol police for young people.

But changing social customs mean that old easy-going attitudes towards consumption of alcohol in Italy will have to change. (Trans: But increasing political willy waving means we have to do something to justify our huge salaries, so we’re changing this, and you’d better play ball, or else.)

It’s not just us.

That One That Is Saying ‘Oh, do shut up’. . .

Posted on by
Reply

This ridiculous photo from the BBC:


And this even more ridiculous subtitle:

‘Teddy, a six-year-old donkey with Anna Usborne, in Chalford, Gloucestershire, ahead of an Easter Sunday walk that aims to encourage children to enjoy a chocolate-free weekend, for the sake of their health.’

Oh do shut up and fuck off, there’s a good woman.

‘Hey kids, no chocolate this morning, it’s bad for you. But we’re going on a walk, and you’ll see a lovely donkey. Won’t that be nice?’

One case where I think a child stabbing someone to death would attract little criticism.

The One That Is Having Difficulty Believing It. . .

Posted on by
Reply

It really does beggar belief, Sharon Shoesmith, the erstwhile head of childrens’ services at Haringey Borough Council has been crying on Al-Beeb Radio 4 about the treatment that’s been handed to her and how the death of ‘Baby P’ wasn’t her fault.

Just as with Rose Gibb, about whom I have blogged in the past, there seems to be this idea amongst those in post that just because you are paid a very generous salary, with good holiday, excellent pension and uncommon security to be in charge of something, when it all goes wrong there is no way you can be called to account.

Perhaps in an alternate universe, Sharon Shoesmith is being feted as a wonder having run a department that is the best in the world and acting as an example of how a department should be run. Perhaps in that alternate universe, Sharon Shoesmith is on R4 saying how it is nothing to do with her. I doubt it somehow.

When will these people learn? You take the big chair, you take the plaudits when it goes right, you take the brickbats when it goes wrong.

She was also quoted as saying that she said how sorry and distressed she was at the time of the incident but that MSM didn’t report it.

Look, Sharon, this isn’t Carol Thatcher daring to utter the word ‘Golliwog’, this isn’t Clarkson stating the bleeding obvious about Gorgon Brown, this isn’t about people falling into a swoon of faux ‘offence’. It is said how what Thatcher did could not be tolerated, how Clarkson’s comments were inexcusable.

Well, on your watch a young child died in horrible circumstances. A child you had been warned about time and time again. This cannot be tolerated, this is inexcusable. Saying sorry don’t cut it.

One final point, isn’t it funny how in both Shoesmith’s and Gibb’s cases, the official reports pointing out how toe curlingly piss poor their respective departments are, are dismissed as being mailicious and disproportionate and so forth? The paranoia of hubris.

The One That Wonders What The Court System Is For. . .

Posted on by
Reply

Yet another blow for the judicial system which has served us fairly well since 1215, Al-Beeb reports that the government has decided that absentee parents who do not pay their child support bills can have their passports and driving licences seized by the Department of Work and Pensions.

Odd that, I wonder if the DVLA can seize the pension payments of motorists who don’t pay parking fines. or if the Identity and Passport Service can intercept your wages if you don’t play ball with the government over their ID card scheme?

But that’s not the best bit, the DWP can take these documents from you without a court order. So the only assumption is that an agent of the state will be able to come round to your house and enter your property without a warrant issued by a magistrate and rifle through your belongings until they find your passport and driving licence, which they can then take away.

Here’s a scenario: Bob is a lorry driver and has a bit of a fling with Doris, Bob is sensible and always bags up. After a couple of weeks, Bob discovers Doris is a very friendly young lady who has showered other men in her town with affection whilst he’s been picking up widgets from the factory in Bratislava for delivery to a plant in Coventry. Bob does not appreciate this lack of exclusivity and dumps Doris in a humiliating fashion.

Nine months later, Doris gives birth to a beautiful baby boy. Despite Bob’s rule about using condoms, Doris wants him to be the father of the boy so names him on the birth certificate and chases him for support payments.

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission come calling and demand he support his child. ‘Hang on a bloody minute,’ says Bob ‘what sprog? There’s no way in the world this is mine, I always used a condom when I screwed the bitch.’ He reasonably demands a DNA test. Doris, so keen for the truth to remain hidden, obstructs this with objections and ooman rights allegations so the case file gets sent to the ‘It’s not my bloody kid’ team where it is lost in short order in a chaotic filing system buried under doughnut boxes.

After a spell of nothing happening at the CMEC, Doris kicks up a stink about her lack of cash, the CMEC take details of Bob, because they can’t find the file, and send an agent round to get his passport and driving licence, whilst the office is turned up-side down looking for the file.

Bob then has to explain to his boss that he is unable to go to Bratislava to pick up this week’s shipments of widgets as some crazy bitch has relieved him of his passport and driving licence. Bob’s boss, Keith is sympathetic, but they rely on the widget contract, and he has no option but to let Bob go.

Of course the politicians and senior managers would say this could never happen. But, dear reader, you forget I am a civil servant. I know how an office which is populated by demotivated staff and subject to budget cuts whilst the budget for diversity training and Panglossian glossy in-house magazines goes through the roof, runs. It will happen. The pressure on middle managers from their senior counterparts to meet ever increasing targets means the front line staff are encouraged to cut corners, they are told ‘just do it.’ Then we get to lessons learned’, blah blah.

You cannot deprive people of their liberty without the say so of the courts. This has been the case for 800 years now. It isn’t about making the system ‘faster, simpler and easier for the taxpayer’, it is about propriety, accuracy and proportionality.

Yes, of course it should be an offence to father/mother a child and then bugger off leaving the other half to bring the kid up by themselves. I should imagine it is also an offence to make an application to the CMEC and wilfully claiming that an innocent party is the father. This is what courts are for, and the main duty of government agencies are to ensure that the decisions made and actions taken are the correct ones, not the cheapest ones.

Believe me people, the goverment does not know best. They are not best placed to make decisions in cases regarding parentage and their financial means. ‘The Government’ is not an expert organisation, it is staffed by normal, flawed human beings, under pressure to make things run in the face of a system that must make savings, but not in areas of Righteous control.

It can only end in tears.

The One That Says This Is What Happens. . .

Posted on by
2

Thankfully the repulsive Karen Matthews and her partner in crime Michael Donovan have been found guilty of kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice. Hopefully it will be some considerable time until these two thoroughly unattractive individuals see the light of day again.

Karen Matthews is 33 years old and has seven children by five different fathers.

It may make me seem old-fashioned, but I find that statistic to be a little startling.

An amazing five people have looked at this skank and decided that it was a good idea to go to bed with her. Indeed, two of them did it at least twice. Remarkable.

I don’t know what she did for a living. I bet I can hazard a guess though. I bet she did absolutely fuck all. I bet we paid for her upkeep, for her kids’ upkeep, for her house, for her sky tv, for her alchopops, for her fags, for her takeaway dinners, the whole bloody shooting match.

We live in a society where children are turned from sentient beings into a commodity. Have a kid? Have some cash!

So is it any surprise when this woman decides we aren’t paying her enough to look after her rag-tag band of offspring and so decided to embark on a campaign where she kept her daughter drugged, subdued and hidden from the public so they could claim £50,000 in reward money?

This is what happens when children become an asset rather than a part of a proper relationship.

The One That Wants A Licence To Print Money . . .

Posted on by
Reply

I had to check the date. I can confirm it is the 21st November, not the 1st April.

I just can’t help wondering how much taxpayer’s money has been spanked on this vital bit of research.

‘Our data suggests that for many babies today, life in a buggy is emotionally impoverished and possibly stressful.’

Life in a buggy is emotionally impoverished? What in the wide, wide world of sports is she talking about? Babies don’t spend their lives in a buggy. Or at least babies that have parents with even the most basic understanding of parenting skills don’t.

You see, the Righteous (TM Leg-Iron) are making excuses for the next generation already. It isn’t your fault you are a simpleton thug with no social skills or ability to behave like a normal human being. It is the fault of your parents for walking down to the shops (where they were most likely going to buy cigarettes and alcohol) with you facing forwards. What chance did you have? We shall take care of you. All you need to do is report those who seek to hurt you further. Let us start with your parents, as they did this to you.

I love the last line:

Dr Zeedyk called for a larger scale study to be carried out so parents could make the best choice about their child’s development.

I’ve run that through Google’s language tools to translate it from public sector bullshit to a language we can all understand. It returned this:

Dr Zeedyk called for a larger pot of money so she could extend her fixed term contract and let everyone know that she has made the best choice about their child’s development.

The One That Still Thinks They Are Thinking Of The Wrong Children . . .

Posted on by
1

What did I say the other day?

And now a report that a father spent the night in a cell after smacking his seven year old son once on the bottom for wandering away by himself in the dark.

Well what the fuck was he supposed to do? Shrug his shoulders and say ‘well, he’s old enough to make his own decisions’?

This just goes to show, it isn’t about the welfare of children, it’s about making sure that you can get all those nice stars on your annual departmental report. I think the Titanic was a 5 star vessel.