jump to navigation

Outrage at School Sex Education for 5 Year Olds 3 March 2007

Posted by David in Comment, Education, Kent, Political Correctness Gone Mad, Schools.
1 comment so far

The Churchill School in Hawkinge, near Folkestone, Kent, has caused outrage at plans to show sexually explicit material to 5 year olds. The DVD, Living and Growing, “includes gently introducing sex education to younger children, through puberty and birth, to media images” as well as talks about “same-sex relationships and teenage pregnancy,” according to its sales leaflets.

It apparently includes graphic depictions of the private areas of human anatomy and crude language. Its literature also says it “cchallenges beliefs” and aims to build “positive attitudes”. Five year olds shouldn’t have beliefs or attitudes in this area! It’s political correctness gone mad.

Parents were given a screening of the film, and all were outraged. They have the choice for their children not to see the DVD, but as they rightly point out the children will talk in the playground. Many have threatened to leave the school, they are evidently very good parents.

The headteacher declined to be interviewed by the BBC. Only one parent supported the DVD to the TV cameras, and she did so quickly, nervously and was seemingly very uncomfortable with what she was saying – I guess she is probably the headteacher’s friend.

It’s outrageous that primary school children are having any form of sex education, let alone this young and this graphic. These crazed people aim to destroy the innocense of childhood, we cannot let them do this.


Will Pantos Fall Foul Of The Poltical Correctness Brigade? 3 January 2007

Posted by David in Political Correctness Gone Mad.

Pantos are politically incorrect, according to Mark Pemberton of Nada, a company which produces scripts. He told the Telegraph “some of the titles, like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and Robinson Crusoe with an image of cannibals, are becoming more difficult to stage in this age of political correctness.”

What rubbish. Everyone has got to lighten up. Just a few nights ago a programme asked Is Benny Hill Still Funny? The politically correct brigade, including Ben Elton, said it wouldn’t be liked due to it being politically incorrect. Somehow his crass humour isn’t incorrect? The test audience, who had never heard of Hill before, loved it.

“People need to lighten up more,” said one woman. “I wouldn’t find it offensive,” said another.

It’s not my thing, but who are there these PC spoil sports? And why are they so powerful?

The World Has Gone Mad 21 December 2006

Posted by David in Political Correctness Gone Mad, Uncategorized.
1 comment so far

A report commissioned by the UK’s chief loony scientist states that robots will soon have rights, including the right to robo-healthcare and the vote. In advance of such a move by Hoover has gone on strike, my toaster began litigation against the kettle for harassment, and my  fridge informed me it’s planning on voting Green (concerned about global warming).

From the FT: The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day when it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth. Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future. Visions of the status of robots around 2056 have emerged from one of 270 forward-looking papers sponsored by Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientist. The paper covering robots’ rights was written by a UK partnership of Outsights, the management consultancy, and Ipsos Mori, the opinion research organisation. “If we make conscious robots they would want to have rights and they probably should,” said Henrik Christensen, director of the Centre of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The idea will not surprise science fiction aficionados. It was widely explored by Dr Isaac Asimov, one of the foremost science fiction writers of the 20th century. He wrote of a society where robots were fully integrated and essential in day-to-day life. In his system, the ‘three laws of robotics’ governed machine life. They decreed that robots could not injure humans, must obey orders and protect their own existence – in that order. Robots and machines are now classed as inanimate objects without rights or duties but if artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous, the report argues, there may be calls for humans’ rights to be extended to them. It is also logical that such rights are meted out with citizens’ duties, including voting, paying tax and compulsory military service. Mr Christensen said: “Would it be acceptable to kick a robotic dog even though we shouldn’t kick a normal one? “There will be people who can’t distinguish that so we need to have ethical rules to make sure we as humans interact with robots in an ethical manner so we do not move our boundaries of what is acceptable.” The Horizon Scan report argues that if ‘correctly managed’, this new world of robots’ rights could lead to increased labour output and greater prosperity. “If granted full rights, states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time,” it says. But it points out that the process has casualties and the first one may be the environment, especially in the areas of energy and waste.”

Quite frankly the World has gone mad. Here’s one reason not to give rights to robots – they’re robots. They do what we programme them to do, we create them. They are not alive. This ‘futurology’ rubbish is a 1960s throwback. Over at The Times they’re imagining what the house of the future will be like. From what I bothered to read, the answer is ugly, unhomely, and completely impractical…like the last time ‘futurologist architects’ designed houses (the glorious concrete coated 60s and 70s).

Why are so many people so very mad?

More Rubbish From Planet Lib Dem 13 December 2006

Posted by David in Liberal Democrats, Political Correctness Gone Mad.

Sarah Gidley MPSarah Gidley MP (right) is a Liberal Democrat. You could probably tell that from the patronising yet utterly moronic expression on her face, terrible teeth, fake smile, bizare NHS retro specs and unusual taste in neck jewelery. Plus the fact she appears to be wearing an orange jump suit from Guantanemo Bay. She is MP for Romsey (majority 125), and the new poster girl for political correctness of the gone mad variety.

Anyway, Sarah Gidley MP has decided that she dislikes sportsdays, competitive sports, or anything fun basically. She states that “those children who are towards the end of the queue when the teams are being picked soon get the message and decide that they do not want to exercise because they do not want to make fools of themselves.” Obviously she was one of them. And to my knowledge, few if any feel this way. If they do, they should learn to accept defeat and become stronger individuals.

Paul Creeden, Hampshire Football Association’s spokesman said “sports are both good for personal development, learning to have respect for others and encouraging teamwork. It’s also good for learning to be successful, accepting defeat and working together towards one goal.” I guess the Lib Dems have never been successful, or worked together (particularly Gidley, who started the back stabbing of Kennedy). They have also yet to learn to accept defeat, hence their obsession with electoral change and the stability wrecking, secret deal dependent proportional representation.

 “That [sports] is not a positive experience,” said Gidley, “if a child cannot read, they are not put on a stage and made to stumble through the alphabet or a passage of Shakespeare.” This might be a good idea, confronting your problems is vital. 

“Little thought is given to the children who do not excel at sport.” No, one thing I agree with. Bring back grammar schools!!!

The MP called for a greater focus on activities which focused on “personal improvement” like skipping, dance and games. That will be popular.

Lots of kids hate sports, fine, PE at schools is awful, but not because of competition. It’s awful because it’s awful- in dire need of greater individual pupil choice and specialisation, with proper coaching. The answer isn’t banning competition, it’s letting kids choose and develop their own strengths. Gidley is mad, she must grow up!

The War On Christmas 12 December 2006

Posted by David in Political Correctness Gone Mad.
add a comment

This year the now annual leftist war on Christmas has reached new heights. Most see it as politically correct ‘do gooder’ secularists against Christian traditionalists, however I feel it is a more three cornered fight.

In one corner, extreme traditionalists like the vicar who banned a man for dressing as Father Christmas and their socialist friends such as Compass who feel children are being dragged into adult activity such as shopping too early. I will call them Christian Socialists.

In the second corner, Secular Socialists such as Hariney Council who told a toddler group to stop singing about Jesus or lose their funding, and the “do gooders” so affraid of causing offence they rebrand it Winterval, send cards reading Seasons Greetings (or worse – Happy Holidays), and seem to be totally unaware that Britain has a Christian tradition and our religious minorities often enjoy it – certainly not finding it offensive. In fact, most are totally bemused or insulted by the pc brigade’s patronising attitude.

And where are we, ordinary people? We like the true meaning of Christmas stuff but aren’t religious, find the hype annoying but enjoy seeing family/friends have a nice time and getting presents, and just want to be left alone. So please, Christian Socialists and Secular Socialists, leave us alone – IT’S CHRISTMAS!

You Don’t Indict A Country…Unless It’s Britain 27 November 2006

Posted by David in Labour, Political Correctness Gone Mad.
add a comment

Over at The Times they are reporting Blair’s apology sorrow for slavery and the slave trade. But – as expected – it’s not enough for “campaigners”. Or rather some rather hypocritical campaigners. What I want to know is where they get time to do this “campaigning”, have they nothing better to do?

Esther Stanford, from the campaign group Rendezvous of Victory, told the Today programme: “This statement does not go far enough. To repair harm we are talking about educational reparations, financial reparations, family and cultural reparations. If you don’t deal with this now it’s tentamount to saying that you can commit crimes against humanity.”

Ms Stanford “most definately” agreed with legal compensation, but not from families of African leaders who were involved in organising the slave trade. “You don’t indict a whole country of Africa for the excesses of a few people who were forced to partake,” she said.

No, instead you indict the whole 21st Century United Kingdom for the excesses of a few 18th Century colonialists. Basically you don’t indict a whole country, unless it’s Britain, which was one of the first to ban slavery and put much effort into stopping it.

At least she accepts some African leaders were involved, even though she believes they were forced to do so. Some such as Benjamin Zephaniah don’t even accept that, believing the whole World lived in lovely free harmony until evil Britain turned up. He should check Wikipedia on ancient slavery, noting Anglo-Saxons taken as slaves by Vikings.

The age of apology is going crazy. We are not responsible for the wrongs of past individuals!

Worth reading: African_Slave_Trade which states “trade in slaves has carried on for thousands of years in Africa. Despite its illegality, the African slave trade continues today in parts of the continent” and later “the power of the Royal Navy was subsequently used to suppress the slave trade, and while some illegal trade, mostly with Brazil, continued, the Atlantic slave trade would be eradicated by the middle of the 19th century. “

We Are Individually Responsible 7 October 2006

Posted by David in Labour, Political Correctness Gone Mad.
add a comment

Jack Straw is not responsible for the attack on a veiled Muslim lady in Liverpool, despite allegations by some Muslims that he is. We are all responsible for our own actions, not those of other people. Jack Straw did not in any direct way incite violence, and therefore the attack is the sole responsibility of the individual concerned. These attempts to blame Jack Straw are simply an attempt to quash debate, a debate extreme pro-veil Muslims are fast losing. The idea is that we become afraid to talk about Islam in case a racist nutter attacks someone and we [the debaters] get blamed for stirring things up. This blog supports free speech.

Jack Straw Is Right 6 October 2006

Posted by David in Conservatives, Labour, Political Correctness Gone Mad.

Jack StrawI have always quite like Jack Straw, I even feel a little bit guilty for using the rather comical picture of him here (alright only a tiny bit guilty, but still a bit). Anyway, he has always seemed a decent, moderate, tollerant, inoffensive and understanding man. And indeed, it appears, he is all of these things. However, being all of these things is no longer protection from Islamocranks.

Poor Jack Straw pondered for weeks about his latest article in his local newspaper, in which he admits to asking Muslim ladies to take off their veil in his constituency surgery. He finds them a barrier to integration, a “visible symbol of difference and seggregation”, and asked people to think of their affect on community relations. Cue Muslim outrage.

“Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers – people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day,” he said, “that’s made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That’s just a fact of life.”

The Islamofascists (or Islamocranks) went into overdrive, which now appears their only mode. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee were one such group, who’s views are always interesting. Their site contains enough anti-Semitic nonesense to please any Nazi nutter, and they also run an “Operation Muslim Vote” and “Jihad” section. The more cynical will note the “Donate Now” buttons.

But Jack Straw is right, covering your face is a block to community cohesion and integration. It’s freedom to wear what you like, but there’s also freedom to say what you like, without these nutters going ballistic! There’s also a security argument against covering faces, as they disguise identities and make CCTV useless.

Won’t Someone Think of the Children 25 September 2006

Posted by David in Political Correctness Gone Mad.
add a comment

Nursery school teacher taken to court for abuse by council which has never heard of “the naughty corner” – the child’s parents book her in for more.

When I heardSuper Nanny Jo Frost that a nursery school teacher had been taken to court for disciplining a child, I had two thoughts. What had she done that was so bad? And is this just the parents whinging? And then it comes out; the parents still use her, are not giving evidence, and have in fact booked more hours for their 3 year old child. The entire case was brought about by a council worker – groan – who in her “three and a half years as an inspector” (gee, three and a half years) had never seen the practice before. The practice being removing a child who had just donked another child on the head, putting her on a chair, telling her she’s been very naughty and making her face the wall (seated instead of the traditional standing). This it has been explained is done by TV Supernanny Jo Frost (pictured).

Quite where this council worker – probably classed as an essential worker and almost certainly not a parent – has been I do not know.

Now a court is trying to deem whether it was disproportionate or not, based on whether the child donked the other child with a plastic brick (meaning it was apparently disproportionate) or wooden brick (meaning it was proportionate).

Besides the fact a dangerous precedent has been set (that donking people with plastic bricks is ok now), this entire case is crazy. This council worker must surely be a total twit, since how else are children to be disciplined without force? Is even telling them off now wrong?

But cutting to the chase; won’t someone think of the children who’s lives and later careers are wrecked by bad behaviour, bullying and disruption in school, and won’t someone restore some order through discipline to end the anarchy?

Can Anyone Say Anything Anymore? 25 September 2006

Posted by David in Political Correctness Gone Mad, World.
1 comment so far

Fanatical Islamists worldwide use free speech and enter another wave of protest and condemnation of free speech after the Pope addresses a German university.

On Tuesday, thePope Pope gave an academic lecture at the University of Bremen in Germany, the theme being rationality in religion and how violence is incompatible with God. Nothing controversial there then? Wrong. A quote in the lecture of a 13th Century Byzantine Emperor – who stated that Mohammed had brought nothing but bad to the World – has caused outrage across the Muslim world in scenes reminiscent of the Mohammed Cartoons row. But hold on a minute – a lecture on Tuesday. Took its time to reach the press didn’t it (Friday)? I sense some spinning from Islamic extremists here. Just as in the Cartoons row, where a delegation of extreme imams from Denmark travelled the Arab world with a dossier of the images (and apparently a few of their own spiced up additions) to stir things up a bit.

And stir things up it did, and has. Protests, effigy burning…all the usual stuff. They obviously haven’t got any Vatican flags to burn yet. I doubt whether anyone takes any notice, burning old scarecrows and shouting ‘Death to the West’ seems par de course these days whenever anyone says anything critical or semi-negative about Islam.

But has the Pope said something critical about Islam? If he had, wouldn’t we have heard sooner? And in these lecture of probably an hour or more, this one quote is the most insulting? A quote he distanced himself from and has apologised for three times. It can’t have been that critical a lecture then can it? Indeed, I doubt if any of the protestors, media or ‘Muslim leaders’ have bothered to read it.

On Sky News a ‘Muslim leader’ was getting very agitated under questioning, going off on a vitriolic rant about Christianity, how we’d all hate being insulted as Islam gets insulted, etc etc etc. But we have been insulted, indeed still are. The many protests, flag burning, effigy burning, anti-Western and anti-Semitic cartoons, propaganda and other items are all very insulting. We tolerate it as free speech. We draw the line at ‘Death to the West’ and ‘Kill those who insult Islam’ as inciting violence is rather different to free speech, although our pathetic Labour government does nothing (the cartoon protestors in London with the violence inciting placards, did we ever hear of their arrest?).

Indeed as insults go, I think 9/11 and 7/7 were particularly insulting. As indeed was the murder of Theo Van Goch (the Dutch film maker), the shoe bomber Richard Reed and the sympathisers to terrorist murderers among many others. Islamic fascism – and there is no other word for it than fascism – seems to be very widespread and growing in strength. Thank God we do not react so aggressively.

Strangely, this ‘Muslim leader’ wanted an “academic debate” – providing nothing “insulting” was said. I think that may cause problems, as we have reached a situation where we cannot say anything about Islam without causing an offence and disproportionate bully-boy retaliation (such as churches being burnt and 80-year old Somali nuns being murdered). A Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons, so Denmark in its entirety is violently targeted, boycotted commercially and suffers greatly as if the entire nation were responsible for the scribbling of one man. The Pope now gives an academic lecture and everyone starts hyperventilating again.

We in the West need to understand Islam far more. By ‘understand’ I don’t mean believe every word we get told (as that other evil fascist nutter Gorbles said ‘if you say a lie enough, people start to believe it’). I mean actually listen to what is being said, maybe even read the Koran (or a translation at least). As Bill Cosby used to say about racism ‘if you haven’t talked to a black man about it, you’re part of the problem’. It’s the same with this.

What you will find is surprising. Islam is not an entirely peaceful religion as we are told endlessly, not to say that all Muslims are violent, as texts this old can be read many ways. It comes with its own judicial and legal system (Sharia law) to which all other laws are deemed inferior or even illegal (man made instead of laid down by Allah). This includes a ban on alcohol, restriction on women’s rights, restriction of free speech and rabid homophobia. It states that all other religions are wrong and corrupted, that Islam is a constant battle (jihad means my endless struggle), and prophesises (hence the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed) all manner of things (including according to some I have met a third and fourth world war between East and West, and that the world is destined to become entirely Islamic). Thankfully most are far less extreme, but we must be aware this extremism exists.

A key concept we as a society have missed is the “umma”- translated as Muslim brotherhood. This is the belief that is held by many, which is at odds with our system of nation states. Believers see themselves first or even only as ‘Muslims’, part of a global Muslim brotherhood. Around 40% of Indonesia sees themselves as Muslims instead of Indonesians according to some polling research. They thus see us as ‘Christians’, or ’Westerners’ or whatever group they wish, regardless of our individual personage or beliefs, hence the vengeance against all Denmark for a Danish paper, all the West for Israel etc. To them, the disputes between Israel and Palestine, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places are all an affront to the umma, and we are all to blame as the Western equivalent of umma. Basically it’s collective responsibility instead of individual responsibility.

Frequently Muslim extremists say “you think of yourselves as good Christians” – again referring to how we are seen as an equivalent of umma, and also showing how we are seen as corrupted and astray from religion. To Islamic fascists, they are on a mission to save us from ourselves, or eradicate us in trying. “We are all sons of Adam and should all follow Allah’s law” goes the frequent explanation. Another indication of ‘umma’ is when John Reid spoke last week about fighting extremism, a lot of Muslims agreed with him but an extremist burst in shouting “how dare you come to a Muslim area after you have arrested so many Muslims” – as if part of the UK is out of bounds for the Home Secretary, who arrests people himself?

All Muslims are not like this, but a large number are. It does not appear to always be the liberal, tolerant and peaceful religion we are told. Many I have heard believe they are here in the West to spread Islam. One of the 7/7 bombers pre-recorded messages explained himself by asking “how did our forefathers conquer territory?”. Another – at a protest in Trafalgar Square – exclaimed “we will not be happy until the flag of Islam flies over Downing Street”. Err, no thanks.

We have taken the word ‘extremism’ to mean that those with these beliefs are “very far or furthest in any direction, especially out from the centre” – at the extremity, implying small numbers. In fact a better definition is that of simply “very violent or strong” – something that can be widespread or even common opinion. From those I have spoke to, it is far more common than I or moderate Muslims would like.

The civilised liberal World must wake up. Look at the protests against Salmon Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, the murder of Theo Van Goch, and now the Pope. Muslim fascists don’t care if you read the Express of the Guardian, prefer BBC News or Fox, watch Rory Bremner or Baywatch… Do we really want to live in a World where freedom of speech is restricted?