PC Corner
You couldn't make it up

Three Little Piggies Win a Reprieve
by Paul Stoke

Organisers of a children's performance have given the Three Little Pigs a reprieve after they were originally ditched from the show for fear they may offend Muslims.

Children from Honley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, were planning to perform Roald Dahl's version of Little Red Riding Hood, which features the pigs, at the Town Hall. But organisers of the Kirklees Primary Music Festival said they were concerned the Three Little Pigs could offend Muslim children taking part, or their parents.

Yesterday, it was announced that the restyled section would include the Three Little Puppies instead of the pigs, but councillors today stepped in to reverse the decision.

There had been no complaints about the festival, which will feature hundreds of children from 63 schools in Kirklees in June. The plan is for children from other schools to sing along as Honley act out their contribution.

Jim Dodds, the council's Cabinet member for children's services, said the decision to change the wording was a "mistake". "The schools music festival is a terrific event that brings together schools across Kirklees," he said. "There is an immense amount of enthusiasm and commitment that goes into that. On this particular aspect of it - everyone knows the story of the Three Little Pigs, and other nursery stories as well. We have all read them to our own children and grandchildren. I am sure that no-one is offended by any wording within any of those traditional stories. As well-meaning as it may have been behind the thinking of the organisers of the festival to adapt the wording of the story so as not to cause offence as they saw it, it was a mistake, and it was not the right decision - so let's stick with tradition and make sure everyone enjoys the festival for the fantastic event it will be, and not get distracted by errors of judgement."

Gill Goodswen, who is one of the organisers of the festival behind the changes, had said: "We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural. It was felt it would be more responsible not to use the three little pigs."

She said the committee had to consider the feelings of children who would be singing along, not just the performers. "We feared that some Muslim children wouldn't sing along to the words about pigs," she added. "We didn't want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offence then we will do so."

One parent, a mother-of-three, said yesterday: "Surely there are much worse things to worry about in the world than a story about three little pigs? It is really ridiculous."

Local councillor Terry Lyons also said he was stunned by the move. "I can't believe that Muslims would be offended," he said. "This is pandering to a few extremists. People will take umbrage at this decision, making it easier for the BNP to recruit."

Mohammed Imran, of the nearby Hanfia Mosque and Educational Institute, said he welcomed the thinking behind the original decision but did not think it was necessary. He pointed out that Islam does not ban the mentioning of pigs, but added: "They are obviously trying to involve children rather than exclude them."

But Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said: "My view is that the people responsible for this are completely bonkers. It is the type of political correctness which makes people's blood boil. As usual it is done in the name of ethnic minorities but it is perpetrated by white, middle class, do-gooders with a guilt complex and far too much time on their hands!"
The Telegraph on Line, 16th March 2007

Police Seize Golliwogs in Racism Probe
by James Tozer

When police received allegations of racism, their reaction was impressively swift.

They swooped on the premises in question and seized a pair of suspects to help with their inquiries. Questioning them was not an option, however - for they were both rag dolls.

Their alleged crime was that they were designed in the style of a golliwog, and a visitor to the shop where they were on sale had complained to police. As a result shopkeeper Gavin Alexander faced a £1,000 fine after being accused of a public order offence.

Police have since returned the dolls and said charges were not being pressed. But Mr Alexander, 39, attacked the decision to take the complaint seriously in the first place.
"Surely the police have got more important things to do?" he said. "It's cases like this that cause racism."

His shop, In Touch in the village of Wrightington, Lancashire, sells soft toys, curiosities, furniture and other products. The £4.50 "golly rag dolls" and matching key-rings were on display with African statues and Buddha figures.

Apparently a woman customer called police to complain that the golly-style dolls were racially offensive. The next day two officers arrived and confiscated one 6in doll and one keyring. They took a statement from Mr Alexander and told him to remove the remaining gollies from sale.

Finally, however, it was concluded that no offence had been committed and the dolls are now back on sale.

Mr Alexander is the latest trader to face prosecution for selling golliwogs, once popular toys but now shunned as crude racist stereotypes. Last year shopkeeper Donald Reynolds was threatened with prosecution for offensive behaviour after displaying golliwogs in his hardware shop in Bromyard, Herefordshire.

Furniture store boss John Scadgell was threatened under the same legislation over gollies in the window of his shop in Worthing, West Sussex.

The Commission for Racial Equality said the question of whether golliwogs were considered racist depended on the context in which they were displayed. "Some people might find them offensive, some people might not," said a spokesman.

Last night Lancashire Police said: "This incident was reported to us by a member of the public. No offences have been committed and it is no longer a police matter."

The golliwog first appeared in a children's story by American writer Florence Kate Upton in the 19th century and was popularised in Britain when jam manufacturer James Robertson & Sons adopted it as a symbol for its products in 1910.

By the 1980s, however, it was increasingly seen as offensive and Robertson's dropped the golly in 2001.
The Daily Mail, 16th March 2007

Don't Touch that Office Chair! Health and
Safety Demand 48 Hours Notice to Move It
by Arthur Martin

In most offices, when a chair is in the wrong position then immediate action is taken. Somebody moves it. But not at the Health and Safety Executive.

There, employees have been banned from shifting furniture on the remote chance that they might do themselves a mischief. They are told to book a porter to complete the task - and allow two days for it to happen.

The new rule could prove particularly problematic for staff planning a last-minute meeting. If a porter cannot be summoned urgently staff would be left with the awkward choice of disobeying a direct order from the management or asking some of their guests to stand.

To hammer home the point, signs which read: 'Do not lift tables or chairs without giving 48 hours notice to HSE management', have been plastered across the walls in several meeting rooms.

The ruling was discovered by Labour peer Lord Berkeley. He noticed the signs when he attended a meeting at the London headquarters of the HSE, whose responsibilities include workers at nuclear plants, oil rigs and huge factories.

Incensed by what he considered to be "health and safety gone mad", Lord Berkeley raised the matter in the House of Lords, demanding in a parliamentary question to know why the HSE had put up the notices.

"I saw them and thought, 'It just can't be true'," he said. "It's ridiculous to mollycoddle people like that. It's taking health-and-safety precautions to a ridiculous level. They ought to be concentrating on the important things."

Lord Berkeley also criticised the HSE for sending home staff from a meeting he was attending after it had snowed. "We were told we had to go home because there was an inch of snow on the ground outside," he said. "The buses and trains were still running. It's just preposterous."

In a written answer to Lord Berkeley, Lord McKenzie, a work and pensions minister, said: "Where furniture needs to be moved regularly, it is mounted on lockable wheels so that any staff can move it easily. For other cumbersome furniture, arrangements have been made with porters to move it safely. Signs have therefore been posted in some meeting rooms advising of this arrangement."

The signs have been put up in almost all of the 31 HSE offices across the country, where 3,600 staff are employed.

A spokesman said: "HSE's approach to moving furniture in its offices is based on its own assessment of the risks from manual handling - one of the main causes of work-related absence among its staff."

An insider at the executive described life there as "a nanny state gone absolutely bonkers. Why we can't move a chair or lift a table out of the way when we want beggars belief," he said. "Are we seriously supposed to wait two days before we can rearrange a room so we can all see each other in a meeting?"

Unsurprisingly, the HSE has one of the best records for accidents in the country, with 107 injuries per 100,000 workers over the last year compared with 150 per 100,000 in education, 360 in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing, 640 in construction and 1,390 in transport, storage and communications.

The furniture-moving ban follows a long line of edicts made under the banner of health and safety.

Last week, it emerged that a school banned knotted ties because it said they were a safety risk. Pupils at Bramhall High in Stockport were told to wear clip-ons instead or be sent home.

During the festive period staff at Tower Hamlets Council in East London were banned from putting up Christmas lights and decorations in their offices in case they hurt themselves.
The Daily Mail, 3rd April 2007