Go wild in the country

You do have to wonder at the mentality of some people, take this example, a group, decided to arrange some fundraising for their local school. They aren’t attached to the school nor did they aim what they were doing at the school pupils. So they held their event in the local village hall and raised £1,560 for the school after costs of £800. It was a night of adult entertainment with male strippers, not my cup of tea, but it does seem to have worked and raised some necessary funds, but of course some people aren’t happy.


Stripper fundraiser for primary school branded ‘disgusting’ by mothers
A ladies’ night in aid of a village school has left some local mothers feeling hot under the collar – after two male strippers were booked as the entertainment.
More than 100 women turned out to see dancers All the Way Jay and Tommy Love reveal themselves at a village hall in aid of Clavering Primary School in Essex.
The pair, from the dance group Dream Men, helped raise £1,560 for pupils at the primary school and nearby Arkesden preschool.
But the event, which cost £800 to arrange, has divided the community and left some mothers vowing to withdraw their children from the school.

Yes that’s right, some mothers have vowed to remove their kids from the school despite the fact it had nothing to do with the school or pupils

A mother-of-five, who asked not to be named, said she thought the night was “disgusting”.
“I could not believe they used a male stripper night to raise money for a primary school,” she said.

They being the Friends of Clavering who defended the event, saying it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils.

“I am not a prude – I have worked in bars all my life – but you can’t have these events associated with out children’s education.”

For the life of me I cannot see why not, it’s not as if the kids were invited now is it? Plus the Friends of Clavering have already stated that it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils. So against all your denials, yes, I’d say you were a prude, or thick.

“I have told the school and the head teacher my feelings but they have not responded so I am taking my children out”

Are you a moron? I mean really, the event was to raise money for the school but, it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils. Save only that the were going to get the cash the group had raised. They could always refuse I suppose, but for the life of me I don’t see why they should, after all, it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils. They weren’t invited, they were not involved, it was just a fundraiser in the village hall with an adult theme, get off your high horse you stupid woman.

Melody Carter, who has lived in the village for 40 years and has seen her sons and grandsons attend the school, added: “I fully understand how strapped for cash some rural schools are, but I have a problem with using something as distasteful as this to raise money.”

What part of  it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils are you struggling with Melody? It might have been in dubious taste but it attracted 100 women and raised £1560 for the school despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the school or the pupils.

A spokeswoman from Clavering Primary School said: “We trust that both associations raise money for the schools using reputable and appropriate means. 

Does this mean you’ll refuse the money? Plus who are you to decide that an outside group not under your control can do to raise funds, about the only thing you could do is ask them not to use your name, but then you risk them telling you to raise your own cash…

“We are sorry to learn that some parents were upset to learn of the recent event and assure them future events will be considered more carefully and the schools made fully aware of them.”

That would be events that have nothing to do with the school itself, simply a means of raising cash for a worthy cause? As I said you can always refuse it, though if I were one of the Friends of Clavering, I’d certainly think twice about trying to raise any money to help the bloody place.

21 comments for “Go wild in the country

  1. February 14, 2012 at 6:05 am

    “Are you a moron?”

    That’s a rhetorical question, I assume..? 🙄

    And if they do indeed refuse the money, I’d find a Home For Bewildered Ex-Strippers to give it to instead. 😈

  2. Steve
    February 14, 2012 at 8:03 am

    Given that all money is tainted in some way, either because it probably at some stage was used in criminal transactions or by undesirables, let alone being printed by a government involved in war, etc, then the logic of these moon bats must be to refuse to ever use it again. Don’t be hypocrites, folks!

  3. Jack Savage
    February 14, 2012 at 8:49 am

    I hear what you say….but part of me thinks it was somewhat inappropriate….and I am closer to a pervert than a prude!

    Would/should they accept funds from the local paedo ring? Even if it had “nothing to do with the pupils or the school”?

    Or is that a “reductio” too far?

    • February 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Yeah, probably…

    • Andrew
      February 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      “Or is that a “reductio” too far?”

      You’re trying to compare voluntary fundraising with raping kids.

      One isn’t simply further down the road than the other – they’re on two completely separate roads.

      • Jack Savage
        February 14, 2012 at 11:45 pm

        The point which the original post belaboured was that as long as the fundraising “had nothing to do with the school or the kids” then everything was hunky-dory.
        It makes no difference, it would appear, however that money is raised.
        Forget my paedo angle, it has obviously clouded the issue. Say, instead, that the “friends” had raised money stripping performing sex-acts or by prostituting themselves for a week-end? In a perfectly legal way, of course.
        Should the school accept this money knowing, and with everyone else knowing, how it has been raised?
        I am not saying that the school should not have accepted the money in this particular case in point.Far from it.
        I am taking issue with the point that appears to be made again and again in the original post, which is that as long as “it has nothing to do with the school or the pupils”, it does not matter how the money is raised.
        If we can agree that in fact a line has to be drawn somewhere, then everyones sensibilities should be taken in account before drawing it. That is all I am saying.
        I do not see this as quite such a black or white issue as The Quiet Man makes out, that is all.

        • Andrew
          February 15, 2012 at 2:59 am

          “Say, instead, that the “friends” had raised money stripping performing sex-acts or by prostituting themselves for a week-end?”

          You can take your reductio as far as you like and I would still have no problem at all in accepting voluntary money raised by free trade.

          No matter what the actual means, it is infinitely more moral than money raised by tax (and here your original paedo argument is perfectly valid as both are initiations of force).

        • February 15, 2012 at 6:56 am

          I’m not bothered where the school gets the money from, I’m just being derisive about an idiot woman who decided to withdraw her kids from the school despite the fact that the event wasn’t ran by the school or sanctioned by it. That plus the usual faux outrage over what seems to have been a fun night for consenting adults in aid of what appeared to them to be a worthy cause.
          The key here which you appear to be missing by a country mile, is that the school did not run the event, did not sanction the event and certainly did not have its pupils attend the event. The only choice open to the school is whether or not they wanted to accept the money to which I am totally indifferent as to whether they do or not.

          • Jack Savage
            February 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

            “I’m not bothered where the school gets the money from, I’m just being derisive about an idiot woman..”

            Sorry. I thought the post raised some slightly more profound points for a moment.

            I will shut up, then.

            • February 15, 2012 at 4:15 pm

              Unfortunately your attempts to link the post to pedophilia and/or pedophiles raising cash for schools simply left the rest of us struggling to bridge the gap in your train of thought. 😈

              • Jack Savage
                February 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm

                No problem. Next time I will just join in the stoning.

  4. john in cheshire
    February 14, 2012 at 9:26 am

    I’m surprised that there are still people who are prepared to be outraged by such things as male strippers; after all, wasn’t the Full Monty a success at the box offices and on TV. I wonder how many other complainers have watched it; I wonder how many of the children at the school have seen it, since it’s been repeated many times.
    And Jack the difference between the performance that raised money and your suggestion is that the former is not illegal whereas I don’t recall the latter being so.

    • Jack Savage
      February 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm

      It is not illegal for paedophiles to give money to schools, as far as I am aware. You are confusing the issue. See my longer reply above.

  5. nisakiman
    February 14, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Ah, the professionally offended. They seem to be everywhere these days.

  6. Dave K
    February 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Oh good some more to add to my “Offence due to charity stunts” list:

    Grannies getting naked.
    Having baths full of food (beans).
    Hairy men getting Brazilians.

    • February 15, 2012 at 5:45 am

      Who on earth objected to the last one?!?

  7. Jim
    February 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Many years ago, the Salvation Army (a teetotal organisation) used to collect money by touring public houses at night, and rattling their collecting tins. When asked why they took money from people in pubs who were drinking alcohol, something they frowned upon, they replied ‘We will take their dirty money, and make it clean by doing good with it.’

    Perhaps the school in question should use that line on the professionally offended.

    • February 15, 2012 at 5:45 am


  8. Dave_G
    February 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    But of course they’d happily take GOVERNMENT money – tainted as it is by unnecessary wars, bribery and corruption……

  9. February 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Don not forget. There are large sections of society who apparently spend their lives waiting to be offended. As a result of 13 years of New Labour’s infantilisation of society, we are all victims now, and there are many many people who just LOVE to be victims. Like these poor, oppressed, victimised parents at this school.

  10. Lord T
    February 16, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    I think we should raise money for them by going on a shooting weekend or something. The one who kills the most of something fluffy gets to present the cash to the school. Front page news in the local paper.

    Trying to think of a catchy rhyme to go with it. Kill for educations, the killers for education… Nope.

Comments are closed.