Sunday, October 31, 2004
She has launched a £7M anti crime campaign, “Let’s Keep Crime Down”, which states the “bleedin’ obvious”:
One little “gem” in Nanny’s campaign is the earth shaking observation that if you lock your doors and windows, then you will lessen your chances of being burgled.
Nanny, of course, cannot resist talking down to us. Her helpful little sprite Hazel Blears, at the launch of the campaign, said:
"We know that one in five crimes happens through something really stupid - like leaving your doors and windows open, leaving goods on the back seat of your car, flashing around your mobile phone..It's simple things the public can do to stop themselves being victims of burglary and robbery."
There you have it ladies and gentlemen, if you are a victim of crime you have no one to blame but yourselves!
Isn’t it lucky that we have Nanny around to protect us from our own stupidity?
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Nanny commissioned Professor Werner von Stickfinger, her “respected” medical adviser, to conduct a study of the health effects on teenagers of eating Yorkshire pudding.
Professor Stickfinger’s report was shocking; it seems that teenagers readily become addicted to Yorkshire pudding, which when eaten gives them a pleasant feeling of “comfort” and “fullness”.
In fact teenagers have become so addicted to eating Yorkshire pudding, that they hold secret “pudding bakes” on derelict pieces of land, away from Nanny’s prying eyes.
Nanny knows that if people are feeling comfortable, and well fed, they are less inclined to listen to her constantly harping on about health and safety issues.
Additionally, people who are feeling “sated” and at ease with their lives will not listen to Nanny’s constant shrieking about the risks and threats facing society today. This lack of attention to Nanny would, in the end, consign her to the dustbin of history.
In short, Nanny can only survive if people are feeling uncomfortable and threatened.
Therefore, armed with her “scientific” report, Nanny has implemented a test ban of Yorkshire pudding in the Stockton-on-Tees area. Her lackeys in the council were only too happy to oblige.
As from today Stockton-on-tees Borough Council have ordered supermarkets to stop selling flour, eggs and matches to youngsters under the age of 16 for 10 days.
Nanny will monitor the results of the ban order, code named “No Yolk”, to see if she can extend the ban to other towns across the UK.
Does this story seem a little far fetched?
Well, I direct you to The Scotsman which reports that Stockton-on-Tees Council have indeed banned the sale of eggs, flour and matches to teenagers. Nanny hates the idea of teenagers “letting off” a little steam by “egging and flouring” buildings during Halloween.
Whilst the Halloween antics of teenagers may be annoying, it is not the end of the civilised world. Far better they throw a few eggs, and bags of flour, then petrol bombs surely?
Nanny, by placing an arbitrary illegal ban on buying something as innocuous as eggs and flour, has set the precedent for any petty local council dictator to ban whatever they wish.
Today it’s flour and eggs, tomorrow it may be something that you want to buy or do!
Friday, October 29, 2004
The problem for Nanny is that the Freedom of Information act gives us the right to view these files.
Nanny hates that act.
She has been fretting, night and day, about how to keep the prying eyes of the media and general public away from her secrets; and therefore asked her good chums in the MOD to help her out.
Luckily, for Nanny, the MOD came up with a brilliant plan.
They have decided that Nanny’s box of secrets, which includes the official account of the sinking of the Belgrano, has been contaminated by asbestos; and therefore cannot, for health and safety reasons, be opened until safely decontaminated.
Needless to say, the decontamination procedure may well take several years.
A brilliant plan, with one fatal flaw; it is bollocks!
The Belgrano was sunk in the early eighties; asbestos was banned, and removed, from buildings in the seventies. Therefore, the Belgrano file cannot possibly have come into contact with asbestos.
Come on Nanny, you will have to do better than that!
Thursday, October 28, 2004
This time Nanny has turned her attention to the Remembrance Day shower of poppies, planned for Sandwell; in Nanny’s view, it is just too dangerous.
Nanny has therefore decided to ban it.
Precisely what form of danger does a shower of poppies present to veterans of conflicts around the globe?
Simple, the poppies might catch fire.
Can anyone tell me how many incidents of burning poppies have occurred in the UK, since the Remembrance Day ceremony first started?
I will go out on a limb here, and say none!
That does not matter; facts do not interest Nanny, nor do peoples’ feelings.
However, she has, in an acknowledgement towards public feelings, graciously allowed the poppies to be dropped if they can be fireproofed; this of course, as she well knows, is prohibitively expensive.
Oddly enough, Nanny has not seen fit to interfere with the Remembrance Day service in the Royal Albert Hall; could it be that she is afraid that the Royal Family might just tell her to take a running jump?
I am drawn to ask how, precisely, would Nanny have coped fighting the last war? I suspect that she would have surrendered before even starting, on health and safety grounds, and we would have all ended up in concentration camps.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
The staff in the care home decided that he should either be given a dose of bromide, or allowed to relieve his natural urges. They decided on the latter.
Therefore the NHS asked Nanny’s SS (Social Services) to help find a lady for the gentleman, who would pay for her services himself.
The plan, in theory, would have worked reasonably well.
A suitably “neutral” venue was chosen for the meeting, between patient and the “hands on carer”, to take place.
Everybody, it seems, was going to be happy.
Unfortunately, Nanny’s SS could not resist poking their noses into this further; they decided that a neutral venue was not appropriate. In the view of Nanny’s SS, the service being provided was “therapy”; therefore it had to be provided on NHS property.
A hospital room was found, and all was prepared.
Unfortunately, because of the delay, the patient contracted pneumonia and died.
Dear old Nanny; she can’t stop interfering in peoples’ lives, even when they are close to death.
First there is the threat posed by conkers; now, as we approach November the 5th, we have Nanny’s other pet hate fireworks.
Nanny has had an overriding ambition to ban fireworks outright, she has not yet achieved this. However, she is doing her best to “put the mockers” on Guy Fawkes Night; by introducing a whole host of rules and regulations to make it impossible to enjoy the event.
One such rule is that public bonfires must be cordoned off, and monitored 24 hours a day.
Nanny’s daft little bonfire rule has succeeded in ruining one Guy Fawkes party in Coleshill, Warwikshire. They will not be holding a bonfire this year there, because of this rule.
This fine example of the inflexibility of the nanny state is particularly irksome to the residents of Coleshill; for you see the bonfire was to have been built next door to the local fire station, by the local firefighters.
Nanny can’t quite see the irony in this.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
In Nanny’s view, the time has come to “take the gloves off”; she intends to intervene in peoples’ private lives, yet again.
She has therefore decreed that the National Health Service is to offer every patient in Britain a personal diet and fitness regime; she intends to force individuals to take greater responsibility for their own health.
Note the word "force", unless I have missed something we are still living in a democracy in this country. Democratically elected governments cannot "force" their citizens to alter behaviour patterns, or is this an admission by Nanny that she has abandoned the democratic process?
These enforced "Personal health plans" will also offer advice on sexual activity, and will become the centrepiece of the Government's White Paper on public health.
Ministers are, at the moment, stressing that the individual health improvement programmes will be "voluntary". However, we all know that as far as Nanny is concerned legislation swiftly follows on from any "voluntary" code of practice.
Patients will be set specific goals and monitored by their GP, only if they "volunteer" for this "health MOT"; so Nanny’s "officials" say.
A trial run of the "volunteer" programme was recently carried out. Here we see an elderly "volunteer" undergoing his six month "health MOT".
In a splendidly Orwellian development, the hapless "volunteers" will be chased up 24 hours a day by "helpful" emails and phone calls. Nanny will not let you rest, eat, sleep or have sex without reminding you that she is watching.
The concept of people being allowed to merely volunteer for these "MOT’s" is laughable. The people who are in Nanny’s sights; the overweight, the drinkers, the smokers and the lethargic are the least likely to volunteer.
In the end Nanny will enforce this intrusion into individuals’ private lives, and we will all be monitored 24 hours a day; you have been warned!
Monday, October 25, 2004
One such reality is the fact that people, from time to time, are killed on Britain’s roads. Now this is a fact of life, and it is not Nanny’s fault. However, Nanny likes to see the world through rose coloured spectacles; and insists that her subjects use the same spectacles.
Therefore she gets into a “right old strop” when she is reminded of road fatalities. Incidentally, fatalities on Britain’s roads reached 3,508 last year, a 2% rise on 2002.
One very public reminder of these deaths is the informal laying of flowers at the spot of an accident, by friends and relatives of the victim.
Nanny wants this abolished.
She has therefore persuaded her lackeys in local government to come up with a cunning plan, to remove any tangible evidence of an accident.
Anxious to please their mistress, they have obliged her. Four local authorities (including Lincolnshire and Aberdeenshire) have told bereaved families that they must not lay flowers at the site of a fatal road crash, after a predetermined period of mourning; and are seeking to ban permanent memorials.
The councils claim that they are acting in the interests of those who place the flowers, and the drivers who may be distracted by the memorials.
Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, a national road safety charity is reported to have said:
“This is the most offensive thing that has ever been done by any official body, against people who have been violently bereaved through road accidents..It’s unbelievably crass and insensitive to suggest that traumatic grief lasts for a fixed period of time. These are people whose lives are changed for ever and the policies being implemented are depriving them of the right to tell others where something appalling has happened...”
The bottom line is that Nanny is crass and insensitive.
To see the world like Nanny does, order a pair of Nanny’s rose coloured spectacles today.
They are not only fun, novel and amusing to wear; they are compulsory.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
A prime example of her legislation fetish is the Anti Social Behaviour Order (ASBO). This is designed to provide a “cordon sanitaire” around those in society, who can best be described as “a pain in the arse”; who make other peoples’ lives a misery, by loutish and threatening behaviour.
The ASBO is all very well and indeed “ring fencing” society’s scum is, in principle, an excellent idea. However, there are a few practical problems; which Nanny, in her usual haste to legislate and grab the headlines, has conveniently ignored:
- There are already a plethora of laws in place that can deal with these people; eg it is illegal to steal, and illegal to use threatening behaviour.
- The ASBO can only work, if it can be enforced. Once you have a large number of ASBO’s in place, Nanny will have quite a difficult job monitoring 24 hours a day the activities of those on whom the ASBO has been served. Nanny is of course working on electronic tagging, but this is still a little way off.
- Once an ASBO has been breached, you are in effect back to square one. The scumbag who has breached it, has to be punished via the method that would have been employed in the first place ie jail.
- There is a danger that the ASBO will become the “weapon of choice” to be used against society’s scumbags, without using the more appropriate and effective tools already at society’s disposal (eg jail). I understand that the Daily Mail has reported the story about a family who are so unpleasant, that an ASBO has been taken out against the mother, father and three sons; banning them from associating even with each other. Indeed, because they have threatened the police, they are also banned from going into the police station. Now call me simple, but shouldn’t these scumbags just be locked up?
Saturday, October 23, 2004
She has decided to ask all pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends.
Needless to say Nanny will not be doing the questioning herself, but will require doctors and health visitors to act as her eyes and ears. The "interviews" with pregnant women will take place in secret.
Using ordinary members of the public, to act as informers to the state is standard practice in dictatorships around the world. Seemingly Nanny wishes to emulate these tin pot dictatorships.
During the Second World War the people of Britain were warned that foreign enemy agents may be amongst them, and that they should be careful as to what they talked about.
Now the enemy is our own government, and yet again we will have to heed the warning:
"Careless talk costs lives".
Friday, October 22, 2004
Nanny’s autocratic friends in Birmingham Council have decided to “beef up” their ongoing policy of snooping, interfering and controlling peoples’ lives.
Council staff are being ordered by Birmingham Council to adopt Gestapo tactics, and report people who smoke in their own homes.
A Birmingham City Council memo from Viv Strong (Council Directorate Safety Officer- a very grand title!) states that staff, such as social workers and home helps, are at risk from passive smoking during house visits. The memo orders employees to tell “service users” (voters, to you and me) to extinguish their cigarettes, or face being reported.
Here is an extract of the memo:
“..When employees are called upon to visit service users at home it has to be accepted that the service user is entitled to smoke in their own home...Employees in such instances may politely request that the service user refrains from smoking, taking into account their own personal safety throughout the duration of the visit...Where the service user refuses to co-operate, the employee should report this incident immediately to their manager..Upon receipt of such information managers should review the risk assessment.”
The Birmingham Branch of the Gestapo (seen below at a training course) will consist of social workers, home helps, trading standards officers and licensing officers; they will visit pubs, clubs and peoples’ homes.
What a nasty, unpleasant and odious plan. We all know where snooping and reporting on peoples’ private lives can lead, don’t we children?
In fact, the council are already one step ahead, they have decided that in keeping with their new role as “citizens protector” they will need a more “suitable” headquarters. I have been able to obtain exclusive photos of their proposed new Chancellery, see below:
Under normal circumstances the citizens of Birmingham would be able to show these idiots the “electoral door”, by voting them out of office. Unfortunately for the good people of Birmingham, their autocratic council is planning to abolish elections.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the way that dictatorships start.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Given Nanny’s desire to stop you drinking, smoking and eating; it is hardly surprising that people may be forced to turn to gambling, as their only pleasure left in life (note Nanny intends to tax sex very soon). Therefore, there is a considerable risk that she will turn us into a nation of gambling addicts.
However, Nanny has thought of that. She has decided to ensure that the root cause of gambling addiction will be weeded out; whilst still allowing her to collect vast “wedges” of tax, by allowing casinos to spring up all over the UK.
Nanny has decided to ban “grab a toy” and “shove penny” machines from traditional British seaside resorts.
In a “scientific” study, conducted on the back of a fag packet last night, nanny’s little helper Tessa Jowell (the “Culture” Secretary) has decided that “grab a toy” and “shove penny” machines are the root causes of gambling addiction in the UK.
Nanny, by banning these dangerous games, will neuter the concerns expressed by church groups and assorted busybodies; thus ensuring that her casinos can open in towns and cities across the UK.
These casinos will generate the $2.5BN in tax revenues needed for nanny’s tax hungry, fun loving, Chancellor Gordon “Smiler” Brown.
However, the “grab a toy” games tend to be found in amusement arcades located in Britain’s seaside resorts. These arcades provide the resorts with much needed revenue and employment, and are seen to be part of the “traditional” British seaside experience.
The fact that the banning of traditional seaside pursuits may destroy the traditional British seaside is of no concern to Nanny; she and her friends tend to holiday abroad anyway.
Those of you who think that The Grauniad's campaign to influence the US Presidential election, by trying to persuade people to vote for Kerry, is a tad "naive, interfering, arrogant and stupid"; may take heart from Nanny's friend Albert Scardino's, executive editor of the Grauniad, performance on Newsnight last night.
Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight's inquisitor in chief, pointed out that the campaign by the Grauniad may be more than a little irritating (as already noted on this site) to the American voters.
He then went on to ask Scardino:
"Do you not think that it is possible that if the election is too close to call, then your campaign may in fact get Bush re-elected?"
To which Scardino replied:
"Yes, that is entirely possible".
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
In her view this rise in obesity is down to our own fecklessness, and the fact that food manufacturers have had the audacity to increase the size of the average food portion.
As usual with Nanny, when she is having a “hissy fit”, she threatens to regulate to death those areas of life that don’t conform to her standards; in this instance via the Department of Health White Paper, which is due to be published soon.
Fearing this, the Food and Drink Federation have prepared a set of voluntary guidelines. One of these guidelines suggests the scrapping of king sized chocolate bars.
A spokesperson from the Food and Drink Federation said:
"Nobody wants extra regulation. The industry has always said it wants to be part of the solution on food and health. We are pulling together everything that the industry is doing and saying the manufacturing industry is already providing wider choice, changing the way it is marketing to children and changing its recipes. I'm sure that will contribute into the White Paper. I do not think from now on we can be accused of dragging our feet."
Read that very carefully, and you will see that they are afraid of Nanny. This is a very worrying development, for it has proven to Nanny that her methodology of haranguing and bullying works; she does not need to resort to reasoned argument, or debate.
She has succeeded, yet again, in interfering with peoples’ lives; and reducing their freedom of choice.
However, Nanny should not celebrate too soon, the removal of the king sized portion means that those who enjoy a larger helping will merely buy two ordinary sizes; thereby increasing their calorie intake, and the adding to the profits of the food manufacturers.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
It seems that some “naughty” boys and girls attempt to enjoy themselves, by playing “trick or treat”; and “egging” peoples’ houses as a trick.
Now, I for one, would be a tad “pissed off” at being egged. However, in the great scheme of things “egging” is not the worst thing that can happen in life; teenagers who use knives or guns are a far more serious issue that needs to be dealt with.
Notwithstanding this reality check, Asda has decided to ban the sale of eggs to teenagers over the Halloween period.
This decision of course is utter tosh:
- It will not deter a teenager intent on buying a supply of eggs.
- Other supermarkets and stores still sell eggs to teenagers.
- Not all teenagers buying eggs are necessarily planning a nefarious use of the eggs. I believe that eggs have a duality of use, aside from being used as a missile, they can also be cooked and eaten.
- It is an over reaction to a relatively minor irritation.
It is sad to see that a reputable, non political, company is peddling Nanny’s brand of social interference.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Nanny's favourite newspaper, "The Grauniad", has come up with possibly one of the most hair brained schemes for interfering in another country's affairs ever thought up (certainly in the last week that is).
In a fit of pompous, smug, hubris they have decided to mount a campaign to get their readers to write to voters in the USA; with the purpose of trying to influence the forthcoming election.
Quote from the Grauniad:
"The result of the US election will affect the lives of millions around the world but those of us outside the 50 states have had no say in it - until now. In a unique experiment, G2 has assembled a democratic toolkit to enable people from Basildon to Botswana to campaign in the presidential race. And with a little help from the folks in Clark County, Ohio, you might help decide who takes up residence in the White House next month."
Needless to say, the recipients of these "influential letters" are more than a tad pissed off at being told by a bunch of foreigners how to vote.
To read their responses visit the Grauniad website here.
If you really want to piss people off, just try telling them how to vote.
Nanny, when will you ever learn?
Sunday, October 17, 2004
It emerged, that despite many of Nanny's friends in schools across the country banning conkers, one school in Croydon not only allowed the game; but in fact held a conker tournament.
The Head of Park Hill Junior School, in Croydon, held a conker championship last week.
100 children took part in the week long conker championship, which pitted pupils from the lower and upper schools against each other during break times.
Even more alarming to Nanny, the children were allowed to supervise themselves during the early play offs. Parents gave advice and tips to their children on how to enhance the performance of their conkers.
The finals of the championship were overseen by members of staff.
Headteacher Bill Yearley said that this game, along with others, was a good way of keeping the children out of mischief.
The overall winner was year five pupil Saolan Doyle-Finch.
A spokesman for the school said:
"They (the pupils) have acted in a very responsible and enthusiastic manner and great fun has been had by all."
An engraved cup will be presented to the winner, and the school hopes to make the conker championship an annual event.
My compliments to the teachers and pupils of Park Hill Junior School for sticking two fingers up at Nanny, and her team of spoilsports.
No conkers were harmed during the writing of this article.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
After considerable delays, and at considerable cost (approximately £3.6m), the Diana Memorial Fountain was opened in London amid much hyperbole and razzmatazz.
Its design, we are told, is unique and “cutting edge” in the world of fountains.
However, as with all “unique” and “cutting edge” architectural designs, the fountain has had its fair share of problems.
It has had to be shut several times since its opening; owing to leaves blocking the water outlets, and people falling over in it.
A minister in Nanny’s government rushed to the fountain’s defence, and blamed the public for not using it properly. Extra park patrols and inspections have now been implemented, in order to prevent people and dogs from paddling in the fountain.
This “mini fiasco” bears all the hallmarks of the Nanny’s approach to government:
- The project was expensive and unnecessary, but it went ahead anyway.
- When problems emerged, Nanny sought to blame others; in this case she blamed the public.
- The fountain design has not been well thought through, and is unsuitable for the environment in which it has been placed. There are a multitude of Nanny’s projects with that as an epitaph.
- The solution to the fountain’s problems has been to increase inspections and patrols. How very typical of Nanny; when presented with a problem, such as declining standards in health care and education, Nanny’s response is to smother it with inspections and statistical analysis and to regulate it to death.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Tomorrow is the 199th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar; it is probably going to be a low key event. However, in 2005 the UK will be holding a series of celebrations across the country; to mark the 200th anniversary of Nelson’s victory over Napoleon, and to commemorate Nelson’s death.
Unfortunately if you live in Totnes, Devon, you will not be celebrating.
It seems that Nanny’s arrogant friends in the local council are worried that celebrating Trafalgar Day will offend the French.
Needless to say their motives are not entirely altruistic. Totnes is twinned with Vire in France, and of course Nanny’s friends in Totnes council would not want any of their jolly council junkets to France (paid for by the residents of Totnes) cancelled; just because of a national celebration.
This is not the first time that Nanny’s acolytes in Totnes have come up with a hair brained scheme. They recently made a laughing stock of themselves, by trying to twin their town with Afghanistan. Needless to say no one had thought of which town in Afghanistan they should twin with, nor indeed precisely what use to the Afghan people the twinning would be.
However, Nanny and her friends never care about practicalities; gesture politics is the name of the game. In the opinion of Totnes council the larger, and more futile the gesture, the better.
Regarding offending the French, I would venture to suggest that there may be some British people who are offended by:
- The fact that the French sold Exocets to the Argentineans during the Falklands war.
- The fact that Chirac did not support the UK overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
- The fact that Chirac insulted the English language and America, when visiting China a few days ago.
- The fact that France breached the UN sanctions in Iraq.
- The fact that in Caen, they have regular celebrations for William the Conqueror.
That being the case, why do Nanny’s councillors presume to judge what the French may think of us for celebrating Trafalgar Day?
As usual with Nanny’s acolytes, they act before they think; or maybe indulging in Totnes’s new pastime, as advertised on “Caned in Totnes”, has impaired their mental faculties?
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Unfortunately, for those seeking to fly their kites in Rossendale, Nanny’s “more than my job’s worth” friends in Rossendale council (twinned with Kabul) disapprove of kite flying.
Sion Baptists’ church Rossendale had planned to hold a kite flying charity event, to raise funds for Afghanistan. Where, ironically enough, kite flying had been banned by the Taleban.
All was going well with the plans; until the “jobs worth” council put their noses in, uninvited, and stopped the event.
You see in order to raise funds, the church was going to charge £1 per kite entered. ”Not allowed” said the men from the council. They then lectured the Minister of Sion church on the mistakes that he had made:
- Firstly, in order to hold the event, the church should have obtained permission from the council. Why is that, may I ask?
- Secondly, as an entrance fee was charged, there would have to be public liability insurance to hold the event; in case of accidents.
A “jobs worth” council spokesman noted that “there was an issue over the right forms being filled in”.
He then went on to say that “..kites are an instrument of Satan; kite flying, and those who seek to fly kites, will be wiped from the face of the earth….”.
Rossendale council are so concerned about the satanic practice of kite flying, that they have formed an elite body of men called the “Kite Flying Ban Enforcement Squad” (seen here in action, above). The Kite Flying Ban Enforcement Squad will patrol Rosendale enforcing the “No kite flying ban”.
Those caught breaking the ban will be publicly stoned to death, in the town square.
Whilst part of the above may be “tongue in cheek”, the story illustrates the situation facing the British people today:
- We have passively allowed our freedoms, and liberties, to be curtailed by second rate council administrators and bureaucrats.
- No one may act independently, without the necessary paperwork being completed.
- Council’s impose arbitrary rules and regulations, outwith the law, to ensure that their position of authority in the community is upheld.
Aside from the day to day administration of basic local services, which they don’t do particularly well, councils have no real power or function within the local community. Once people realise this; the council, in its current bloated form, will cease to exist.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Nanny, despite her self proclaimed wisdom in all matters, has many prejudices. One of these is an innate hatred of independent schools.
This is rather hypocritical, given the fact that many of Nanny’s friends and ministers have gone to independent schools themselves; or send their children to independent schools.
However, in Nanny’s view that is not the issue. She firmly believes that the ordinary members of the British public must send their children to Nanny’s state schools; where they can be taught Nanny’s special curriculum, by Nanny’s specially trained teachers.
Those that go to independent schools are taught to question dogma, independence of thought and to achieve all that is achievable. Nanny abhors these traits in ordinary members of the public.
Sometimes, those who have taught in the independent sector seek to join the state sector. This of course would threaten Nanny’s precious state system; by exposing children to thoughts and ideas that had not been properly approved of by Nanny and her acolytes.
Initially Nanny did not bother to try to disguise her hatred of independent schools; she placed signs, such as the one above, outside all of her schools. These naturally discouraged anyone with independent experience trying to join Nanny’s schools.
However, despite attempts to “dumb down” examinations, standards have fallen dramatically in Nanny’s schools; primarily as a result of Nanny’s obsession with controlling, and regulating, every aspect of the curriculum and day to day management of her schools. The decline in standards has caused many to seek to emulate the independent sector, by trying to bring in teachers from the independents.
Nanny won’t have that, in a splendid display of cunning, she has created a bureaucratic barrier to entry to all of those from the independent sector; who seek employment in her schools.
The barrier comes in the form of the state recognised teaching qualification. Nanny pretends that this is to ensure that only teachers of the “highest calibre” teach in her schools. We all know this to be a lie. Those who have spent many successful years teaching in the independent sector, are in fact banned from joining the state sector; as they do not possess this bureaucratic entry slip.
The absurdity of this artificial barrier to entry was highlighted yesterday by the story that Tristram Jones-Parry, soon to be retiring head of Westminster School, could not get a teaching position in the state sector; because he does not have this bureaucratic entry slip. The fact that there is a severe shortage of teachers in the state system, eg 3500 maths teachers, seemingly counts for nothing.
Nanny doesn’t care; her precious ideals come first, these of course must take precedence over “education, education, education”.
Monday, October 11, 2004
These “added value” inspectorates include:
Needless to say, each time an “inspector calls”, hospital staff find their precious time being diverted to pay homage to the demands of the men from the ministry.
The consequence being that patients’ healthcare suffers; as the “dead hand of bureaucracy” ties up resources, and stifles any initiatives aimed at improving the well being of patients.
Given the number of inspectorates, it is not surprising to learn that their inspections often overlap.
However, to expect them to co-ordinate their reviews is asking too much. The inspectorates are run by “brain dead” automatons, who relish their opportunity to wield “power”. They have no intention of giving up their new found authority.
Nanny claims that the bureaucracy will be “streamlined”. Needless to say this is “Nanny speak” for obfuscated. Apparently a “concordat” of inspectorates will be set up to co-ordinate the information gleaned from inspections, the alleged aim being to speed up the inspections.
I suspect that this “concordat” (whatever that means), will merely add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the already overburdened health service.
What Nanny seeks to destroy, she first regulates and inspects to death.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Today a relatively "harmless" phrase is banned, tomorrow it will be something else.
As Orwell predicted, in his book "1984", an effective means by which a dictatorship can control the population is by controlling their thoughts. The best way to control the population's thoughts by controlling the language.
The elimination of words and phrases from the language means that people can no longer use them, or think them.
This is but the "thin end of the wedge".
Saturday, October 09, 2004
It seems that Nanny’s prissy media watchdog, Ofcom, and dear old Auntie (the BBC) are about to get themselves embroiled in rather an unseemly catfight.
A draft broadcasting code is being drawn up by Ofcom; which, according to Auntie, threatens to ban them showing Bambi.
It seems that Bambi may harm children, psychologically. Therefore, far better that Bambi is "killed off"; rather distressing in itself, I would have thought.
Auntie feels that the proposed rules would have a "chilling effect" on its freedoms. Even programmes featuring religious content, such as Songs of Praise, may have to carry a warning.
The proposed code contains the rather loose phrase that under 18s must be protected from "potential or actual moral, psychological or physical harm".
Auntie argues that some children are distressed by watching Bambi, whilst others are distressed by natural history programmes.
This, in effect, would give Ofcom carte blanche to ban anything they wanted; except, I suspect, the daily diet of mind numbing soap operas which contain a high level of violence and disturbing scenes.
Soap operas of course keep the population docile, and less inclined to think creatively and independently.
Nanny hates creative and independent thought.
Friday, October 08, 2004
It seems that, following on from the Black death in the Middle Ages, the latest life threatening plague to hit the UK is nuts.
Nanny and her acolytes have worked themselves up in to such a frenzy over nuts, that even the humble conker (which Nanny hates anyway) has been classified as a nut.
It is reported that Veronica O’Grady, Head teacher of Menstrie Primary Clackmannanshire, has banned conkers from her school.
The reason being that “health experts”, so she claims, have advised her that conkers may be a risk to children with nut allergies.
The ban was announced in the school newsletter, which said that pupils should not bring nuts (including horse chestnuts) to school.
"We have several pupils in the school who have allergies or conditions that affect what they can eat and be exposed to..To help keep all of our pupils safe, please ensure your child doesn’t bring nuts or nut products to school. This includes tree nuts such as chestnuts."
However, it seems Nanny has over reached herself yet again. The National Anaphylaxis Campaign, a charity for people with life threatening allergies, has called the ban an “over reaction”.
At worst children with nut allergies, who handle horse chestnuts, may develop a slight rash.
I would ask this question, why are people allowing their lives to be blighted by Nanny and her sycophants in this way?
Come on people, act up and fight back!
It is theoretically possible that British hosts, under similar circumstances, could be charged with aiding and abetting drunken driving. Even passengers of dangerous drivers, theoretically, can be prosecuted.
Paul Folan and his brother Martin were both prosecuted last year for dangerous driving; when they both fell asleep, whilst Paul was driving them, and the car crashed killing a third party.
Such is the climate of fear of litigation that is engulfing Britain, it is highly likely that hosts and their guests will each need to bring a lawyer with them to future gatherings; in order to ensure that they do not lay themselves open to litigation.
Needless to say, the legal profession are rubbing their hands in anticipation of the extra fee income this will generate.
I would not be at all surprised if Nanny did not stick her nose into this, and propose some intrusive piece of legislation.
You have been warned!
Thursday, October 07, 2004
It outlines the steps that the pub, on the command from Spirit Group who own it, will take to eradicate smoking; in order to comply with a law that has not yet been passed.
These steps include:
-The removal of ashtrays from the bar
-The removal of bar stools from the bar
-The eventual banning of smoking in the pub as a whole.
The ban is part of Spirit Group’s policy of severely restricting smoking in their pubs, as stated on their website.
This policy has been introduced in anticipation of smoking being banned by nanny, and her henchmen.
Nanny should be feeling very pleased with herself at the moment. It seems that she has now conditioned the vast majority of people to react in anticipation of her wishes; much like Pavlov’s dogs were conditioned to salivate, at the ringing of a bell, in anticipation of food being served.
I do not feel that this conditioning is anything to feel proud of, or happy with. It demonstrates, yet again, that peoples’ freedom of actions are being eroded in the UK; without any demonstrable sign of resistance.
I do not smoke, but I feel that making smokers out to be pariahs is the “thin end of the wedge”.
I leave you with this prescient piece of writing, penned in the last century; it is apposite to the situation that we now face:
“First they came for the union members,
But I did not speak out,
Why should I?
I am not a member of a union.
Then they came for the communists,
But I did not speak out,
Why should I?
I am not a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
But I did not speak out,
Why should I?
I am not a Jew.
Now they have come for me,
Who is there left to speak out for me?”
One day they will ban something that you like!
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
That at least is the main conclusion in the newly released Ofsted report, entitled “Outdoor Education, Aspects of Good Practice”.
It now seems to be the case that outdoor education has become “a minority area” in the physical education curriculum.
To quote David Bell, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools:
"Outdoor activities both at school and on residential courses enable pupils to enjoy challenging and unfamiliar experiences that test and develop their physical, social and personal skills. They can be among the most memorable experiences for pupils of their school-days."
Yet, as with so many aspects of life in the UK these days, fear of the state and litigation now limits peoples’ actions and inhibits their enjoyment of life.
I can exclusively reveal that the Health and Safety Executive have come up with a new dress code for pupils, who are brave enough to venture outside, an example is shown above. This “outdoor safety suit” will be mandatory as from January 2005.
This “zero risk” approach in fact is in fact highly dangerous. Children will never flourish, or develop, if they are not faced with new experiences and challenges. Those parents, and nanny’s henchmen in the Health and Safety Executive, who seek to cosset children in cotton wool do them no favours in the long run.
All that happens with this approach is that you breed a nation of weak, fearful underachievers; who cling on to nanny’s petticoats throughout their adult lives, never daring to do think or act independently.
Which, on reflection, is precisely what nanny wants.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
It seems that the Head, Shaun Halfpenny, is afraid that the health and safety Gestapo will cause trouble for the school; if the pupils are allowed to play conkers unprotected.
In view of this fear, the Head has supplied the pupils with goggles; to protect their eyes from conker shards.
I would ask, precisely how many children are blinded each year by flying shards?
The Gestapo have more draconian rules planned for the centuries old game of conkers. I have managed to obtain the secret design plans, created by the health and safety executive, for the new conker protection suit; which will be made compulsory at schools around the country.
This story is a salutary warning about nanny’s methods; she now relies, not only on the law to exercise her will, but fear.
As Mr Halfpenny said to reporters:
"These days you cannot be too careful, especially when health and safety inspectors are watching."
He has expressed, in this sentence, what Britain has become; a nation living in fear of being watched by nanny and her Gestapo.
Monday, October 04, 2004
To this end she will be installing CCTV cameras on hedgerows, fences and trees along known hunting routes. This will enable her to photograph, and prosecute, those who hunt after the law is enshrined in the statue books.
However, the cost of this project will be in the region of £30M. A heavy price to pay to protect Basil Brush.
Nanny doesn’t care, she has long been looking for an excuse to erect her snooping cameras in the countryside; the one part of the UK that has, thus far, escaped this “Orwellian” plague of surveillance.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
As nanny happily involves our troops in yet another war, those that fought in earlier ones will next month lead the country in the annual service of Remembrance.
Each year the Royal British Legion sells around 30 million poppies for Remembrance Day.
However, since last year, the pin that used to fix the poppy to peoples’ jackets has been removed.
It seems that nanny, despite feeling brave enough to put others’ lives at risk abroad, is not prepared to allow her domestic charges to risk stabbing themselves with a pin.
It appears to me that nanny has her priorities muddled.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
It seems that Bodmin's Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre has bombarded Reg Payn, the town's officially licensed puppeteer, with leaflets on domestic violence. They have also harassed the audience during Reg’s shows.
It seems that nanny feels that the audiences these days are not able to recognise the difference between a wooden puppet and reality. Clearly audiences of three hundred years ago, were far more intelligent.
Newcastle City Council tried this trick last year, and banned Mr Punch. However, they had to rescind their ban, when it emerged that official recommending the ban had never seen a Punch and Judy show.
I would venture to suggest that Bodmin Council might first like to attend to the nation’s soap opera addiction. These pose the real danger to society.
These dumbed down, mass population sedatives pump out a daily diet of domestic violence and abuse. They are far more “realistic” than any wooden puppet; regrettably many people seem to be unable to distinguish between reality, and the characters and storylines in these dreadful shows.
Yet we don’t see nanny trying to shut them down.
Maybe it is because they keep the population docile, and stop people from thinking?