Nanny Gets The Bird

Nanny has come up with another fun, novel and exciting use for her much vaunted Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO's).

You remember ASBO's don't you?

These were the magical cure all for all the social ills afflicting Britain today. They were designed to short circuit the court system, so that drunken yobs and nuisance neighbours could be dealt with swiftly and effectively.

Anyhoo, Nanny has come up with another use for her favourite cure all. People who are caught feeding gulls in Scottish towns and cities will be ASBO'ed.

The ASBO option has been proposed in a report for the Scottish Executive, from the British Trust for Ornithology and Stirling University.

ASBO's could be used if offenders persist in feeding gulls, with fines and even jail a possibility if an order is breached.

A cull is ruled out because the population of some birds, particularly herring gulls, is very low. Aberdeen has about 7,000 gulls but the population is just 3,000 in Glasgow and 2,000 in Edinburgh.

However, it seems that some parts of Scotland now resemble scenes from Hitchcock's "The Birds".

The SNP's Margaret Ewing told how her MSP husband, Fergus, was dive-bombed by gulls while he was jogging in Lossiemouth.

As usual with Nanny's "big ideas" she has chosen to target the wrong people with the wrong legal instrument.

The best solution, let us dispense with the environmental niceties, is to shoot the little bastards.

Oops, that would of course contravene Nanny's other well thought out law that covers bird shooting.

Another nice mess you have got us in to Nanny!

Nanny and Auntie Get It Together

Further to my post yesterday, about the crack down on sex in booze adverts, it seems that Nanny has got together with her old chum Auntie to ram the message home about the dangers of drink.

I don't know, but the thought of these two "old dears" working together is really quite alarming!

Anyhoo, Nanny and Auntie have now set up a web information site on Auntie's Welsh website called RSOD (Risky Single Occasion Drinking); presumably it is OK to drink large amounts on a regular basis then?

The site has all manner of cartoons, videos and "helpful" information for those of you who want to go out and get pissed.

It even advises you to lay on your side when you are about to throw up, that's useful to know!

Indeed, for those you who don't speak English, it very helpfully offers a Welsh translation.

I am very pleased to see licence payers' money being used to help support Nanny, and her government, in this way.

Seemingly Auntie doesn't feel that this in any way infringes her "public service, non partisan ethos".

What do you think boys and girls?

No Sex Please We're Drunk

Nanny has got rather fed up with the amount of sex in society, in fact she is rather fed up with sex a whole.

Nanny is a Vulcan, who adheres rigidly to the Vulcan practice of "pang-phar"; whereby you only have sex once every seven years.

To this end she has decided that booze adverts that imply sex, or improved sexual prowess after downing 10 pints, should be banned.

A couple may sit together and share affectionate glances, but there must be no eroticism or sexual contact. The guidance effectively insists on a six-inch space between lovers, though glamorous individuals may still be featured.

Similarly, films promoting liquor must not be linked with acts of daring, toughness, rowdiness or rudeness.

The popping of champagne corks is still allowed, but scenes of party-goers soaked in champagne are not acceptable.

Nanny's new guidance says:

"Alcohol should not be used as an aid to seduction or to enhance a person's attractiveness".

She also says:

"Linking alcohol with mild flirtation or romance is similarly allowed, provided that it is limited to gentle dialogue, facial expressions or body language that do not imply sexual activity has taken..

, or about to take, place."

Clearly Nanny doesn't get out much, as far as I am aware 90% of sexual congress in the UK only occurs after the downing of a few pints and vodka shots.

Nanny Bans The Horn

Nanny, as predicted, has started to use her much vaunted ASBO's on things other than yobs and assorted riff raff.

She has now decided to ASBO taxi drivers in North Wales, for beeping their horns when they pick up customers.

Nanny's chums in the North Wales Police say that the use of horns "at all times of the day and night" in Colwyn Bay is damaging people's quality of life.

They have sent out a letter to cabbies, calling on them to end the practice.

The drivers have fought back, saying that they will use the horn within the legal hours.

We were warned about these ASBO's.

Nanny Dices With Death

Seemingly Nanny cannot allow the dead to rest in peace, as she seeks to control both the temporal and spiritual world.

My thanks to Geoff for sending me the photo.

Happy Easter everyone.

Ken

Nanny Bans Hot Cross Buns

As Easter is almost upon us I thought you would be pleased to know that Nanny has, just like she did at Christmas, stuck her interfering nose into this celebration as well.

It seems that schools across Britain have been ordered by local authorities to abandon the ancient tradition of serving hot cross buns at Easter, so that non Christians won't be offended.

The scary thing here is that we pay these council dimwits a salary.

Can anyone tell me why?

Nanny's friends in the councils are running scared of receiving complaints from non Christian religions.

Pathetic!

The morons who run Tower Hamlets have slapped a ban on hot cross buns, after they received complaints about serving....wait for it...pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

A jackass (I would use stronger words, but it is Easter!) spokesman for the Labour-run council claimed that there had been "a lot" of complaints but did not have a figure.

The spokesman then added for good measure:

"We are moving away from a religious theme for Easter and will not be doing hot cross buns...

We can't risk a similar outcry over Easter like the kind we had on Pancake Day. We will probably be serving naan breads instead."

I'm sorry, call me old fashioned if you will, but isn't Easter a religious festival??

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this!

Liverpool council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has seemingly told reporters that the symbol of the cross had the "potential to offend"; buns will no longer be served to children.

Despite this ruling, the council confirmed that it will continue to organise special menus to celebrate events as diverse as the Chinese New Year, Italian National Day and Russian Independence Day.

Twats!

Other councils on the hit list for removal from office, for not serving hot cross buns, include; York, and Wolverhampton both Labour run. Officials in Wakefield, which is also controlled by Labour, have decided it would be more appropriate to tailor the Easter menu to information technology.

"We are not serving hot cross buns at all..Each term we try to come up with a menu which encourages children to think about different issues...

This Easter term we chose information technology and did not even consider putting hot cross buns on the menu."

What were they smoking when they came up with that, I wonder?

Ann Widdecombe summed it up just right:

"These people are silly asses,".

"It would appear that we should know about everyone else's culture apart from our Christian tradition. It seems that anything that comes from an ethnic minority is fine, while anything Christian is wrong...

What can be more innocent than a hot cross bun?

There's no more fun way to explain the Christian tradition to a child and it is not as if eating a hot cross bun automatically makes you a born-again Christian."

I would note that the Muslim Council of Britain called the decision "very, very bizarre..This is absolutely amazing..

At the moment, British Muslims are very concerned about the upcoming war with Iraq and are hardly going to be taken aback by a hot cross bun."

Adding:

"Unfortunately actions like this can only create a backlash and it is not very thoughtful. I wish they would leave us alone. We are quite capable of articulating our own concerns and if we find something offensive, we will say so...

We do not need to rely on other people to do it for us...British Muslims have been quite happily eating and digesting hot cross buns for many years and I don't think they are suddenly going to be offended."

Given the above, I wonder precisely who Nanny is seeking to serve by banning these buns?

By the way Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Authority believe that hot cross buns are very healthy. On a weight-for-weight basis, the buns contain the lowest amount of sugar and fat; as well as having the highest fibre and lowest calorie content.

The bottom line is this, Nanny has gone mad and must therefore be "retired" immediately.

Nanny Bans Flashing

In a move that I can only describe as utter stupidty, Nanny has decided to ban the Kent police from using sirens and blue flashing lights.

Seemingly they are considered by Nanny to be just too dangerous; the sirens and flashing lights that is, not the police.

As from April police officers in Kent have been told not to break the speed limit, or step outside the rules of the Highway Code when chasing criminals.

Additionally, instead of having to arrive at an emergency within 10 minutes of an emergency call, they will be told simply to "get there as quickly as it is safe to do so".

In order to drum home her message, Nanny is removing sirens and flashing lights from patrol cars.

No this is not an early April Fool's Day joke!

Supt Alan Horton, of Kent's Tactical Operations Department, sent his colleagues a memo which outlined the new "thinking" by Nanny. Flashing blue lights and sirens will become "a rare event".

Mr Horton said:

"The changes are in recognition of the frankly alarming number of Police Accidents (Polacs) throughout the country. Last year there were around 50 Polacs a day...Patrol cars will not have audible warning equipment and this is being disabled. It will be removed when the vehicle is next serviced..."

He noted:

"This might impact our response times. The counter argument is that it is better to get there a little later than not at all..."

He added:

"A basic driver cannot go outside the Road Traffic Act. This does not mean that they cannot attend emergency calls, simply that they must do so within their capabilities and within the capabilities of the vehicles."

One officer is quoted as saying:

"The figures that Supt Horton quotes are misleading as a police accident is defined as any incident with which a police vehicle is associated - whoever is to blame and even if there has been no contact between the police vehicle and the one being pursued".

He added:

"This new policy is not being announced publicly in order that Kent's criminals don't find out about it. The fact is that word will start spreading as soon as a stolen car speeds off and they see a patrol car slowing down."

"As the directive comes into force on April 1, you would be forgiven for thinking that this is an early April Fool's joke.I only wish it was.

As he says:

"The truth is that the policy is akin to waving a white flag at criminals."

Nanny is an utter fool, and has become a sick joke, she should be removed from office immediately.

The only beneficiaries of this absurd ruling will be the criminals.

The Dangers Of Faulty Brake Lights

Nanny is very concerned about road safety, so much so in fact that she has instructed her law enforcement officials to make sure that as many motorists are possible are fined for speeding, dangerous driving and the like.

We therefore must commend the Cleveland police for their exceptional vigilance, on Nanny's behalf, in stopping a vehicle with a broken brake light.

The vehicle was an ambulance, just arriving at the A&E department of Hartlepool hospital, with an emergency patient on board.

Noel Gleeson was in severe pain from a spine problem, and was almost within sight of the hospital when the police car pulled over the driver.

At first the ambulance crew thought that the traffic officer just wanted to get past, and slowed down.

However, when the police driver pulled in behind them the ambulance put their own flashing blue lights to alert him there was a patient on board.

Needless to say this was to no avail, the traffic cop persisted and the ambulance was forced to pull over.

Poor Mr Gleeson had to endure growing pain, as the ambulance crew explained the situation to the police.

Mr Gleeson's daughter, Allison McLean, said:

"I understand the officer had a job to do, but could he not have waited until the ambulance had stopped at the hospital and released its patient into the care of the A&E department?"

Cleveland Police said:

"The officer was unaware the ambulance was on a call as no lights were displayed at the time the officer attempted to stop the driver...Had the lights been switched on at the time, the officer would have waited until it reached the hospital before alerting the driver. A brake light was not in operation."

Well done Nanny!

Nanny's Fruit Phobia

Nanny is very worried about security matters these days; she spends many a sleepless night, tossing and turning in her bed, thinking through the "worst case scenarios" that may befall her and her "charges".

In view of the many "perceived threats" to her person, she has been trying to institute a number of safeguards eg; control orders, id cards, ASBO's and the like.

However, things have been really getting Nanny down recently; inevitably this has had an effect on her "risk awareness matrix".

She has now developed a genuine, and pathological fear, of fruit.

As such, the mere sight of a banana or apple will send her rushing for cover under the table.

As for cumquats, well don't even get me started on what they do to her.

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided that fruit is now persona no grata in her presence.

The new anti fruit ruling was implemented at Nanny's party conference in Wales this weekend. Security forces were under strict orders to prevent fruit being brought into the conference hall.

However, some did try to bring some in. The BBC have reported that at least three apples and one banana were detained at the entrance to the hall.

I kid you not!

The Dangers Posed To Aircraft By Pubs

Nanny has some very strange notions at times; however, this particular notion of her's counts as her daftest.

Seemingly Nanny has got it into her warped and twisted old head that pubs constitute a threat to the safety of aircraft.

What???

Are you drunk Ken?

No, sadly I am not.

I will elaborate.

Nanny, you will recall, has decided to allow pubs and clubs to apply for licensees to extend their 11pm closing.

As with anything that Nanny does, she cannot resist placing a whopping great caveat on her seemingly "open minded and kind hearted" gesture.

Pubs and clubs that wish to apply for an extension in their opening hours, have to complete a particularly long winded and bureaucratic form. In fact, they have to submit over 200 papers.

Within this pile of paperwork the hapless licensee has to provide a number of details, that to any normal person would seem irrelevant and daft. However, as we all know, Nanny reserves the right to obtain details on the very minutiae of our lives; that is the way that she maintains her control over us.

Anyhoo, in this particular case she has stipulated that the following "issues" need to be complied with; before she will even accept an application for an extension:

• Pubs and clubs must submit a risk assessment of the lighting in their premises, to ensure that it does not threaten aircraft. You will of course be aware that many pubs in Britain have been around for well over 100 years, I do not recall many aircraft nosediving into any in that time.



• Publicans must provide an analysis of the houses and premises that their customers pass, when they make their way home.



• Publicans have been told that if a customer becomes drunk and disorderly, they cannot throw him/her out onto the street as is now the case. Presumably Nanny feels that confining an unruly customer, in a confined and crowed pub, is safer than allowing him/her to get outside and get some air?



• Landlords must submit a plan of their premises, even though they will have already submitted such a plan before.



• Eleven copies of the application must be made.

These daft rules demonstrate Nanny's mindset, she is a dangerous control freak who has no intention of relinquishing power.

Nanny's Control Orders

Nanny's chum, Fungus Clarke, has said this week that his control order scheme is working well.

That's nice to hear!

We all feel much safer, now that Fungus and Nanny can confine people that they deem to be a threat to our security.

Er one small point chaps, I think that you have forgotten these two characters.

Surely they should be covered by a control order as well?










.

A Pinch of Salt

Those of you with long memories may recall that my very first article, on this site, was about Nanny's campaign against salt. Dear old Nanny employed the dubious talents of a "bit part actor", called Sid the Slug, to warn us of the dangers of eating too much salt.

Ah, halcyon days!

I have to confess that I found that campaign to be rather hypocritical; given the fact that Nanny happily feeds school children processed muck, that is loaded to the gunnels with salt and other crap.

Ho hum, Nanny never does think things through.

Anyhoo, it seems that Nanny's clamp-down on salt is, as we all knew, utter bollocks.

This week US specialists have described the anti salt campaign as unscientific and ineffective.

Dick Hanneman, president of the Salt Institute, at a conference in London said:

"If salt reduction was a pill and not a policy it wouldn't pass muster our (U.S.) regulatory authorities, and it shouldn't be promoted by your Government..".

He said that efforts to show that cutting salt consumption actually reduced deaths had proved inconclusive. Out of twelve studies; only one had identified a health benefit, three had found potential risks and eight had found that reducing salt made essentially no difference.

David McCarron, a visiting professor at the University of California at Davis, said that evidence was accumulating that the real cause of high blood pressure was the quality of the diet, not whether it contained salt.

Britain's policy is stuck in the past, he said, there's news!

He cited evidence that moving to a diet richer in fruit, vegetables and dairy products had a far greater effect on blood pressure than reducing salt.

Exactly, as usual with Nanny's food fads it is utter codswallop (there's a word I haven't used for a while!) to blame one single food for the Nation's ills.

I would like to remind Nanny that if she were really serious about her anti salt campaign, she would stop feeding British school children the poisonous processed muck dished out in school canteens across the country.

Note the daily allowance for a child's school meal in Britain is 37p.

However, as we all know, improving the diet of school children would cost money; something that Nanny is only prepared to spend on the children of her chums in the European Commission (see yesterday's article).

Nanny's New Creche

Nanny and her friends love children, they know that if they get their hands on a young impressionable mind then it is theirs for life.

As such, Nanny spares no expense in ensuring that the young are properly cared for in a nurturing environment.

Well, actually what I mean to say is that Nanny spares no expense when it comes to looking after her own children and the children of her friends and acolytes.

In a particularly lavish display of ostentatious expenditure Nanny's chums in the European Union are building a subsidised creche for their brats, where places will cost more than £20,000 a year.

Those of you needing a small reality check here, should know that the fees at Eton are more or less the same.

The 180 place creche will open next year, for the children of the workers of the general secretariat.

Although the places cost £20K per annum, the workers will only have to pay £3K. The remaining £17K will come out of our pockets.

Well, as Nanny says, children are our future!

The Art of Ladder Climbing

Nanny strongly believes in "risk avoidance"; an absurd attitude, as one can never eliminate risks. Indeed, risk and struggle gives life meaning.

Anyhoo, Nanny feels that one way to avoid risk is to ensure that people are properly trained to undertake their daily tasks.

Unfortunately Nanny insists that people are disbarred from taking certain actions, if they have not received the requisite training. Needless to say Nanny's training schemes cover the minutiae of daily routines.

One such training scheme involves training police officers in the ancient art of ladder climbing.

The result of Nanny's inflexible attitude to training meant that one group of police officers in Middleton, Manchester, were unable to investigate the vandalism of a church in Middleton.

The reason?

They had not yet been of the ladder climbing training course.

Spiffing!

The Dangers of Tea

Here is rather an old story, that I have only just come across, it well illustrates the daftness of Nanny and her acolytes.

Seemingly in May last year, council bosses in Birmingham banned wardens who care for the elderly from making tea for the elderly.

The reason?

Health and safety issues!

Nanny's Burden on Business

It seems that Nanny is proving to be rather an expensive "luxury" to have around these days.

A report from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) shows that UK firms have been landed with a stonking £39BN bill for the implementation of Nanny's avalanche of regulations, introduced since Blairy Poppins took power.

The BCC's "business barometer", compiled by London and Manchester Business Schools, reckons that 46 major pieces of legislation have been introduced in the last six years.

These rules and red tape have placed an intolerable financial burden on business. BCC Director General, David Frost, said:

"British businesses are fed up with the spiraling costs of regulation,".

Maybe it is time that we put dear old Nanny into a retirement home.

The Dangers of Allotments

Nanny clearly has too much time on her hands these days, as she seeks to poke her nose into the minutiae of her "charges" lives.

It is reported that Nanny's chums from a "council Allotment Working Party" sent Andrew Pittman a 3 page "risk assessment", outlining the risks of his allotment.

The document gave him a list of recommendations, including:

• Putting a lid on his water butt to avoid drowning



• Covering the end of bean canes to prevent eye injuries



• Moving tools off footpaths to avoid tripping



• Replacing glass frost covers with plastic ones

Needless to say Mr Pittman is unimpressed, as indeed am I.

You may wonder how it is that Nanny has the time, and the resources, to waste on such nonsense.

Well the answer is simple, nearly 7 million people now work for Nanny; many holding non productive jobs such as admin. These people have time on their hands, and as such have to justify their own existence; hence the creation of "risk assessments".

As to the cost, Nanny doesn't give a stuff about that; the costs are covered by our taxes.

Nanny's Wordspeak

Nanny has implemented the old "Orwellian" trick, first mooted in Orwell's book "1984", of controlling the language in order to control what people can think.

Nanny's chums in both the government and the National Union of Teachers are banning pupils from using sexist insults at school, they fear that derogatory words can reinforce behaviour that leads to domestic violence.

Words such as "slag" have now been deemed to be "unspeak", ie you cannot use them.

Now dear Nanny, please tell us how you intend to ensure that pupils never utter these words again?

Paid informers perchance?

Nanny Bans Pencil Cases

Well it's finally happened, Nanny has "flipped her lid".

In what can only be described as the most ridiculous and daft of edicts to have ever issued forth from Nanny's troubled mind, Nanny has decided to ban pencil cases.

Pencil cases?

Yes, pencil cases!

Nanny's chums at St Anne's Primary School in Denton, Greater Manchester, have banned pupils from taking in pencil cases; after one of their pupils was accidentally stabbed with a letter opener, by a fellow pupil, who had concealed the opener in a pencil case.

Glenys Dyer, head teacher at St Anne's, said:

"We have banned all pupils from bringing pencil cases and their contents into school to prevent any other potentially harmful instruments being brought into the classroom."

She said the decision to exclude the child sent a:

"clear message to both the child and the school community that this is unacceptable behaviour which we take very seriously."

No Glenys, what it says is that you and Nanny are idiots.

What about compasses?

They are dangerous, are you going to ban geometry lessons as well?

What about cutlery, used in the canteen?

Cutlery can be used as a weapon.

Are you going to ban lunch?

Oops, sorry, I forgot that Nanny has already banned metal cutlery on planes. Ever tried eating a steak with a plastic knife...thanks a lot Mr Bin Liner!

At the end of the day, banning pencil cases is utter bollocks.

What a sorry state we are in.

Nanny Gets The Hump

It seems that the scourge of speeding drivers, ambulances and fire engines may be removed from our streets.

There are reports that Nanny may consider removing road humps, in some areas.

Nanny has finally woken up to the blindingly obvious facts about road humps:

• They cause "speeders" to drive down roads where there are no humps



• They delay ambulances and fire engines; thus costing lives.

In other words they don't work.

Unfortunately Nanny's chums in ROSPA have put their noses into this, warning that any local authority which removed humps might be sued by the families of people killed by speeding vehicles.

Now maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't the grieving families be suing the speeding driver not the council?

This is a fine example of the blame culture being taken to extremes.

If I make and sell knives; and some idiot uses one of these to kill someone, surely the murderer is the guilty party not I?

Nanny's Schizophrenia

I have a feeling that dear old Nanny is getting a little "past it" in her dotage, and that she is becoming a tad schizophrenic.

My chief concern is her obsession with pushing her much derided, dangerous and ill considered control orders bill through parliament.

This bill seeks to give the Home Secretary, Nanny's chum Fungus Clarke, powers to place suspected terrorists under house arrest and restrict their access to the net and telephones.

Indeed Nanny and Fungus and are so fed up with the opposition that this bill is receiving that they are letting their guard down, and showing their exasperation.

Fungus said:

"I have spent decades of my life being patronised by lawyers, and I do not appreciate it".

Does that mean he does not respect the law?

Rather worrying I would say.

Despite the sound bites being put out by Nanny and her chums, about safety over liberty, there does seem to be some confusion as to who exactly would be placed under "house arrest" if the bill were to be passed.

On the one hand the ex Met Chief Sir John Stevens happily tells the press that there are around 200 terrorists in Britain, waiting to blow us all up; on the other hand, Nanny says she doesn't think that anyone would be placed un house arrest yet.

Then, for good measure Blairy Poppins herself said that she would consider using the control order on protesters expected at the Gleneagles G8 summit later this year.

This last threat is quite bizarre, given the fact that Blairy's chum Gordon "Smiler" Brown made a speech a few days ago asking people to go along and protest about poverty at the G8 summit.

Erm if anyone can tell me what the hell is going on there, I would be greatly obliged!

Now the real problem I have with Nanny's "twin track" approach to control orders is this.

Nanny is still trying, admirably enough, to achieve a full and final peace settlement in Northern Ireland. To do this she has bent over backwards dealing with a variety of "interesting" characters, from that very broad political church that inhabits Northern Ireland.

One of the organisations that she deals with is Sinn Fein, you know, that organisation headed by Gerry Adams and his mate Martin. These two guys were recently outed by the Dublin government as being leading lights in the IRA, we all knew that anyway; but it was nice to have it confirmed.

Now the IRA announced yesterday that it would be happy to shoot, yes shoot, the people who murdered in cold blood Robert McCartney. Robert's sisters are campaigning to have the murderers brought to justice.

The sisters have, quite rightly, rejected the IRA's kind offer of "summary justice"; preferring instead to have the courts deal with the matter, if any one of the 60 witnesses have the bottle to come forward and tell the police what they saw.

Nanny might like to take a lesson from these ladies; specifically Nanny should note that they prefer to follow "due process", via trial and jury, rather than dispense summary justice sanctioned by the "executive".

Herein lies the problem; on the one hand Nanny is happy to impose house arrest on people who she deems to be a threat, eg protesters at the G8. Yet she will not place Gerry and Martin under house arrest, even though the IRA have for decades been happily killing and maiming both British and Irish citizens.

A tad schizophrenic wouldn't you say?

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is Father

I am a firm believer in the maxim "manners maketh man"; in my opinion, in order for a society to function smoothly and with minimum friction, it is essential that people treat each other with politeness and respect.

However, as usual when Nanny sticks her nose into the affairs of her "charges", Nanny has oversteped the mark in imposing her views on the rest of us.

It is reported that schools in Britain will spend nearly £10M teaching children how to make friends, resolve squabbles and learn manners.

Nanny's friends in the Department of Education have said that social and emotional skills are no longer the main responsibility of parents.

In other words Nanny wants to take over the role of the biological parents, and become mother and father.

Children will be encouraged to talk about their emotions and play a quiz called "Guess what I am feeling?". They then will design an "emotional barometer" to rate the strength of their feelings.

They will be encouraged to pass round a cuddly toy to stroke to help them understand the "nice" feelings resulting from a compliment.

Once again Nanny has shown that her mission is to make people dependent on her, thus ensuring that she will always have a role to play.

Nanny must be made to understand that it is not the role of the state to act as surrogate parents.

As David Hart, of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:

"Once again, schools are being used to make good the deficiencies of parents..I think there's a distinct danger that we are drifting more and more into the nanny state."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Nanny Bans Chocolate

Nanny has lectured us for quite some time now about the evils of our poor diet. Yet she has been saddened and shocked by the fact that we just keep on ignoring her, what a shame!

Well she is fed up with being ignored like this, she is after all only trying to help us live "better" lives.

To this end she has decided to take a more proactive approach.

She has decided to ban chocolate.

Nurses working for Barnsley Hospital Care Trust have now been banned from buying chocolate. The ban affects 3 hospitals in the area; chocolate will no longer be sold in the staff canteens, as part of a health drive.

This rather nasty, and spiteful, attempt at restricting an innocent pleasure may in fact be just the tip of the iceberg.

You see Nanny now employs around 7 million people in the UK, that is quite a large section of the population over which she can exercise control.

I have a suspicion that those who work for Nanny will soon see other areas of their private lives restricted, as she takes a more proactive approach to enforcing her narrow views about how we should be living our lives.

Nanny Cries Wolf

Doubtless you will recall that Nanny got her knickers into a right old twist approximately 10 days ago, as the Sudan Scandal broke wind.

Indeed Nanny got herself into such a flap, that she managed to panic the media and the British people into believing that we were all going to die from cancer; as a result of eating food products that contained Sudan I chili powder.

Hundreds of different brands were removed from supermarket shelves, as one of the largest product recalls in British history got under way; in other words there was blind panic.

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I took Nanny's hysterical claims with a proverbial pinch of "chili".

We have lived through egg scares, salt scares, fat scares and countless other hysterical food scares; I doubted that one more "suspect" food would change the overall threat matrix.

It seems that I was right.

Nanny's chums in the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health have recently issued a press release, I reproduce it in full below, the upshot of which is that the Sudan scare is bollocks and a total over reaction; if you take into account the other "threats" to our health.

I wonder if Nanny and the media will apologise for trying the scare the "**it" out of us?

Will they f**k!

Any guesses as to which food will next be subject to an hysterical outburst from Nanny?

Text of Press Release

Sudan1 - An Unnecessary Scare

It is not surprising that people are inclined to panic if they cannot get a clear picture of the risks they are being exposed to, particularly where food additives are concerned, says the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health.

Head of Policy Alastair McCapra commented "The public might find it helpful if the Food Standards Agency gave a clearer scientific account of what is happening. The science behind food-related risk is often complex and indeterminate. But people will have to learn to get to grips with that. What we want to know is "If I eat 1 gramme of Sudan 1 food dye every week for the rest of my life, how are my chances of developing cancer affected?"

"There is little point in trying to communicate risk to the public in general terms by talking about 'high' or 'low' risk. If people are advised that Sudan 1 may cause cancer they need to know what this means. How much Sudan 1 is as dangerous as one cigarette, for example? Personally I'd like to know whether it is riskier for me to eat food containing traces of Sudan 1 every day or to ride a bicycle through central London every day."

"The Food Standards Agency has acted consistently and transparently in the public interest since it first became aware of the risk from Sudan 1 back in 2003 and began to organise product withdrawals. However it is not helping itself now by sending out mixed messages. To the public it says 'the risk is likely to be very small', while its guidance to local authorities is that they should ensure that affected products are removed from sale 'as a matter of urgency."

"We are in an impossible situation at the moment where we expect national agencies to protect us from many vanishingly small risks. If these agencies do not act decisively they will be accused of complacency. If they do act decisively, as the Food Standards Agency has done, they risk causing panic. If they wish to continue commanding public confidence, they must talk about science and risk in a more sophisticated way."

'Ultimately there are plenty of things in your food you should be more worried about than Sudan 1 - particularly salt, fat and sugar. If people are concerned about their food and about their health, eating more fruit and vegetables and less processed food is a good thing to do, regardless of whether it contains Sudan 1 or not.'

Nanny Misuses ASBO

You will doubtless recall that when ASBO's (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) were introduced, Nanny assured us that they were to be used to improve the quality of life eg; noisy neighbours and unruly teenagers would be disciplined by the serving of these legal instruments.

There were those that doubted Nanny's good intentions; they suspected that the ASBO could, and would, be used for other matters.

Now we see that they have been used for other matters, entirely unrelated to the original stated intention of these legal instruments.

It is reported that Kim Sutton, a suicidal woman, with a predilection for trying to jump into rivers etc has had an ASBO served on her.

The ASBO bans her from jumping into rivers and canals, or from going on to railway lines. Additionally, it forbids her from going alone to multi-storey car parks.

Seemingly Sutton faces jail if she breaches the terms of the two-year order.

Now it is very clear that the lady needs some help.

However, how on earth does the issuance of an ASBO, with a threatened prison term, help her?

Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of Sane, said:

"An Asbo is a quite inappropriate way of dealing with someone with mental issues and could make that person even more determined to go through with a suicide attempt."

This is only the thin end of the wedge. I suspect that we will see ASBO's used more and more in a variety of "innovative" ways both by Nanny, and by people looking to settle old scores.

Nanny Bans British Bulldog

Nanny can be a "daft and dangerous old coot" at times, as she pokes her unwelcome nose into the affairs of "her charges".

Her most recent attempt to control our daily lives concerns the harmless antics that go on in childrens' playgrounds across the country.

Her acolytes in Broomley First School, Stocksfield, rather than worrying about the rise in gang culture and assaults that are sweeping our schools; have focused their pinched interfering noses at the harmless games of British Bulldog and tag.

Nanny's acolytes feel that these games are too dangerous for the "delicate flowers" that attend Broomley First and, as such, have banned them from being played by the children.

I would note that these games, and their variants, have been played down the centuries by previous generations; without major disaster.

However, Nanny knows best!

The parents, not surprisingly, are up in arms about this absurd decision; they feel that it is way too overprotective.

They joined children in a breaktime protest rally, and have started a "Vote for Bulldog" petition; in an attempt to have the ruling reversed.

The school argue that the ban is necessary, to prevent children from being hurt.

This of course is utter nonsense; by covering the children in cotton wool like this they will be ill prepared for the reality of what is a very harsh and unforgiving world.

As on parent said:

"Yes, children fall over and scratch themselves or tear their trousers, but it is an important part of social behaviour that when a child falls over others know how to react. Games like these help them grow up into responsible adults."

By destroying the childrens' ability to stand up for themselves as adults, Nanny makes them more dependent on her for protection and guidance; dependence is of course what she wants.

Nanny is, in effect, committing child abuse; by depriving children of a necessary learning experience.

I hope that someone prosecutes her.

Nanny Gets The DT's

Nanny has a real bee in her bonnet at the moment about binge drinking, yet she has taken rather a schizophrenic stance on the subject.

On the one hand she harangues us about the dangers of excessive imbibing, yet on the other she happily relaxes the licensing laws.

Note, it is perfectly clear that the length of time that a pub/club is open is not the issue in respect of people drinking themselves into a coma.

The real issue is the fact that the modern "pubs/clubs" cater exclusively to those under the age of 25; they pack them in, bombard them with loud music and sell booze cheap.

Well of course this age group is going to drink themselves sick; in that awful environment, wouldn't you?

The solution, if you are listening Nanny, is to encourage people of all ages to drink together; eg bring back traditional pubs. The social restraints brought about by mixing the ages will ensure that people take a more sensible approach in respect of drinking.

However, as long as the big drinks companies adopt their current tactic of targeting only the under 25's and ignoring the rest of the population that won't happen.

Anyhoo, enough of that, my real story here is about the rather bizarre attempt being made by Nanny's friends in the University of Strathclyde to reduce the levels of binge drinking in the student class.

They have decided that all that students need, is to be told that drinking too much is bad for them.

That will work, won't it?

They have decided to get this message across by sticking labels onto glasses and mirrors, and hiding messages in library books.

A real winner here guys!

The best part of this scheme, clearly thought up after a few pints, is that the messages will be sponsored.

Guess who will be sponsoring them?

Yes, that's right, Diageo!

Those of you not familiar with Diageo, they are one of the UK's largest drinks firms; you know, the people who sell alco pops etc to the under 25's and get them to drink themselves into a coma.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but this scheme sounds like utter bollocks!

For reference a standard student stunt, in my day at Edinburgh, was for people to drink a yard of Guinness mixed with baked beans.

Now please tell me how a scheme of stickers and notes will dissuade students, with that sort of mindset, from excess drinking?

Nanny's Dose of The Clamps

Nanny, as we all know, loves to regulate all manner of activities; ranging from our eating and drinking habits to pancake tossing.

This site is dedicated to making people aware of the increased level of state interference in our daily lives.

Yet, on some rare occasions, a regulation and a slap on the wrist from Nanny is a good thing.

Nanny has, for sometime now, been promising to regulate the activities of the cowboy wheel clampers; rouge organisations who make a fat living out of extorting money from people who have parked illegally.

One such "naughty little boy", who needs a sound spanking, is Costas Constantinou.
He is the boss of a London based wheel clamping firm, that has been named as the UK's worst clamper for the second time running by the RAC.

Costas, whose company Vehicle Clamping Securities (VCS) operates across London, won the RAC Foundation's "Dick Turpin" award for charging a stonking £423 for clamping and towing away and £35 a day for storage.

Costs claims that the charges were necessary to ensure "the job was done properly".

Seemingly, in order to ensure that the job is "done properly", one of Costas's employees allegedly threatened to break the windows of a motorist's car when he protested about the £423 fee for the return of his car.

As Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said about cowboy clampers:

"they have been getting away with legalised mugging for too long."

Now dear old Nanny was meant to make the clamping vehicles on private land, without a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence, a criminal offence on Monday.

Unfortunately owing to her incompetence, too few have completed a training course, this legislation has been postponed indefinitely.

Nanny is happy to pass countless ill thought out regulations at the drop of a hat, and at break neck speed, yet something as useful and as simple as this is beyond her.

It's a funny old world!