Nanny Bans Nelson

Nanny is up to her old tricks again.

This time one of our greatest Naval heroes, Admiral Lord Nelson, has caught her gimlet eye.

Admiral Nelson, as you will recall gave the French a right old drubbing at the Battle of Trafalgar 200 years ago this October.

To mark the 200th anniversary there will be a re-enactment next month at Southsea.

However, Nanny's chums from the political correctness brigade have put their oars into the event (a nice little naval pun, don't you think folks?).

Nanny has decided that she does not want to offend the French, and so the re-enactment will be between a red fleet and blue fleet; not the French and British.

So much for Nanny's ambition to educate people with facts.

Nanny has also meddled with the official literature. It describes the re-enactment not as the battle of Trafalgar but simply as "an early 19th-century sea battle".

What utter codswhallop!

In the 1805 sea battle off the coast of Spain, Nelson's 27 ships destroyed a combined French and Spanish fleet of 33 ships. The British lost no ships but sank or captured 22 of their opponents' vessels.

Although Nelson died in the battle, his victory paved the way for Britain's naval supremacy, which lasted a century.

Nanny is a fool.

The French are, as we can see from Sunday's EU vote, perfectly capable embarrassing themselves; we don't have any desire, or need, to do that.

Nanny Bans Knives

It's a funny thing when I first started Nanny Knows Best, back in September 2004, I wondered if there would be enough material to keep it going.

How wrong I was!

I find on some days that a small backlog of Nanny Nonsense actually piles up.

This particular story has been well aired by many on the net, therefore it is hardly "breaking news". However, Nanny Knows Best aims to be a suppository (yes I did watch a lot of Carry On films when I grew up!) of all the Nanny Nonsense that she tries to inflict upon us. Therefore I include it for completeness.

It seems that Nanny's chums in the medical profession, forever telling us to stop smoking eating and drinking have got a new bee in their bonnet.

Kitchen knives!

It appears that kitchen knives are, well how shall I put this?

Too sharp!

Hmm, tricky one that; I am a reasonably good cook (see "Accountants Can Cook") and can tell you that a blunt knife is far more dangerous than a sharp one.

Anhyoo, Nanny does not like reality to get in the way of her edicts.

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives, to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital has said that violent crime is on the increase, and that kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

The assaults are more often than not committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs. The kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

Hello, how else do you expect me to dismember my dead animal carcasses for cooking or the corpses of my neighbours who I have senselessly killed in a drug fulled frenzy last night?

They say that they have consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, well they didn't bloody ask me!

The "top 10 chefs" (yes I am peeved!), have said that such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

Piffle!

I have a use for all of my knives.

The chefs felt such knives were not essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault, but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

That's alright then, isn't it?

I would remind you all of a little piece of history, concerning the advantages of the short stabbing spear and the long throwing spear.

For centuries the tribesmen of Africa used throwing spears in battle. They went along, chucked their spears then went home.

Now the Zulus came up with a cunning plan.

They invented the short stabbing spear.

This enabled them to stab someone, then re use it again and again.

The result?

The Zulu nation was born.

Think about it!

Nanny Bans Scooby Doo

Dear oh dear, Nanny has banned another harmless children's activity.

This time it is the "scoubidou" craze.

School pupils at Cliff Lane Primary school in Ipswich have been banned from weaving plastic into key fobs at playtime, because it is too dangerous!

Seemingly some of the kids have been flicking their chums in the face.

That's easily remedied, simply confiscate the scoubidous from the flickers, and let the others continue to play with them.

As the school says, it was an isolated incident.

As usual Nanny over reacts.

Nanny Bans Words - Epilogue

My two previous articles covered Nanny's pathetic attempts to change the English language, in order to control our thoughts.

Orwell, in his classic "1984", warned us of a time when a totalitarian regime would seek to control people's thoughts by expunging the language of "unnecessary" words.

After all, if you don't have words you don't have the ability to think do you?

Aldous Huxley, in his book "Brave New World", also warned of a society where the state controlled people's lives. This time not so much by "wordspeak", but by social and genetic engineering; whereby society was engineered into various groups: alpha, beta, delta and gamma.

Needless to say the alphas were on top, whilst the gammas were given the short end of the stick. They were limited in their intelligence, and their education was kept to a minimum.

The state used a mixture of drugs and mind numbing programming to ensure that the various groups were kept pacified.

Doesn't this sound a little familiar?

What?

I hear you say.

Ken you exaggerate, surely?

Maybe not.

I watched Newsnight (ooh a link, that's rare!) on Thursday evening, and saw a report about the Britannia Village Primary School in East London.

Only Nanny would use the obviously daft word of "village", to describe a school in the East End of London.

The new Headmistress of this school, is fed up with the lousy literacy levels of her pupils, and has decided to abandon Nanny's prescription of the National Literacy Strategy and opt for phonics teaching.

I wish her well, she has an uphill task.

You see Ladies and Gentlemen (oops I used a proscribed word again!), the children featured in the report (see it via this link Britannia) could not even read words such as:

-Cat
-That
-With

They could not even pronounce the letter "D".

Read the above again, and weep, then read it again just to make sure your really have taken it in.

By the way, in case you think that maybe the children were too young to be able to tackle such difficult words as cat, you need to know that they were between 7-9 years old.

I had read Jane Eyre twice by the time I was 8.

Something has gone very wrong with our education system, to allow this state of affairs to exist.

Nanny claims to care, but does she really?

You see, if the children cannot read basic words, how can they possibly think for themselves.

They will grow into adults with no skills, abilities or ambitions. They will become totally reliant on Nanny to feed and house them.

Nanny will keep them pacified by ensuring that they can continue to watch mindless cack, such as Big Brother and East Enders.

In short we are already living in a hybrid of "1984" and "Brave New World".

Meanhwile Nanny continues to concentrate on the important issues, such as banning the use of the word "ladies".

Nanny Bans More Words

Nanny's chums in that old dinosaur of a forgotten and useless organisation the TUC have suddenly woken up.

They have realised that they are totally ignored these days, and decided to put matters right.

How have they done this?

Easy.

They have issued an Orwellian directive proscribing certain words.

Guaranteed to give them some free publicity.

Obviously our "brothers" in the TUC have not read 1984, in which Orwell pointed out the dangers of "wordspeak" interference.

Anyhoo, the TUC has set out its "concerns" about the English language in a document called Diversity in Action; this advises trade unionists on the "appropriate use of language" on race, sex and age.

Seemingly words such as "lady", "granddad" and "youth" are now verbotten. These will cause offence in some circumstances, it says.

On age, it says:

"Being old in British society carries connotations of being worn out and of little further use."

Just like the TUC!

The guide says "granddad" and "grandma" may offend some people, as well as "old fool" and "old codger".

It goes on: "Equally, 'youth' has connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty." "Young people" is preferable.

I prefer yob, myself.

In the section on sex and language, the guide says:

"The term 'lady' is not universally accepted and should not generally be used. The terms 'love', 'dear' and 'pet' may offend some people, especially women, and should not be used."

It is acceptable to use "black" to describe colour, as in blackboard, black coffee and black bin bag. But the guide says terms such as black sheep, blacklist, black mark and black looks, although not linked to skin colour, reinforce a negative view of all things black.

There you are ladies and gentlemen (oops sorry I used a proscribed word there), another fine example of money and time being wasted on trivia.

The TUC don't care though, because they are spending the subs of their members.

Nanny Bans Bristols

Nanny has had another attack of Orwellian correctness.

Her friends in Wyre Forest Council are concerned that the English language contains words that do not really please them.

As such, much like a jumped up third world failing dictator, they have decided to ban these "offensive" words.

What are the words that the good people of Wyre Forest are no longer allowed to speak?

-Ship shape

-Bristol fashion

-Nitty gritty

It seems that, according to the Orwellian thought police, these may refer to the slave trade. Needless to say, they have got it wrong, see below.

To be fair to the morons at Wyre Forest Council, this is not entirely of their own doing.

You see they hired consultants, yes that's right they spent your money on consultants, to tell them what words are no longer de rigueur.

By the way, if you want to hire these Orwellian thought police you can contact them at Aldridge Training Solutions. I have tried to find a website for this oragnisation, but cannot. I would be grateful if someone can provide contact details for publication on this site.

Money well spent I think, don't you?

Needless to say the good people of Bristol are well pissed off at the slur on their good name.

The city's Lord Mayor, Peter Abraham, said he had always understood the term referred to the standard of sailors and ships in the city and pre-dated links with slavery.

Mr Abraham said:

"I have used the phrase for 60 years and my family has there is no way it can be regarded as politically incorrect."

Bristol historian Gerry Brooke said:

"These councillors have certainly got the wrong end of the stick. Bristol was a very difficult port to work in before its floating harbour was built".

Adding:

"The term comes because vessels built and loaded in the city were always first class."

Disregarding the facts, the 15 council members who attended the council's equality and diversity meeting were instructed to stand by the ruling.

Nice to see they are keeping an open mind!

Wyre Forest councillor Ken Stokes, when interviewed by the press, said the terms were now taboo has even apologised for repeating the phrase "nitty gritty" over the phone.

What a prat!

There is still some common sense in the council. Councillor June Salter said:

"The political correctness is getting pathetic. I am not racist and I don't need to be told how not to be a racist, which is why I didn't attend."

I for one am getting mighty fed up with the morons running this country.

It is time to let them know what we think of them.

As such I suggest that we have an informal competition, compose an email that contains all of the above banned phrases; and send it to the good people at Wyre Forest Council.

Here is their email address communications@wyreforestdc.gov.uk

Please copy your email into the comments box, and the best/most original may (if I am in a very good mood) win a T shirt. You must confirm that you have sent it to the council.

The competition will be open for as long as I can be bothered, and any decision as to who wins will be entirely dependent on my mood at the time.

Good luck!

Nanny Bans Gum

Good news everybody, Nanny has decided that yet another aspect of our lives needs to be micro managed.

This time she has turned her beady little eyes to the problem of chewing gum, spat out upon the street.

Doesn't this all remind you of John Major's doomed "cone hot line" fetish, which he went on about as his government slowly collapsed around him?

Anyhoo Nanny has set up a nice new quango (not Tango), called the Chewing Gum Action Group (CGAG)!

CGAG has announced a drive to cut the amount of discarded gum in trial areas of Manchester, Preston in Lancashire and Maidstone, Kent.

It seems that to aid this new "initiative", disposal pouches will be handed out in pedestrian areas and distributed through retail outlets.

There will even be an advertising campaign in shopping areas, on telephone boxes and beer mats will try to persuade users to dispose of their gum responsibly.

Guess who will be paying for that then?

Yes, that's right, us!

There will also be a system of fines imposed for gum offences, ranging from £50 to £75.

In addition to the campaign, special gum wardens will be trained to monitor people's gum spitting activity.

Now call me stupid, but don't we already have an anti litter campaign system of fines in place?

The trouble with Nanny and her acolytes is that they know that they are failing to manage to country effectively, in respect of the major issues such as; health, education and transport. Therefore they try to distract everyone's attention by creating a flurry of unnecessary and expensive activity in areas of little consequence.

That, my friends, is the first step on the road towards dictatorship.

Nanny Bans Yobs

Much is being made in the press, by Nanny and by other politicians of the "yob" culture that seemingly has engulfed Britain.

We are being bombarded with stories about yobbish behaviour, ranging from stories about youths "hanging around in shopping centres" to violent assaults.

It is clear that something needs to be done to "correct" this situation.

Nanny is happily issuing a veritable avalanche of legislation that she claims will address this issue. ASBO's, "respect" and street patrols are being used to fight the yob epidemic.

Unfortunately not all of Nanny's chums are on message, Professor Morgan of the Youth Justice Board has said that the current debate about youth crime was sending out "contradictory messages".

On the one hand children were represented as the "country's aspirations", and on the other the were "condemned as thugs in hooded tops".

Quote:

"We use the word 'yob' without distinguishing between very young children - who haven't chosen their parents, their neighbourhoods or their circumstances and can't walk away from them, and young adults...I don't think the word 'yob' should ever be used in relation to young children."

He said respect - the new buzzword for Labour's third term ambition to cut anti-social behaviour - was a "two-way street" and needed to be earned by adults.

I have a degree of sympathy with Professor Morgan's point about contradictory messages; the more you inflate a teenager's ego by telling him/her that they are the centre of the universe, the more likely they are to behave in a spoilt and uncontrollable way.

Even the phrase "yob" may be wrong.

Let us take the well publicised case of the 3 teen mothers (age range 12 to 16) who all live in the same council house, they are sisters, who have all had babies and who now claim £31K per year from us the tax payers.

Their mother blames the school for their pregnancies; funny that, I thought that getting pregnant involved having sex.

Are they yobs?

No.

They are feckless scum.

Let us forget the nonsense about labels and using the levers of state to control teenagers.

Teenagers, as we all know, are useless lumps of overheated hormones that need to be strictly controlled until their frontal lobes have developed enough to enable them to control themselves.

The most effective form of control comes from the family, not Nanny and the state.

The most effective means of making the family take responsibility for the behaviour of their offspring is to make the family suffer when their offspring misbehave.

Nanny thinks jail and fines may be the answer to this.

Wrong!

The most effective way to make a family of scum bags suffer is to remove their TV set and to lock them up in their own house, without the TV, together.

Once deprived of the electronic mogadon the family would be forced to interact with each other, and the parents would see precisely how loutish and unpleasant their children had become.

I am sure that a few weeks of enforced interaction between the generations would stimulate the parents enough, to take the necessary corrective measures to bring their offspring back onto the "straight and narrow".

A firm hand from a parent is far more effecitve than an "intervention" from Nanny.

The Decline and Fall of Commonsense

I am sure that Nanny is becoming a tad senile in her old age.

Doubtless this senility has been brought about by the avalanche of laws that she has swamped Britain with, over the past few years.

Anyhoo, it seems that even her "mighty" brain may now have become a little confused by it all.

In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the following daftness that goes on in Nanny's immigration service.

The basic rules for non EU immigrants, wishing to work in the UK, is that they need to obtain a National Insurance (NI) number prior to getting a job.

Nanny's Home Office & Immigration website explains that if employers wish to avoid the possibility of prosecution, for employing "illegals", then they should provide evidence that they had checked that their potential employee has the right to work in the UK.

The key check that they must make is to ensure that prospective employees have national insurance numbers.

The Home Office website says that national insurance numbers are accepted by the government, and the courts, of evidence of the fact that the employer has checked out the immigrant's right to work.

The Home Office assume that the process of obtaining an NI number includes checking whether someone has the right to work or not.

But does it?

Now here is where it all goes rather pear shaped.

In order to obtain an NI number, if you are a non EU immigrant, you first need to be employed, and you bring your payslip along with you to the NI application office!

Now the astute readers amongst you will notice that this is a bit of a Catch 22 situation; you can't work without an NI number, yet you cannot obtain an NI number without working!

Don't worry, Nanny has thought of that, the applicant can still obtain an NI number if:

• The applicant had three written job refusals, showing they were seeking work



• The applicant has a written job offer yet to be taken up, which may for example be subject to the granting of an NI number

Now, there are a few problems with this approach:

• How many employers, not wishing to hire someone for a non professional post, will actually write a "refusal letter" in order to aid the acquisition of an NI number?



• In order to obtain an interview with Nanny's lackeys in the NI registration office, the hapless applicant has to have; a payslip, a job offer or three refusals to hand. That's quite a bundle!



• The average wait time for an interview in the NI registration office is two to three months. Therefore if an employer concludes that he will employ the immigrant, after they have an NI number, the employer and potential employee still have to wait two months or more for a decision on whether or not the employee will be given one!

The astute readers will doubtless have concluded that the whole system is bollocks. I suspect that Nanny knows this as well.

For you see dear readers, there is a further way around this "bureaucratic bungle". Nanny's lackeys, so I am told, make the tacit assumption that the job offer letters or refusal letters they see are in fact forged.

In fact so convinced is Nanny of the fact that they are forged, that she does not even bother to check them!

Indeed, Nanny's chums in the Home Office don't even bother to check as to whether the applicant has the right to work in the UK or not.

Living and working in Nanny's Britain is now a farce. The ridiculous system in place encourages people to work on the black market, and to forge their applications.

I fear that it will get worse!

Despot Lands In Hot Water

Nanny's best chum, the ever "respected" smooth talking bar steward of Nu Labour John Despot the Deputy Prime Minister, has landed himself in a little hot water this week by stating that his office will be regulating the maximum temperature of domestic baths.

It seems that Mr Despot is of the opinion that we are just too plain stupid to know as to whether a bath is too hot or not, and that in order to prevent us scalding ourselves he will be taking official action on our behalf.

As part of the plans, which could be implemented next year, thermostatic mixing valves will be fitted in all new homes. These would prevent the water temperature rising beyond a pre-determined Nanny level.

I would point out that the greatest number of accidents in British bathrooms occur as people enter and exit their baths, ie they fall over; doubtless Mr Despot will be legislating against us taking baths as well.

The whole idea stinks!

The Bleedin' Obvious

I see that my local health club has taken lessons at the university of the "bleedin' obvious".

In the shower area, I stumbled across one of those "helpful" warning cones that seem to be breeding in Britain at the moment.

The cone advised me that the floor was wet!

I think that I was probably aware of that anyway.




Now there's a business you can make big money in.

Bloody Hell!

Ain't life odd?

A Shameless Plug

Those of you with nothing better to do, and a desire to see and hear me speak, may care to take a brief sojourn over to one of my other sites www.stopthemerger.org

There you will find a nice little video webcast of me, in which I tell my fellow accountants why the proposed ICAEW merger is a bad idea.

By the way, if any of you know any accountants, please point them in the direction of that site.

Thanks.

Ken

Nanny Bans Armbands

I am told by Carolyn Warner, Chairperson of the Right to Swim Campaign, that ROSPA (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) spoke at a recent meeting with Tessa Jowell.

During this meeting, Nanny's chums from ROSPA expressed their concerns about armbands (of the swimming variety); they stated that armbands are dangerous because a child can take them off!

Erm, do they suggest that the hapless child attach the armbands with superglue?

Nanny Bans Hoodies

Nanny's chums at the Bluewater Shopping Centre have got themselves into a right old funk, can I say funk?

What has caused this funking outbreak?

Well, it seems that the media have been reporting that they are about to ban hoodies.

Hoodies are the latest fashion accessory for the feckless youth of Britain. So lacking in self esteem are our youth, that they choose to hide themselves away under shapeless and ugly hoods; rather than expose themselves to the public gaze.

Now, the media have been running a story that the Bluewater will ban this street attire as, so the story goes, customers are frightened by the sight of spotty faced feckless idle youths congregating in the shopping centre.

I can exclusively reveal that the media have got this story totally wrong.

The hoodies that the Bluewater want to ban are not those worn by teenagers, but the plastic rain hats worn by OAPS.

You see Bluewater know that the highest spending group are in fact teenagers, so spoilt and idle are this group that they have nothing better to do with their money than waste it on overpriced crap; such as mobile phones and the latest five minute fashion "must have".

In effect they are a shopping centre's dream customer.

Don't you find it rather scary that the UK economy is underpinned by the spending habits of teenagers?

On the other hand, elderly shoppers are a veritable pain in the butt.

• They don't spend money



• They moan and complain about prices and quality



• They block the walkways, as they go round in groups complaining and intimidating the young



• They pose a clear and present danger to those on foot, as they recklessly speed around the walkways in those electric buggies; at speeds well in excess of 5 mph

Well, enough is enough.

They are banned, and the easiest way to ban them is to ban the wearing of plastic rain hoods.

As we all know, elderly people cannot go anywhere without these!

Nanny Bans The Daleks

Dear oh dear, Nanny has got herself into a right old state over Dr Who and the Daleks again.

This time she is wringing her hands about the recent episode of Dr Who, which features "scenes of cruelty" to the last Dalek in the universe.

You should be reminded, that the Daleks were not exactly know for their sense of fair play themselves.

Anyhoo, in the end the Dalek issue is resolved by the creature self destructing.

Nanny doesn't like that, and is concerned that this "violent" message sends the wrong signal to children.

So much so in fact, that the BBC have been told by the British Board of Film Classification that they must place a PG warning on their DVD's of this episode.

Nanny's censors say that the sequence sets a bad example to children, because it implies that the only way to resolve disputes is through force allied with cruelty.

A spokesman for Nanny whines:

"However cross one might be with a Dalek, being cruel is not the way to deal with the issue. Some children might take it into the playground."

Now here you see a fundamental problem with Nanny's reasoning. The real world has shown, very clearly, that there are times when only violence can resolve a dispute.

The elimination of the Nazis could only be achieved via violent actions, the appeasement practiced by pre war politicians merely encouraged them to commit greater atrocities.

Indeed, even Blairy Poppins herself is not averse to using violence to "correct" the odd political impasse, eg Iraq.

Now, if you hide this uncomfortable reality from children they will be ill prepared to handle life's problems; thus storing up more trouble for the future.

Violence is as much a part of life as love and laughter.

Sorry Nanny, you can't have one without the other.

Nanny Bans Goggles

It seems that Nanny has got herself into a bit of a muddle over safety in swimming pools.

Specifically, she is confused about the use of goggles.

On the one had Nanny believes that they prevent eye irritation, from the chlorine in the water. However, she has issues with regard to the drowning risk posed by the goggles.

Drowning risk?

Yes, drowning risk.

It seems that Nanny's chums in Gloucester Local Education Authority are advising head teachers to ban children from wearing swimming goggles on safety grounds.

They are worried that the goggles present a "drowning hazard" to other pupils. The LEA fears that teachers could be distracted by having to adjust goggle straps on one child and, in so doing, fail to notice another child drowning.

Let's not even mention the risks of the elastic snapping, and causing a nasty little bruise!

Precisely how many children drown each year because of goggle adjustments?

Another example of rules being made, without any form of statistical data to back them up.

Nibble Nobby's Nuts

There are occasions when Nanny misses a trick, I admit that those ocassions are rare.

However, One such example of her missing a chance to enforce her prudish views on us is demonstrated by the marvelously amusing advert for Nobby's Nuts.

The advert stars none other than seventies pop legend Noddy Holder.

Viewers can watch Noddy being "attacked", in a particular manner, by some men in a pub who get things a little muddled with regard to Nobby's and Noddy's Nuts.

The ad is an absolute hoot, but the advertisers are wary about Nanny's chums in ASA trying to ban it; so they are only airing it after 9PM

However, given ASA's actions in the past I wouldn't put it past them trying to ban it.

Therefore I recommend that you make the most of the opportunity, and watch it here: Nibble Nobby's Nuts.

Nanny Bans Swimming

Nanny is a strange old soul, on the one hand she exhorts us to exercise more; yet, on the other hand, she worries about our safety when we do try to exercise.

One such example of her schizophrenic thinking, is illustrated by the rather odd guideline issued by Nanny's friends in the Institute for Sport and Recreation Management (ISRM).

The guideline states that when families go swimming in public pools, under 8's should be accompanied by an adult who can be responsible for up to two children and that children under 4 years of age should be accompanied on a one to one basis.

In effect they are saying that one parent can only take one child into a public swimming pool, if that child is under 4. Therefore, families with one adult in charge who have one child under 4 and another additional child under 8 cannot go swimming.

Isn't this a little absurd?

I am told by Carolyn Warner, Chairperson of the Right to Swim Campaign, that the ISRM spoke at a recent meeting with Tessa Jowell; they stated that this guideline was based on only anecdotal evidence from its members, and not on any research.

In other words there is no basis for their safety concerns.

In fact ROSPA (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) said, at the same meeting, that it was the over 8's who were at a higher risk of drowning.

However, they can go into a public pool unattended!!!!

The Dead Cat Bounce

There is an expression used by City traders for when a stock, that has collapsed spectacularly in one day, rises by a few percent the next.

This is known as a "dead cat bounce".

Nanny has her own version of the dead cat bounce, which she applies to those taking GCSE's.

Now we all know that life is hard, and that the real world offers you no favours.

However, Nanny feels that children taking exams should not actually be exposed to reality; in her perverse way she thinks that she does them a favour by protecting them from life's harsh realities.

In effect, by "protecting" them from reality she ill prepares them for life; over protection does no one any favours.

Anyhoo, in this particular instance Nanny has decided that when a pet of an exmaninee dies the exmaninee will be credited with an extra 2%. Oh, and if you have a headache, that's worth 1%.

So little Johnny just needs to create a dead pet, and say that he has a headache.

Et voila!

An extra 3%.

Easy money!

Don't believe me?

Then ask Nanny's chums at the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), which represents England's three main exam authorities.

In fact there is a little list of the extra credits that can be earned, that a reasonably street savvy kid can really milk:

-Recent death of parent or close relative - 5%
-Recent death of distant family member - 4%
-Witness to distressing event on day of exam - 3%
-Hay fever - 2%
-Death of family pet on day of exam - 2%
-Pet dies day before exam - 1%
-Headache - 1%

The argument that Nanny puts forward is that the extra credits are there as:

"a way of compensating a candidate who has been genuinely adversely affected by a situation beyond their control."

The problem is that in real life, shit happens!

Nanny is ill equiping the children of today, for the problems of the future.

Nanny Bans Grace

It's a funny old world, despite her Catholic leanings, Nanny seems to have a bee in her bonnet about Christianity.

She has decided to poke her nose into the activities of the Barnabas House refuge, which was set up over ten years ago by the King's Lynn Baptist Church.

The refuge provides shelter for homeless people, between the ages of 16 and 30. It has, until now, received funding from the local county council.

However, Nanny's friends on the council are minded to withdraw that funding.

Why?

The refuge asks its residents to say grace before meals.

Additionally, the council is feeling a bit "iffy" about the bibles that are placed in rooms and the "Christian ethos" of the refuge.

I understand that the fact that the refuge bans drink and drugs, a rather good idea I would have thought for a refuge, is a "no no" as far as the council is concerned.

They have asked the refuge to relax its prohibition of drink and drugs!

Bonkers!

Absolutely bonkers!

Thanks

Nanny and Clyde

Nanny, for reasons best know to herself, seems to have a thing about sea and river rescue.

You will recall that, a while ago, I wrote that Nanny's Lottery fund had refused to give the RNLI a grant; because they did not follow an "affirmative" discrimination policy in respect of their rescues. See "Those in Peril On The Sea".

Now Nanny has decided that the river rescue service operated on the Clyde, by George Parsonage, is just too dangerous.

For him, and those that he rescues!

George has been operating the rescue service for many years now, having taken it over from his father, and has saved an estimated 1500 people.

In fact so successful is the service, that he was awarded a special life time achievement award yesterday by the Royal Humane Society in London.

However, on the same day that he received the award, Strathclyde Police have stated that they will no longer call upon his help.

The force claims that because Mr Parsonage, who runs the Glasgow Humane Society, is now working alone (his assistant left for Ireland) he poses a health and safety risk.

Presumably, if he were to attempt to rescue someone the police would arrest him?

I guess then Nanny could serve him with an ASBO?

To The Polls Ye Sons Of Freedom

In case it had passed you by, today is election day; make sure that you let Nanny know what you think of her.

Click the link to see why you should vote: FREEDOM

Nanny Bans Mushrooms

Nanny has a thing about drugs, she is worried that even the mere association with a banned substance will lead to the moral and mental decline of her "charges".

Additionally, as she is a middle class Islingtonite, she really doesn't care much for those smelly fox hunting types who inhabit the countryside; in particular, she hates farmers.

Therefore she has decided to give them a good "seeing to", and eliminate the curse of drugs from this sceptered isle once and for all.

She has decreed that farmers with magic mushrooms growing on their property could be arrested for possession of controlled drugs.

Seemingly there are 12 varieties of magic mushroom that grow wild in the autumn; these have a powerful hallucinogenic effect similar to LSD. The main type is called liberty cap (Psilocybe semilanceata).

Believe it or not these mushrooms are quite common in the fields of Britain, and indeed elsewhere.

Now, the Drugs Act 2005 made the mushrooms a controlled drug; it is an offence to possess controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Before this typically rushed and ill thought out piece of legislation was nodded through by Nanny's lackeys, it was only an offence to possess the hallucinogenic ingredients of the mushrooms, psilocin and psilocybin.

The effect of this legislation will be to open the door for Nanny to prosecute farmers, for unwittingly growing the wrong sort of mushrooms in their fields.

Doesn't Nanny have anything better to with her time?

Nanny Hoisted On Her Own Petard

Now here's a funny thing.

Flag poles are designed to raise flags on, right?

Well, not in Nanny's world.

Nanny has decided that the flagpole at Woodbrige police station, that has been used for many years to fly flags, is simply too dangerous a place to fly a flag from.

The procedure is relatively simple, to my untrained eye, it involves an officer putting his hand out of the window and hoisting the flag.

However, Nanny knows best!

Health and safety issues have ruled that this is now too dangerous a task for officers.

Terry Horth, a retired police officer from Woodbridge Suffolk, complained to Suffolk police that the Union Jack flag had not been flown at the police station on the Queen's birthday, April 21.

He was told by Suffolk police that it was:

"difficult to attach the flag to the flagpole which has restrictive access".

Anne-Marie Breach, a spokeswoman for Suffolk police, is adamant:

"Anyone putting out the flag would have to lean out of the window and, due to the positioning of the pole, this would be unsafe,"

As if to emphasise her point, the flagpole will be removed shortly!

Now, if flying a flag is too dangerous for the police I assume Nanny will soon be stopping them from attending crime scenes?