Nanny's 21st Century Child Catcher

Nanny, judging by her actions and beliefs, is very much a child of the 60's.

Aside from the familiar themes of "do what you want", the destruction of the grammar schools, "social equality" on Nanny's terms and social control by government there was another fetish during that era.

Databases.

Journals and "scientific" research were obsessed with the dawning of the computer age, and what it would mean for data storage and retrieval. The concept of the all encompassing database was born.

Now there is a common/crucial mistake made by people, when discussing databases, they muddle up the terms "information" and "data".

Permit me to elucidate; data is raw unprocessed fact and figures, information is data that has been processed in order to enable an individual to make a decision.

By way of example, I can tell all of you that it it is raining in Moscow; for those of you who are not going anywhere near Moscow today that is data. It is only useful information to those of you planning to visit Moscow.

Nanny makes the mistake of assuming that the more data that she collects, the more useful it will be; she then compounds her error, by making the raw data available to an excessive number of her acolytes who have no real need to see the data in its raw state.

This leads Nanny to come to false conclusions, waste people's time and effort by having to go through piles of useless data and allows those with their own agenda to manipulate and use the data for their own ends.

Anyhoo, in the spirit of data collection, Nanny has started a new project.

You remember her pet project of ID cards don't you?

Well one flaw in this project (and God knows there are many), from Nanny's perspective, is that the ID cards are only planned for adults.

What about the children?

Don't worry, Nanny has a plan.

Nanny now plans to have a database on every child in England that, in her opinion, will act as an early warning system to; social services, schools, doctors, the police and other professionals.

I hope that little idea has caused you to shiver with trepidation.

Nanny came up with the "brilliant idea" in response to the death of 8 year old Victoria Climbie. Nanny's Department for Education and Skills has spent £10.5M on "trailblazer" projects across 15 local authorities, to test methods of information sharing and multiagency working.

Nanny is now in the process of taking a decision about the next steps. This includes whether the files should be held at national or local authority level.

The original database proposal suggested that the information stored would be vast including; school achievements and social services records.

However, serious concerns have been raised by; solicitors working in family law, data protection and dispute resolution about confidentiality and security.

Nanny is very hurt, and upset, that they don't trust her.

Nanny wants all children to be included on the database, as part of a shift towards prevention and early intervention.

Early intervention, that's a nice phrase isn't it?

You see, Nanny doesn't think that parents know how to bring up children; this despite there being thousands of years of human evolution to prove her wrong.

Stewart Room, head of data protection at the London solicitors Rowe Cohen, thinks that the idea is bollocks:

"Once you have mass databases you build in error and insecurity and it does not matter how you tinker with the content at the front end, you can't remove those two problems from the matrix."

He adds:

"What we are seeing is a shift from proper detective work where people are properly trained and resourced and understand what they are looking for to profiling.

It doesn't matter whether it is child protection, law enforcement or the War on Terror. Once you start profiling people, those doing it become very lazy and we build a society of data analysts rather than practitioners with the requisite detective skills."

Yvonne Brown, chairman of the Children Committee of Resolution, the family lawyers' organisation, also weighed into the debate:

"We have been concerned about the number of people who will have access to the database;

who will be able to place entries on it;

what the threshold level for making an entry will be;

will it be the Children Act 1989 threshold of 'likelihood of significant harm' or a lower standard;

and what rights parents will have to rectify or challenge incorrect entries.

The mechanisms for information-sharing between professionals and local authorities are already there.

They were not working properly in Victoria Climbie's case

but the way forward is to improve training and resources, not construct another layer with the risk of incorrect information being wrongly passed on."

The really worrying thing about this plan of Nanny's is that Enver Hodge (Children's Minister) is involved (for details about Enver and her previous administration failures, eg systematic child abuse during her reign of terror, read "The Enver Hodge Approach To Parenting")

Enver wants people to be able to "flag" the database with "concerns" and "incidents" relating to the child. A GP could put a flag on a child's file because he or she was of low birth weight. If a teacher subsequently spotted unexplained bruises on the child, a flag could be put on the file and the doctor contacted.

This gives rise to all sorts of issues, not least it is a splendid mechanism for the ill informed and malicious to destroy the lives of others by using flags to pursue their own personal vendettas.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner says:

"The rationale for such a far-reaching scheme remains ill defined.

There may be substantial difficulties in keeping databases secure.

..there are real risks that the privacy of children and parents will be compromised."

Worried?

You should be!

Blunkett Censorship

Who ever said that Nanny couldn't laugh at herself?

Well, Nanny did actually.

It seems that Nanny and her friends, much like all dictators, really do lack a sense of humour when it comes to the "micky being taken" out of them.

Nanny's best chum, David Blunkett, has threatened legal action against a satire scheduled for the launch of Channel 4's digital TV service, More4.

The programme, called "A Very Social Secretary", is based on his affair with the Spectator publisher Kimberly Quinn.

It seems that Mr B does not see eye to eye with the producers of this show, and has tried to muscle in on production.

C4's chief executive, Andy Duncan, said that he has received "phone calls and written contact" from Blunkett and his lawyers about the programme.

Mr B has reserved the right to launch legal action to stop the comedy drama being shown on October 10, when the channel launches.

He has also claimed, in a letter, that whoever commissioned the show "must be weird".

That's rich!

What is particularly daft about Blunkett's huffing and puffing over the show, is that he hasn't seen it yet.

The End of Civilisation As We Know It

One of the dangers of living in the Nanny Sate for so long, is the fact that we start to behave like Nanny and begin to feel her fear of risk; psychiatrists call this phenomenon "transference".

In other words, we become Nanny!

Much like the collision of two vast celestial bodies, we are privileged to witness two events which are happening simultaneously. These events, according to the media and other organisations seeking some form of credibility (the Tories, Liberals, Vets, and police), pose an enormous threat to Britain; in fact, were you to believe the shrill hysteria of the media and related bodies, we face the very end of civilisation as we know it.

What has caused our normally sober, and "professional", media to work themselves up into such hysteria?

None other than the "two horses of the apocalypse"; avian flu and extended licensing laws.

Were you to believe the lurid headlines plastered across the media; a large percentage of the British population will be wiped out by avian flu, brought to this country on the wings of migratory geese, the remainder will be murdered by a drink fuelled mob debauched by 24 hour drinking and excessive imbibing of Bacardi Breezers.

I am sorry, but I for one am unmoved by the scare stories irresponsibly pumped out by the media and latched on to by organisations with their own political agenda.

With respect to avian flu, the majority of our farmed birds are in fact not free range (hence the risk of a major uncontrolled outbreak is lessened). Additionally, even if every single bird in the UK were to become infected, the flu virus would still be harmless to humans until it mutated.

In the event of a mutation and an outbreak of human "bird flu", quarantine measures will be put in place; and we as a nation will have to put up with a few months of inconvenience.

We will though, survive it.

With regard to extended opening hours, I can do no better than refer you to my earlier article on the subject "Drinking Hysteria".

My message to our "professional" media and those others who seek to gain political and economic advantage, by needlessly scaring the general public about the "two horsemen of the apocolypse", is that you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

Nanny spends every minute of her life trying to scare us, we don't need you doing her job for her as well.

My message to those of you who have been frightened by this media frenzy is simple:

"Get a grip"!

Enjoy the Bank Holiday sunshine.

Ken

Nanny Loves Maggots

Nanny is a strange old lady; although she can come across as being cold and uptight, there are occasions when she can show real feeling and compassion.

Her chums in Hastings Borough Council certainly seem to have a soft and compassionate side to their nature, at least when it comes to maggots.

Rob Reeves, a heart patient, had planned to sit in a bath of maggots to raise money for the British Heart Foundation. Unfortunately, Nanny's chums in Hastings Borough were going to have none of that; they have banned the event, as they deem that it would be cruel to the creatures.

Nanny has said that the stunt would contravene the local authority's animal welfare charter, if a maggot was injured or caused unnecessary distress.

Over £400 had been pledged in sponsorship money, this now looks to be lost.

Ron Reeves said:

"They told me that if I injure, squash or upset a maggot I can be prosecuted.

There are not many people who would have the guts to sit in a bath of maggots.

You have to do something unusual to attract the sponsors, everybody does a sponsored walk."

Hastings Borough Council spokesman, Kevin Boorman, said:

"The council recognises that all animals are sentient creatures, capable of enjoying a state of well-being and equally capable of suffering.

The council will fully enforce the statutory powers."

Brett McLean, who helped Ron organise the event, said:

"We were originally told that we needed £10M of public liability insurance

in case a maggot escaped the bath and someone was to slip on it.

It was only when I phoned the council to check on the detail that we were told we couldn't use the maggots at all."

The irony is that the council are currently promoting a children's fishing scheme, where live bait is used.

Nanny is an unthinking hypocrite.

Hypocrite of The Week

Nanny and her friends, when the mood takes them, can be hypocritical old so and so's at times.

Normally, Nanny's hypocrisy takes the form whereby she tells us to stop doing something whilst she happily continues to indulge in it herself; eg Nanny constantly tells us we are obese, yet take a look at Nanny's cabinet, they do not stint themselves when it comes to food and drink!

Anyhoo, this time round the hypocrisy has taken a reverse gear.

Nanny has happily instructed us to indulge in 24 hour drinking; suits me fine!

Unfortunately her chum, MP Hywel Francis who voted nine times in favour of Nanny's new licensing laws, has had an attack of nimbyism.

In a letter to Westminster Council, he said that allowing Pimlico's Morpeth Arms to stay open late would "destroy the peaceful character of the area".

The pub has applied for an extension, so it can stay open an hour later once a month, to take advantage of late opening at the nearby Tate Britain gallery.

A harmless enough idea, one would have thought.

Unfortunately Hywel Francis, who is not actually MP for that area but for some place in Wales, has decided that it is not for him.

Francis told BBC Radio Four's PM programme:

"I think it is not hypocritical to support legislation that actually gives the power to individual citizens to make representations to local authorities."

Well we think you are a hypocrite!

Fungus Freaks Out At Foot Fetish

Nanny is really rather a stuffy old so and so. On the one hand, she claims that she hates intolerance and prejudice, yet on the other she can be remarkably intolerant and prejudiced herself.

Her best chum, Fungus Clarke the Home Secretary, showed his true colours the other day by writing a very stern letter to Norwich Council complaining about the opening of a new club in the town centre.

What is it about the club that has caused him to complain so vociferously?

Will it serve alcohol after 11PM?

No.

Is it a training ground for Muslim extremists?

No.

Well, it seems that the club is nothing more hamrless than an establishment for those who have a foot fetish. The owner, Roy Singfield, is going to open the "Trample Club" where men will be able to pay for women to walk on them in a variety of footwear.

Not eveyone's cup of teaa, I admit.

But where is the harm?

Isn't that the whole point of a free society, ie allowing people to do what they wish (so long as the law is not broken) in the privacy of their own homes or in a private club?

Mr Singfield said there would be no sex at the club, well we are British!

The club will have a tickling room, a trample room, a dungeon and a fantasy room.


Needless to say, despite the fact that Fungus is Home Secretary, Norwich Council ignored his letter; the club will open.

Good for Norwich Council say I!

The guiding principle with any "non mainstream" activity should simply be, let people do what they want; so long as they don't do it in the street, and frighten the horses!

Nanny's Home Secretary should be concentrating on more important issues.

Nanny's Quandary

Dear old Nanny has something of a quandary on her hands.

Can you have a quandary on your hands?

Anyhoo, it seems that her lifelong campaign against smoking may have hit something of a snag.

You see, the common wisdom held by Nanny and her acolytes was that if you raise taxes on fags (for my American readers, this is slang for cigarettes) then people will smoke less of them.

Now, this is perfectly true; a higher price does indeed reduce demand.

However, as with most things in life, simple solutions do not often work as they should.

It seems that people, whilst buying less cigarettes, are in fact smoking them more deeply. In fact, it seems that they are probably doing themselves more damage now than they were before. That is the case according to Francesca Cornaglia, economics lecturer at University College London.

Oops!

Additionally, it seems that Nanny's banning of smoking in places where food is served will have no impact at all in "working class" areas.

Why?

Working class areas, if Nanny's statistics are to be believed, don't serve meals in pubs.

The working classes are in fact Nanny's target group, she just doesn't like them.

It looks like Nanny will have to go back to the drawing board!

Nanny's Prescription Glasses

Nanny is very proud of her work, yet she knows that not everyone shares her pride.

In fact she knows that some people, eg journalists, go out of their way to criticise what she does.

Now I know that this may come as something of a surprise to some of you, but Nanny has feelings too.

Prick her, does she not bleed?

Anyhoo, Nanny is getting fed up with the constant criticism of her "management" of the country; and has decided to go on the counter offensive.

She wants all of us to see the world as she does, through special rose coloured glasses (coming soon on the NHS).

In order to ensure that we see the world as she does, her first action will be to improve the reporting techniques of journalists; so that they only tell us the good things about Nanny.

To this end Nanny has commenced a special study of the media, to weed out all those nasty negative journalists who are criticising her. Nanny's Department of Health has begun publishing statistics on the output, and perceived "slant", of the journalists who write the most frequently about the state of the NHS.

Nanny has hired media consultants Millward Brown to assess every article published by the media according to whether it is positive, negative or neutral.

The results of the survey have highlighted 21 correspondents who reach the most readers, either because they wrote a lot or because their papers had the biggest circulations. Within these, 9 of them were very naughty; they had nothing positive to say about the NHS.

Ooh!

Seemingly Nic Cecil of the Sun has been identified as the journalist with the "highest reach", is he an orangutang?.

Most worryingly for Nanny, the Daily Mail is the paper with the "highest reach". The overwhelming majority of its 59 articles on the NHS during the month were negative or neutral, with only about 7% carrying a positive message about the NHS.


Now "clever" little exercises like this don't come cheap. The cost came to £200K.

No need to worry though, Nanny is not paying for it.

You are!

When questioned about the apparent waste of money, Nanny's Department of Health said:

"It was important to have this established on a scientific basis rather than hunch".

In further good news, Nanny is going to continue spending more money on this, the department will publish regular reviews of journalists' output over periods of six months.

Needless to say, no one would be penalised for taking a negative approach.

Do you believe that?

Additionally, it is expected that Nanny's other departments will also follow suit.

Well, as I said, it's not Nanny's money is it?

Nanny Bans Angels

Nanny gets some very strange ideas into her head; once they get stuck in there no one can dislodge them, no matter how daft they are.

As a case in pont, Nanny's chums at the General Register Office in Dukinfield have a bit of thing about religion.

It is required that Register Offices do not invoke religious ceremonies when weddings are held there, that's perfectly reasonable; after all, if you wanted a religious ceremony why hold your wedding in a Register Office?

However, sometimes Nanny's acolytes can be ultra sensitive when it comes to identifying what constitutes religious symbolism.

The team at Dukinfield have decided that the chart hit Angels, by Robbie Williams, carries religious connotations that could be offensive and have therefore banned it.

Howard Monks and Julie Sagar-Doyle, who were due to get married there, were told 15 minutes before their wedding that their chosen song was not acceptable.

Mr Monks said:

"I don't know how anyone could be offended by Robbie Williams. He's a pop star and it's just a pop song. He's hardly some religious bigot."

A spokeswoman for the General Register Office said:

"It is up to each register office what they do about songs or poems. The guidance says any music or poetry that has any religious reference can't be used, but that is a bit subjective."

Dictatorships thrive when rules are "interpreted" by petty bureaucrats.

A Spoonful of Sugar

Nanny is such a dominant force in our lives these days, that sometimes we even start to behave like her without even realising it.

A fine example of this can be seen on the instructions for Medised Infant Cold Relief, for children of 3 months plus.

Quote:

"Warning may cause drowsiness. If affected do not drive or operate heavy machinery, do not drink."

A tad over the top, wouldn't you say?

That being said, a drop of whisky often helps alleviate the symptoms of a cold.

The Dangers of Paddling Pools II

I have said it before, and I will say it again, Nanny really does seem to hate water.

Her acolytes in Warwick District Council have put their big fat feet into some water in a childrens' paddling pool.

The children at Sydenham have been banned from playing in their paddling pool, because they do not have a lifeguard or insurance.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

The pool is a humungous 10ft wide, and is made of inflatable plastic. It has been placed on the green at Fallow Hill, and has been used by youngsters during the summer holidays.

But Nanny's chums in Warwick District Council have said that the children are no longer allowed to use the paddling pool, because the council would be liable if someone was to hurt themselves.

Parents have tried to counter this nonsense, by saying that they have been careful to watch the children while they are playing; they also point out that the pool is never filled with more than 12 inches of water.

A parent said:

"I think it is sad that the kids can't enjoy a small pool.

There is never more than 12 inches of water and there is at least two adults watching."

The children have started a petition, and are sending letters to the district council in an attempt to get the ban lifted.

District Council spokesman Richard Brooker is having none of this:

"The crux of the problem is with the insurance.

Because we are aware of the pool we are now liable if anyone was to get hurt.

They had not been given permission for it to be used

and there are no life guards to watch the pool. It is just a safety issue."

May I ask what the council will do if the parents just ignore them?

You know, Nanny gets her power because people accept what she says and do not fight back. The best way to deflate, and destroy, these petty "jobsworth" dictators is to ignore them.

Have You Seen This Man?

Reports are coming in that Blairy Poppins has disappeared. It seems that dear old Blairy was last seen in the Downing Street area, on the 5th of August, after that he just disappeared.

Sir Ian Blair, his brother, has issued an emotional appeal for members of the public to come forward if they have any information as to Blairy's whereabouts.

"Obviously this is a very hard time for me; not only am I missing my brother in an emotional and spiritual way,

I need him here to support me as my career implodes over Operation Balls Up".

"Any information that we receive, will be treated in the strictest confidence and immediately leaked to the media".

Now the odd thing here is that some people do actually know where Blairy is "holed up".

Who are these people?

Criminals?

Members of a secret order?

Spies?

The Pope?

No, the media.

You see, Blairy has gone on his usual family holiday; which is paid for by some rich "friend" of his, who is usually after a favour. However, this time, Downing Street have told the media not to disclose his whereabouts to the public.

This instruction came in the form of a letter from David Hill, Blairy's Director of Communications, to the media. In it he stated that the destination should remain secret, for security reasons.

The media, being ever complaint with Nanny's requests, have obliged.

This is not the first time that the media have kept things quiet, they also have made a pact with Nanny not to reveal something else that is a little too close to home for comfort.

In that particular case I agree that the story is not, to use a well worn phrase, "in the public interest". However, given the fact that this is the same media which happily intrude into the private lives of lesser mortals on a daily basis, their hypocrisy is breathtaking.

It makes you wonder what else the media is hiding from us!

Anyhoo, with regard to Blairy's mystery holiday destination; the rumour is that he is on a yacht in the Caribbean.

In a rare display of generosity, I am prepared to offer one of my fine "Nanny Knows Best" T shirts to the first person who correctly identifies (and proves) where Blairy is.

The good news is, that whilst Blairy is away, this gentleman is in charge of the country!

We can all sleep peacefully.

Operation Balls Up

The leak from the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, implies that Nanny's surveillance operation that day was more akin to something out of the Keystone Cops.

Contrary to earlier reports, from amongst others Sir Ian Blair, Mr de Menezes did not sprint over the ticket barrier and he was not wearing a bulky coat.

The policeman operating the surveillance video recorder managed to find himself distracted, as he relieved himself.

All in all, if this leak is to be believed, the operation was a total cock up from start to finish.

Aside from the shooting of an innocent Brazilian, there is another very worrying aspect to this story.

After the shooting, Sir Ian Blair made several media appearances stating the "facts" of the situation; eg bulky coat, acting suspiciously and refusing to stop when challenged.

The leak contradicts his account of events.

However, on top of the attempt by Nanny to directly "manage" the news via Sir Ian Blair, was her disgusting and unseemly attempt to further deflect criticism by implying the Mr de Menezes was here illegally.

Nanny's Home Office said that his student visa expired on June 30, 2003.

They issued a statement to the media at the end of July along the following lines.

After examining his passport, the Home Office determined that the stamp giving him the right to remain in Britain appeared to have been fake.

De Menezes arrived in Britain on March 13, 2002, and was granted entry for six months as a visitor. He applied and received a student visa on October 31 of that year, allowing him to stay until June 30, 2003. After that, the Home Office had no record of any further application or correspondence from de Menezes.

"We have seen a copy of Mr. de Menezes' passport containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK,"

"On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given."

Whether or not this was true, and Uncle Jack Straw had to admit in a press conference that it wasn't, precisely what has that got to do with shooting someone dead in the street?

Nothing!

What you have witnessed here is a disgusting attempt by Nanny to manipulate the news, to try to deflect criticism of her and her acolytes.

This is a very nasty and unpleasant development in her personality, and media manipulation techniques.

It really is time that we remove her from office, whilst we are still able to do so.

Nanny Makes The Dons An Offer They Cannot Refuse

The A level results are upon us again, they descend upon us with the depressing inevitability of an unloved season.

This year's results are, from Nanny's limited perspective, the best; an overall pass rate of 110%.

Awesome!

Regrettably they are of course meaningless, as there are still only a limited number of high level jobs that people can in reality aspire to. As such, if the A level system won't stream them out, then other methods of streaming will be implemented.

Now Nanny knows this, she is, despite appearances to the contrary, not as stupid as we think.

One of her greatest fears is that her precious unemployment statistics will be negatively impacted by surge in unemployed "successful" A level students.

In order to avoid this embarrassment Nanny has, for some years now, been trying to massage the unemployment figures; by ensuring that absolutely every school leaver in the country is in some form of "university".

Unfortunately, for Nanny, some universities are not as easily fobbed off with Nanny's education system failures. Oxbridge has for many years operated its own entrance system, comprising exams and interviews. This helps them screen out the no hopers.

Nanny has now woken up to that, and has decided to tell them to stop being so mean to "her charges" from the state education system.

Nanny has issued Oxbridge with "advice" (ie she has instructed them), as to how they should treat her state school pupils. Oxbridge dons have been given new guidelines for interviews, that are designed to prevent the "intimidation" of state school pupils and increase their chances of winning a place at the university.

In other words, Nanny is trying to rig the system in her favour.

In these ludicrous guidelines, dons have been urged not to assume too much knowledge on the part of the candidate; well that's not going to be too difficult is it? Remember, there are schools in Nanny's system that are producing 9 year olds who can't read the word "cat".

The dons have also been told not to be "cold and detached" or, and this is my particular favourite, not to sit on chairs higher than those of interviewees; thus forcing them to peer upwards.

Now tell me this, how does "mollycoddling" these people help them in any way face the real world and real job interviews later in life?

Nanny holds the belief that her state school pupils are at a disadvantage in university interviews, because they are less likely to have been coached in answering questions and adopting a confident posture.

Erm, if that really is the case, doesn't that reflect badly on Nanny's education system?

Doesn't the cure then lie in the hands of Nanny, ie shouldn't she ensure that interview techniques and posture are taught in her schools?

Another of Nanny's concerns is that of giving religious offence to Muslims during these university interviews. Dons have been told to avoid shaking hands with Muslim girls, who have not offered their hands first.

I would have thought that Muslim girls, who live in the UK, would be highly offended not to be offered a handshake.

Dons have also been told not to throw candidates off balance by starting with a hard questions, such as "how are you?"; and to talk about subjects that the candidates were comfortable discussing.

Farking hell!

If only real life interviews were as easy as that!

Another fine example of Nanny wrecking young people's lives, by trying to hide life's hard realities from them.

Nanny Bans Bin Liner

As we all know, Nanny is really cracking down on Muslim extremists; thought crime is going to be made an offence, beards will be banned and Mecca bingo sites will be closed until further notice.

In addition to the above, Nanny has also started to consider banning the actual terrorists themselves.

Now there's an innovation!

As such, Nanny was particularly perturbed when she heard reports that Osama Bin Liner was actually on holiday in Britain.

The reports said that Mr Bin Liner has been taking the sea air, along with Nanny's old chum Saddam Hussein, at Broadstairs.

Nanny did not waste anytime, and promptly banned them.

Unfortunately, as is the case with most of Nanny's actions, she did not bother to check the facts. It turns out that Osama and Saddam were in fact puppets, being used by a seaside Punch and Judy show (something that Nanny doesn't approve of either) to wrestle with Mr Punch for his sausages.

Well, facts have never got in the way of Nanny carrying our some daft idea of hers.

Poor old Professor Brent de Witt, owner of the show, was told that he could not use the figures by Nanny's chums in Thanet district council.

It seems that, in the spirit of Nanny's Britain, some underhand scum bags went to the council and informed on the good Professor.

That is the ugly new face of Britain these days; intolerance, no sense of humour and a nation of informers.

Thank you so much Nanny!

The Dangers of Paddling Pools

My thanks to Andy who wrote to me saying:

"Me and friends bought a paddling pool a while ago only to find stamped in large letters on the side that I should 'Consult my local council' and among other warnings, that there was a danger of paralysis!!!

Although amusing at the time it kinda took the fun out of the 1m diameter paddling pool..."

Do you have any Nanny nonsense printed on the side of products that you have bought?

Please feel free to send them to me, so that we can all have a laugh.

Thanks.

Ken

Something For The Weekend

Everywhere you turn, someone's telling us what we can't eat. It's getting harder just to enjoy a beer on a night out.

Do you always feel like you are being told what to do?

See how the Americans are fighting back against the food and drink facists.

Click consumerfreedom.com to see the movie.

Health and Safety Advice For The Tube

You have been warned!

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Nanny is a hypocritical old so and so at times.

She is oh so very fond of telling us what to do, and how to live our lives, yet she does not always follow her own rules.

One fine example of this hypocrisy, can be seen in the work of Nanny's chums on the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).

The EOC is very fond of lecturing companies about equality in the workplace, and about ensuring that they report on their sexual and racial mix.

Yet, surprise surprise, the EOC does not actually follow its own advice.

The EOC annual report for 2004/5, for reasons that are unclear, does not report on its own sexual/racial mix.

This lapse is even more odd, as it was quite happy to report on this in the previous year.

Maybe the reason that it doesn't like to draw attention to the mix, is that fact that the 2003 report showed a remarkably "unbalanced" and unequal organisation.

It seems that in 2003 only 16% of the EOC were made up of men.

That doesn't look very good for an organ that is supposed to promote equality, does it?

The EOC describes itself as "the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination" and that "it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society".

When asked about this lapse in reporting this year, the EOC haughtily said that the figures are in the public domain.

In other words, they don't want to draw attention to their own failings.

The failure to publish these figures in its annual report has of course put the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act, and the Sex Discrimination Act.

I do hope that no one reports them!

Drinking Hysteria

Dear oh dear, there really does seem to have been quite a petulant Nanny type outburst from both the judiciary and the police about the so called "24 hour licensing rules".

What are they bleating today?

"Lunacy" or some such nonsense?

Were the police and judges to be believed, the new licensing laws will turn the "peaceful" state of Britain into something akin to Sodom and Gomorrah (spelling???).

Well, let us consider a few facts, before we rush to barricade the doors and windows.

1 Britain has moved on from the 1950's, it is no longer a collection of Miss Marple peaceful village; but a vibrant, cosmopolitan and, in places, decrepit place to live.

2 The licensing laws as they stand, are outmoded and need to be changed. They were introduced in 1914, as a temporary measure to stop munitions workers getting themselves so drunk that they blew themselves up. It is high time that they were changed.

3 Scotland has had liberal licensing laws for over 20 years, without any disastrous result.

4 The binge drinking "culture" is already here, and directly the result of the marketing ploys of the drinks companies; a change in the licensing laws will not worsen this in a significant way.

5 Binge drinking occurs because pubs and clubs are now catering exclusively to the under 20 age group; by excluding the older generation, the restraint on the bahaviour of the young is removed. The length of time that the pubs are open is irrelevant.

6 Local authorities are also to blame for the upsurge in binge drinking, as they greedily try to extract as much tax revenue as possible from the drinks industry; by packing the high streets with as many pubs and clubs as possible.

My message to the police and judges is look to the above points before you shoot your mouths off.

It seems that we are so used to Nanny and her ways that some of us are now behaving like her.

Nanny's Futile Rebranding Exercise

Nanny, unlike her "charges" who have continued to get on with their lives, seems to have got quite a fright from the recent London bombings.

Every day Nanny's news networks broadcast dire warnings about the "threat from within", and about unrest among various sections of the ethnic community.

Anyone would think that we have become so obsessed with the Middle East, and with Islam, that nothing else in life now matters.

Anyhoo, Nanny is so very alarmed about this "threat", that she has put one of her best colleagues on the job. Well actually, since everyone is on holiday, she has given the shitty end of the stick to dear of Hazel "I'm in charge" Blears.

You will recall that Blears performed something of a volte face recently, over the police stop and search techniques for looking for bombers (see "Blears Blunders").

Having tried to distance herself from that little cock up, Blears has come up with a spiffing new "initiative", guaranteed to face down the terrorist threat.

ETHNIC REBRANDING!

What!!!???

I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on a public blog?), Ethnic Rebranding?

What's that then Ken?

Well Ms Blears wants to adopt the US approach (how in awe of the US this government is!), and rebrand ethnic minority in a futile attempt to strengthen and highlight their British roots.

Blears proposes to rename minorities for example "Asian-British" rather than simply as "Asian".

Spiffing!

How much are they paying this woman to come up with a lame scheme like this?

Blears deludes herself that the new branding will somehow or other give minorities pride in their background, and their Britishness.

What utter bollocks!

In case Ms Blears has not been awake for the past few months, it has now been widely accepted that multiculturism in Britain has been a disastrous mistake; I could have told them that years ago.

People do not need to be sub categorised, and have their perceived "differences" highlighted and emphasised, they need to be assimilated (much like the Borg).

By highlighting "differences" you further alienate minorities, and make them feel less part of the cultural identity of the country.

The plan is both fatuous and retrograde.

Notwithstanding the obvious stupidity of this idea, Nanny is pressing ahead with it and will be putting her "grand idea" to Muslim leaders in the next few weeks.

What about the Irish, Scots and Welsh then?

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament, has warned that by identifying people by their ethnic background Nanny will in fact create racial ghettos.

He said:

"Nobody cares for labels".

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, also said the plan was bollocks; he dismissed the idea as a retrograde step, that looked at people in terms of colour.

"What of the second generations?

Why should they be defined as other than 'British'?

These forms of identity based on ethnic background have been tried in the past and have failed."

Nazi Germany had their own concept of racial "branding", and look where that went!

Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West said:

"It's not remotely helpful

I think it's another gimmick. I'm afraid we need some rather more intelligent and far-reaching solutions."

The majority of the second and third generation "minorities" living in Britain quite correctly regard themselves as British, and do not want daft labels telling people that they are a subcategory.

Mutliculturism is dead, let us bury it and move on.

Nanny Gets Cold Feet

In a rare bout of candour, one of Nanny's chums has admitted that Nanny may have over-egged her pudding in respect of her hardsell of ID cards.

Tony McNulty, the poor sap of a Home Office minister responsible for the project, has told a left-wing think tank that ID cards are not the cure all panacea for terrorism or fraud.

Er, haven't we been saying that for months now?

See Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks

However, dear old Nanny stubbornly refuses to give way on the issue; instead she will cleverly allow the Lords to stop this daft scheme, then blame them.

McNulty knows this, and admitted that a battle between the Commons and the Lords about whether the cards become compulsory would end in deadlock.

McNulty is quoted as saying:

"Perhaps in the past the government, in its enthusiasm, oversold the advantages of identity cards.

We did suggest, or at least implied, that they might well be a panacea for identity fraud, for benefit fraud, terrorism, entitlement and access to public services."

Adding that in its "enthusiasm", Nanny had over-emphasised the benefits to the state rather than for

"the individual in providing a gold standard in proving your identity".

"There are now so many almost daily occasions when we have to stand up and verify our identity."

The money spent on these worthless documents would be better spent on the police and other value adding services.

By the way, although the current push for ID cards is coming from Nanny and her cronies, let us not forget who started the ball rolling on this issue back in the 90's.

None other than dear old Michael Howard!

His continued support for ID cards cost the Tory party a good few votes in the last election.

Pity now, after the election, that they have only just realised what a bad idea they are.

The Dangers of Safety Gates

Nanny's fantasy world of zero risk presents manufacturers with a golden opportunity to sell us stuff that we sometimes don't really need, but which they assure us will make our loves much safer.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of these "safety" products in fact can do more harm than good.

Allegedly, 5 of the best selling child safety gates may carry a risk of toddlers choking or strangling themselves.

That is at least the view according to a Which? magazine report.

It seems that the gates, used to block off stairs and areas like kitchens, failed British standard safety tests.

Manufacturers whose models were criticised included; Mothercare, Jonelle, Bettacare and Safety 1st.

According to the report, the Jonelle Wood and Metal Gate, the Bettacare Auto-Close Gate, and the Safety 1st Portable Safety Travel Barrier all risked a piece of child's clothing, a bib or a dummy getting caught.

This could possibly lead to a child being strangled, it added.

Needless to say the manufacturers dispute the findings, claiming that there were "anomalies" in the testing process used by Which?

My advice is simple; if you want to stop your children running amok, then put them in cage and give them a slug of whisky in their milk.

Problem sorted!

Nanny's Naughty Nurses

Nanny thinks that we are all very naughty when it comes to looking after our health, and in her view if we cannot be trusted to look after ourselves then she is jolly well going to enforce her views upon us.

Nanny has a particular abhorrence of smoking, just like Hitler did, and as such has decided to enforce a strict no smoking policy in and around her hospitals.

In order for this policy to work she has set up a Naughty Nurse Patrol (that phrase will get me some interesting hits from search engines) in the Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust in Liverpool, whoch will target people who in her view are being naughty.

Nurses in the trust have been asked to take part in anti-smoking patrols around two hospital sites, and offer smoking cessation advice to staff and visitors.

In other words they will be telling people to stop smoking, even though it is not their business to do so.

Nurses have been told to go on hour-long patrols, as part of Nanny's non-smoking policy, which cover the entire hospital site.

Naughty Nurse Patrols are carried out three times a day, with staff doing rounds in pairs, handing out smoking leaflets and advice.

Not surprisingly, given the somewhat overstretched nature of the NHS, many staff are unhappy about being asked to carry out these patrols; as they do not regard it as part of their job, and because it will take them away from patient care on the wards.

Another small point is that it is not up to Nanny to tell us what to do, but then again that has never stopped her in the past.

Nanny just loves to waste everyones time.

Softly Softly Task Force

Following on from yesterday's post, about Nanny's confusing approach to the current terrorist threat, it seems that Nanny has further softened her previously "stern" approach to the threat by issuing a very strange directive indeed to her police officers in Bedfordshire.

Nanny has issued an 18 point guide to officers to use when they raid Muslim homes suspected of drugs or terrorist offences.

It states:

"The Muslim community feels victimised and suspicious of counter terrorist police operations and in the current climate a search at a British Muslim household has the potential to become a critical incident and come under intense scrutiny".

It then lists 18 points that police officers should note.

These include:

• Rapid entry needs to be the last resort and raids into Muslim houses are discouraged for a number of religious dignity reasons.



• Police should seek to avoid looking at unclad Muslim women and allow them an opportunity to dress and cover their heads.



• For reasons of dignity officers should seek to avoid entering occupied bedrooms and bathrooms even before dawn.



• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises and may necessitate extensive cleaning of the house and disposal of household items.



• Advice should be sought before considering the use of cameras and camcorders due to the risk of capturing individuals, especially women, in inappropriate dress.



• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.



• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.



• Officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes.



• In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.



• Non-Muslims are not allowed to touch holy books, Qurans or religious artefacts without permission. Where possible, Muslim officers in a state of 'Wudhu' (preparation before prayer) should be used for this purpose.

Whilst the above advice may be highly appropriate for an army of occupation, conducting a mass house to house search in a foreign country, it is not good practice for a domestic police force conducting a targeted raid on a house or property that the police have good reason and evidence to raid.

The "softly softly" approach puts the lives of the officers at risk, and significantly diminishes the chances of the success of the operation.

I would also venture to suggest that instead of "calming tensions" between the various communities, it will heighten them; as non Muslims, rightly or wrongly, perceive that Muslims are being given "special treatment".

I would note that I am not alone in feeling this way; the Chairman of Luton Council of Faiths, Zafar Khan, welcomed the guidelines but said the police should deal with all faiths sensitively.

He said:

"Guidelines on how to deal and interact with the community in all faiths should be welcomed.

It's a question of being sensitive and informed and if that makes the policing more effective and more sensitive that has to be a good thing."

Abdul Malik, chairman of Luton Race Advisory Forum, said:

"The police need to be sensitive when they are going into the homes of everybody - not just Muslims."

In other words, don't treat certain areas of the community as a "special case". In the eyes of the law, we should all be treated equally.

By the way, my family has had some experience of police raids themselves.

My grandmother came to London in the 1930's, from Ireland. At that time there was a bombing campaign and threat from the IRA, as such some elements of the Irish population were regarded with suspicion by their neighbours.

One day Grandmother heard a knock at the door and, on opening it, found herself facing a group of officers from Special Branch.

Seemingly a neighbour had decided that since Grandmother was Irish she was a potential terrorist, and therefore had tipped off Special Branch.

Anyhoo, the officers duly searched her home and of course found nothing. My Grandmother was totally unfazed by this and, once they had finished their search, offered the officers a cup of tea and a slice of cake.

She wasn't upset or angry about this, and was not bothered again by searches; she happily continued to live in London until the mid eighties, when she died.

Blears Blunders

Nanny has a rather idiosyncratic approach to her current anti terrorist operations at the moment.

On the one hand she advocates strong measures, such as shooting unarmed Brazilians, then on the other hand her friends confuse matters by advocating a softly softly approach.

Hazel "I'm In Charge" Blears added to the confusion, by speaking about Nanny's policy of stop and search.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme, Blears said that she did not endorse the use of racial profiling and said that stop-and-search powers should not be used in a "discriminatory fashion".

She said:

"Picking up people on the basis that they are Muslim is never going to get the result you want."

Now that is all very well, if the bombers were multi faith. However, as far as can be seen, the current threat comes from those Muslims who reject the concept of democracy.

Is it not therefore more logical for the police, given the fact that their resources are overstretched, to focus their efforts on that area that is perceived to be the highest threat?

However, Blears is not all softly softly; she is also quoted as saying:

"When we get biometric identity cards we will actually know the person standing in front of us is the person they say they are.

That technology will help us immeasurably in having a much bigger grip on people coming in and going out".

Which is of course utter nonsense, as the bombers were home grown and would have had id cards anyway.

Given Nanny's rather unhelpful and confusing messages, I have reproduced a helpful guide for those of you looking to minimise your risk when travelling around the UK.

The USA's Department of Homeland Security issued a handout in January 2004, to border authorities, which identifies certain key "suicide bomber indicators".

• The potential bombers may have a shaved head or short haircut. A short haircut, or recently shaved beard or moustache, may be evident by differences in skin complexion on the head or face



• They may smell of herbal or flower water (most likely flower water), as they may have sprayed perfume on themselves, their clothing, and weapons to prepare for paradise



• They may have been seen praying fervently, giving the appearance of whispering to someone



• Suicide bombers have raised their hands in the air, just before the explosion, to prevent the destruction of their fingerprints



• They have also placed identity cards in their shoes, because they want to be praised and recognised as martyrs

Be lucky!

The Dangers of Trampolines

Nanny likes to come out with statements on "the bleedin' obvious" at times.

Don't know why, maybe she just likes the sound of her own voice?

Anyhoo, her so called "health experts" have just issued guidance on how to use trampolines.

Now that's a useful way to spend taxpayers' money!

The "experts" have noted that people can injure themselves if they fall off a trampoline, or if they jump into a tree.

No kidding!

Therefore physiotherapists have said that equipment should be set up away from trees and fences.

Those of you who are too dimwitted to appreciate the risks of falling off one of these things, or of bouncing up into trees and other assorted overhangs, should read the advice given out by Nanny's experts:

-Set the trampoline up in hole, so falling distance is not as great
-Keep it free of fences and trees
-Ensure springs, hooks and frame all covered by padding
-Place cushioning, such as wood chips or padding around trampoline
-Children should always be supervised
-Only one person should use it at a time
-Children under six should not use them
-Do not exit trampoline by bouncing
-Remove all jewellery

Got that everyone!

Call me stupid, but isn't the above list just plain simple common sense?

As Chartered Society of Physiotherapy representative, Peta Smith, said:

"..bounce safely"

Those of you who are just too stupid to use one of these things, without a book of instructions, should visit the ROSPA trampoline factsheet.