Nanny Bans Booze

It seems that Nanny, despite being in favour of "relaxing" the drinking laws that govern pubs and clubs, wants to ban drink from being consumed on all forms of public transport.

This would mean that people would not be allowed to drink on trains, buses and domestic flights.

Nanny feels that such a ban would lessen the number of drink fuelled incidents on the transport network.

Clearly this is another one of Nanny's headline grabbing "initiatives", which has not been thought through at all.

• The majority of drink fuelled incidents are caused by people who are "boozed" up before entering the trains and buses, banning drink on board would have no effect whatsoever.



• Banning booze because of the behaviour of a minority of moronic scumbags punishes the majority of well behaved people. Yet again the freedoms of the citizens of Britain are being eroded on the pretext of the "threat" posed by a minority, in this case the minority being moronic scumbags.



• Having a drink is sometimes the only way to make the ordeal of traveling on our decaying and overcrowded public transport system bearable.

In other words, the proposal is bollocks!

Plonkers of The Week

The Plonker of the Week award goes, collectively, to the Co-Op in Odd Down Bath.

As we all know, Guy Fawke's night is soon to be upon us; Nanny hates people using fireworks of their own accord, as literally millions of British citizens are killed by them each year.

Anyhoo, Nanny each year tries to make the purchase of fireworks by individuals more difficult.

This year she was given a some extra special help by the Co-Op in Odd Down, who refused to sell some sparklers to Susan Field; as she couldn't prove that she was over 18.

Now you may say that this is fair enough, after all fireworks in the hands of tearaways should be banned.

However, there is one small fly in Nanny's ointment.

Susan Field is a grandmother of 50.

Doubtless she looks young and vivacious, but it is highly unlikely that she would be mistaken for being under 18.

Susan was told by the plonkers in the Co-Op that she needed a passport to purchase fireworks.

The staff would not accept Ms Field's bank card as proof of her identification, and she was unable to buy the £1.50 sparklers.

A fine example of how unthinking, and mentally numb, we are all becoming under Nanny's relentless onslaught against our personal liberties.

By the way, in case your wondering, the Co-Op eventually had to back track and apologise to Ms Field for being plonkers.

Rather late in the day though I would say.

Backlash

My thanks to Pete, for pointing me to the BBC on this one.

It seems that they will be screening a show this Saturday, that may be of interest to us.

Backlash
Sat 29 Oct, 6:15 pm - 6:55 pm 40mins

Compensation Culture:

Clowns who can't throw custard pies, children who can't play conkers, swimmers banned from an early morning dip. The reason? The fear of being sued.

Arthur Smith ignites the backlash against our 'compensation culture' and has a go at a phenomenon which now costs an estimated £10 billion a year. He argues that a nation once famed for it's spirit of adventure has been rendered a nation of cowering wimps.

Maybe someone would like to point them to this site, to let them know that there are indeed many of us who are fed up with the Nanny State?

Contact BBC link

Thanks.

Ken

The Dangers of Walking

It is always reassuring to know that Nanny has our best interests at heart. She is for ever vigilant with respect to the security threat, that she tells us we face.

To this end, it was highly reassuring to read that a suspected terrorist was arrested on the grounds of national security a week or so ago.

Sally Cameron a blond property developer, clearly fits the standard terrorist profile.

Nanny was vigilant and swift in her actions.

Sally was held for hours, for being a suspected terrorist.

Why, I hear you ask?

She was arrested under the Terrorism Act, for walking along a cycle path in the harbour area of Dundee.

She said:

"I've been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit.

One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn't use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I'd be arrested.

The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying:

'You're trespassing, please turn back'.

It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing.

But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act.

The harbour master was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged."

Ms Cameron added:

"I was told that the cycle path was for cyclists only,

as if walkers and not cyclists were the only ones likely to plant bombs. There are no signs anywhere saying there are to be no pedestrians.

They took me to the police station and held me for several hours before charging me and releasing me."

She has now received a letter from the Tayside procurator fiscal's office, telling her that she would not be prosecuted.

The letter noted that

"the evidence is sufficient to justify bringing you before the court on this criminal charge".

Now can anyone tell me why Nanny is so keen to stop and arrest people such as Ms Cameron?

However, London bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan reportedly featured in a surveillance operation by intelligence services last year.

Khan was secretly filmed and recorded speaking to a UK-based terror suspect, according to a well-placed source.

A Radio 4 File on 4 and BBC Two Newsnight investigation also suggests he was in contact with al-Qaeda activists for the last five years.

Was he arrested?

No!

Can someone explain that contradiction in Nanny's security policy please?

Nanny In Disarray

It seems that Nanny, as usual, cannot get her act together with regard to yet another "centre piece" of her legislative programme.

This particular piece of legislation relates to her anti smoking fetish.

Nanny is meant to present a bill tomorrow, which bans smoking in public places. However, her plans are in disarray after Cabinet ministers failed to agree on whether there should be exemptions.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt wants to ban smoking in all pubs and clubs. However, she is prepared to give pubs and restaurants the freedom to set aside a room for smoking where staff would not have to work.

But get this, no food or drink would be served in these rooms.

Brilliant idea that Pat!

Needless to say, she has faced opposition.

Her predecessor, John Reid, is against a proposal to extend the ban to private clubs.

The failure of Nanny's acolytes to reach agreement raises doubts as to whether this piece of legislation will actually be introduced.

The future of our country in the hands of these people!

As a point of historical interest, Hitler was a vegetarian non smoker and non drinker.

Think about it!

By the way, once Nanny has banned smoking, she will then go after drinking and eating.

She's coming after you soon folks!

Nanny Bans Words

In Orwell's most excellent book "1984" he warned us of a time when the state would exert control over its population by banning words, it was called "newspeak".

The rationale is simple; if you don't have the words with which to speak or think, then you can't resist the state.

However, who needs Orwell when you have Hull Council?

They have obviously read "1984" and have decided to follow its blueprint.

Hull Council have developed their own version of "newspeak", and put together a list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" words.

This list has been developed by the Orwellian sounding Corporate Equalities Unit and has been issued to councillors and senior managers, in an attempt to enforce political correctness within the Guildhall.

The list of banned words includes; "foreigner", "darling", "dyke", "lady", "elderly" and "spastic".

Needless to say, as with many of Nanny's "initiatives", this has caused a right old rumpus.

The Acting Head of Equalities has written to all recipients of the email, to explain and apologise for any offence or confusion.

Dick heads!

Oh I guess that is banned as well?

Those of you who would like to have a little fun may care to drop Hull Council an email, explaining why you think that their policy is bollocks, containing as many of the banned words as possible.

Their email address is info@hullcc.gov.uk

Nanny Bans Gardening

Oxford council likes to think of itself as being a good council, all councils have this delusion.

However, they take particular pride in their work in making the community a better place to live in. Indeed, they have even set up a Crime and Nuisance Action Team (CANAcT).

This body seeks out those who would destroy the harmony of the community.

One such person that CANAcT identified as being a clear and present danger to the harmony of Oxford was Malcolm Everton.

Mr Everton lives in a small development of sheltered housing.

Now I can hear you asking what has Mr Everton been up to, that has brought him to the attention of the CANAcT team?

I will tell you, Mr Everton's crime is that of gardening.

Yes, gardening!

Mr Everton became fed up with the dismal conditions of the communal areas of his housing project. He therefore decided to use his initiative and skills, and brighten the place up by doing some gardening.

Now you can see where he went wrong.

You see, in order for Nanny to maintain her control over us she cannot allow people to think for themselves or to act on their own initiative.

Mr Everton has been busy over the past few months; tending plants, clearing weeds, maintaining hanging baskets, cutting grass etc.

This work has been done for free I would add.

Nanny's chums in CANAcT were not amused at this selfless display of initiative and action. They have issued Mr Everton with a notice banning him from:

- mowing the lawn
- making compost
- having bonfires
- painting doors
- growing vegetables

He must also gain approval, in writing, for any future activities.

There was a general uproar from the residents when they heard of this daft ban. Not unreasonably people pointed out that the council ought to be more concerned with weeding out social scum, rather than weeding out a weeder of lawns.

This uproar has not impressed Nanny.

Her spokesman from the council noted that the investigation into Mr Everton's activities have been lengthy and expensive (remember it is the taxpayer who pays though), and that there is a health and safety issue at stake here.

Morons!

The locals each pay £2K a year in council tax; I am sure that they feel that their money is well spent.

Not!

A Small Victory

This being the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, it seems appropriate to report a small victory in the ongoing war against Nanny and her trolls.

You may recall that sometime ago, in June, I wrote about Nanny's chums in Torbay Council who had decided that the display of a five foot crucifix in their crematorium was offensive to non Christians, and therefore decided to remove it.

Well, needless to say, this daft decision caused such a barrage of complaints; that Nanny has had to back track.

Common sense has now prevailed, and the crucifix is back; this time shrouded by a curtain, as and when people request that it be covered.

You see, with determination and perserverance, Nanny can be defeated.

Nanny Bans Fat

Nanny seems to be having something of an "anti fat drive" going at the moment, at least that seemed to be the case for Mary Magilton from Oldham Manchester.

Mary found herself on the wrong end of a traffic accident, when a car mounted a pavement hit her and drove off.

Needless to say, she gave a statement to the police a few days later describing the female driver.

Unfortunately for Mary, the policeman that she was speaking to was clearly a close friend of Nanny; and therefore up to speed on the latest "nu-speak".

During Mary's description, the policeman admonished her for her use of the word "fat" when describing the driver.

Can you believe this?

Instead of the officer taking a note of her description, he paused and told her she could not use such language to describe an alleged offender.

Mrs Magilton said:

"They did not even get me to sign a statement. They treated me with such disdain. How can they ever find a criminal if they cannot take a description?"

She described the driver as having brown, shoulder-length hair and glasses. When asked "what build was she?", Mary replied "fat".

Mary the described what happened in the police station:

"They turned funny on me and told me I could not make such remarks."

Mary said:

"I do not know any other words to describe a fat person.

I looked it up in the dictionary and the alternatives are lardy, porky, podgy and other words I would not dare to use."

Needless to say, having corrected Mary of her "impure language" the police have yet to catch the non thin hit and run driver.

Our safety in Nanny's hands!

The Fat Police

Beware venturing into Scotland, if you are a tad larger than Nanny's defined girth.

Nanny has plans to use a specially trained force of "Fat Policemen" to rid Scotland of obesity.

It seems that the Scottish Executive is considering plans to send "outreach workers" (ie busybodies) into pubs clubs and bingo halls, looking for fat people.

Once they have identified a portly person, they will then impose themselves upon the hapless individual and "encourage" their prey to take more exercise.

The second word in the response to such "encouragement" is "OFF!".

The Enormous Omelette

Sometimes I read a story that warms to cockles of my heart, can I say cockles?

Whereby a person or group puts up a fight, and resists Nanny's attempts at behaviour modification.

My compliments therefore to the good people at Burger King, Britain's second-biggest fast food chain.

They have decided to stick two fingers up at Nanny by snubbing Nanny's attempts to reduce levels of salt, fat and sugar in food to make it healthier.

Burger King have pulled out of a joint initiative, between the food industry and the Food Standards Agency (FSA), to reformulate fast foods to make them less unhealthy.

Burger King intend to concentrate on making its burgers and other products as "tasty" as it can.

Bloody good show!

This means that they will stop cutting salt, fat and sugar. Indeed they are in fact moving on to the offensive; by considering selling the "Enormous Omelette Sandwich".

This splendidly robust product was recently launched in America. It contains a stonking 740 calories and 4.9 grams of salt; and comprises two slices of cheese, two eggs, three strips of bacon and a sausage patty on a bun.

Now that's an omelette!

This decision, needless to say, will cause Nanny a few headaches as it threatens the consensus between the food industry, the FSA and the Department of Health.

Needless to say, by opting for taste, rather than Nanny's puritanical bland blend, Burger King are likely to find their omelettes selling like...erm..er.."hot cakes" (which of course Nanny doesn't approve of either!).

Nanny and her chums will doubtless argue that it is disgraceful that such a product is put before the British public.

My view is simple, if I choose to gorge like a pig and balloon to 20 stone in weight, then it is my own stupid fault.

Nanny Bans Bond

The new James Bond has been selected, it will be Daniel Craig. The media report that Craig will give Bond a darker edge.

However, Nanny couldn't let something as important as the new Bond go by without sticking her nose in.

It seems that Nanny has forbidden Bond from smoking in his next film, this despite the fact that Ian Flemming's character smoked 70 a day.

Nanny is worried that the sight of Bond smoking may set a bad example to people.

However, the good news is that Bond will still be able to kill people in a variety of imaginative and violent ways.

A tad hypocritical don't you think?

Basket Case

My commiserations to Bob of Great Livermere in Suffolk, who bravely tried to use his own intitiative to brighten his community up but was stopped by Nanny.

His crime?

He put hanging baskets of flowers onto new road signs outside his home, to try to brighten them up and make them look less obtrusive.

Unfortunately Nanny doesn't like anyone thinking for themselves, and acting without her permission.

Consequently Bob has received a letter from Suffolk County Council, telling him to stop hanging baskets of flowers on signs; as they are "a distraction to drivers and they can restrict visibility".

There is of course a counter argument, namely that the flowers will draw motorists' attention to the signs; thus making them more visible.

Bob remains defiant, and is not going to take any notice.

Hyperbole Of The Week

I was considering giving the Prat of the Week award to this bloke, but this week's award has already been allocated.

Therefore I have instituted another award, which doubtless will never be used again, namely "Hyperbole of the Week".

This week's Hyperbole of the Week Award goes to Nanny's chums in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for publishing an article by Mike Daube, Professor of Health Policy Curtin University of Technology Perth Western Australia.

Professor Daube and the BMJ have decided, for reasons that unclear, to put their noses into the Tory leadership contest.

Specifically, the BMJ is very concerned about the long term health effects to the nation of a win by Ken Clarke.

Professor Daube has written a lengthy, and "hyperbolic" (I do like that word), article on the horrors of Ken Clarke's association with BAT and the tobacco industry. He portrays dear old Ken as an angel of death, a tad over the top wouldn't you say.

Here is an extract:

"The tobacco industry comprises evil companies, promoting and selling a product they know to be lethal. Kenneth Clarke has been a supporter of the industry for over 30 years, and one of its leaders since 1998.

Surely a peddler of death and disease has no place aspiring to lead the party of Disraeli, let alone a great country.

If he is elected, companies such as BAT will flourish with access at the highest levels,

while their products kill more and more millions in Britain

and around the world."

I wonder what the learned professor would say if David "I won't tell you if I took drugs" Cameron won?

Methinks that the BMJ would be better off keeping their minds on their jobs, and not interfering in politics; especially since doctors are one of the highest consumers of drink, drugs and fags in the professions.

A Pointless Post

You have to hand it to Nanny, she never ceases to come up with new and "innovative" ways to waste money and ensure that even more people are dependent on her for their living.

This time her chums in Oxfordshire County Council have exceeded themselves. They have created a new job, for which there appears to be no point and which no one (not even their council leader) understands.

The new role is for a Corporate Social Inclusion Manager, earning a stonking £55K per annum.

Nice money for a non job!

Keith Mitchell, the county council leader, has admitted that he does not actually know what the point of the post is. He notes that the money could be better spent wiping out a huge predicted deficit in the council's overspending youth service, part of the authority's community learning directorate.

Nanny's non job is advertised, using all the latest corporate HR bullshit speak, thus:

"This is an outstanding opportunity for a highly motivated and articulate individual. You will be working at a corporate level across the whole spectrum of the council's activities, making a major contribution to policy implementation, performance monitoring and service improvement.

You will be able to maintain an effective balance between support, challenge and influence and be persuasive with senior managers, whilst maintaining their confidence.

With well-developed interpersonal skills and the ability to communicate effectively, you will be adaptable and able to work independently and as part of a team."

If anyone can tell me what this job is actually about, please do let me know.

Mr Mitchell has stated that he will look into whether this particular post is a necessary function.

Quote:

"I fear this might be a job to satisfy a Government inspector and, given that we have issues in the youth service, we could have wiped out half the deficit with this money.

Social inclusion is very important, but we could do it just as effectively with youth workers so I'm yet to be convinced about this position."

Nanny employs over 7 million people, that is how she keeps her grip on power.

How To Lie With Statistics

Now we all know that Nanny would never lie to us, don't we children?

After all, she is the paragon of virtue and respectability.

Sometimes though she does allow things to be, how shall I put this?, "misinterpreted".

That at least could be the explanation for the apparent lie that Nanny's chum Bill Rammell, Minister for Higher Education, told last week.

He was happily extolling his view the world that students from state schools were disadvantaged, when it comes to being accepted by universities.

His rationale?

The grade predictions for pupils from state schools are habitually underpredicted by their teachers. This means, according to Rammell, that they are offered less university places than those who come from private education.

Now Rammell was happily using these "facts" to promote Nanny's latest idea of "social engineering"; namely that universities should hold back a proportion of their places, until after the publication of A- level results.

Why do governments think that social engineering is a good thing?

It always fails dismally.

However, there is one fly in Rammell's ointment.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right, he was lying...ooh sorry, "accidentally allowing people to misrepresent the research".

It seems that the A level predictions for pupils from state schools are indeed adjusted by their teachers.

Not downwards though.

UPWARDS!

Yes, much to Nanny's discomfort, it seems that Rammell forgot to mention in his "social engineering" rant last week that teachers from state schools overestimate the grades of their pupils.

The actual results from state schools are in fact worse than predicted.

A DfES-commissioned study shows that poorer teenagers were the most likely to have their predicted results exaggerated by their teachers. Grade predictions on university application forms were most accurate for students from wealthier backgrounds. Teachers at state schools overestimated the true performance of their students far more than those in the independent sector.

The study, carried out by academics at Oxford University, also noted:

"There is no evidence to support the view that those with overpredicted grades received more offers than those who have their performance underpredicted."

Geoff Hayward, who produced the report for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas), said that he was mystified and annoyed at the way the DfES had presented the research. He said:

"The evidence we produced does not support the strong contention that those from less well-off backgrounds are being disadvantaged by the current system.

It's just not true. They are trying to portray a particular image that poorer students are being disadvantaged by the system, but the report I wrote finds very, very weak, if any, support for that conclusion."

Rammell is now squirming, like a worm on a hook, as he tries to make out that he didn't deliberately lie.

He should have remembered that there is a Civil Service Code that states that civil servants have "the duty to give Parliament or the Assembly and the public as full information as possible about their policies, decisions and actions, and not to deceive or knowingly mislead them".

Still that's never stopped Nanny in the past from lying to us, I doubt that she will change her ways now.

Prat of The Week

In a regular feature on Nanny Knows Best, we like to give an award to an individual who by actions or words has proven himself/herself to be an utter prat.

This week's Prat of The Week Award goes to North Wales police chief, Richard Brunstrom.

You will recall that Brunstrom has featured on this site before, in connection with the investigation into Anne Robinson's comments about the Welsh.

She described them as being "irritating and annoying".

Brunstrom's force managed to clock up £4K in costs, as they doggedly pursued their investigation in the Nation's Sweetheart; needless to say the investigations came to nowt.

Anyhoo, Brunstrom has managed to find himself involved in yet another investigation concerning alleged anti Welsh comments.

This time it involves Blairy Poppins herself, who allegedly shouted "fucking Welsh" when the Welsh dissed him during an election vote.

Brunstrom has now "hinted" in an interview that Blairy is in fact under investigation for this heinous thought crime; clearly the police in Wales have nothing better to do with their time!

In the interview Mr Brunstrom said:

"A complaint has been made. We are investigating. It is a live case. We did not seek this.

The government has given us laws and I think they are good laws and we must deal with that.

We have to balance resources but we have definitely put more effort into hate crime.

There is almost no way we could not investigate what is being reported (about Blair). It is not trivial.

I cannot comment further but I can tell you we take this seriously."

Then, as if to add credibility to his rather odd view of what constitutes an effective use of police time, Brunstrom bizarrely claims that a decade ago police in North Wales "were seen as an English force of occupation, and with some justification".

One small fly in the ointment of this outburst, most of the senior officers were Welsh by birth and upbringing and (according to one retired officer) fiercely loyal and proud to be Welsh.

Well in this site's view Brunstrom well deserves the Prat of The Week Award, for bringing the police force in Wales into such disrepute.

Nanny Bans Novelty Pigs

Nanny is always concerned about ensuring that people are not unnecessarily offended by the actions of others; not that she is very concerned about offending us herself, she is after all perfect!

Anyhoo, it has come to her attention that novelty pig calendars and toys are being displayed in Dudley council offices

This of course, to the untrained eye, represents no problem at all.

However, Nanny has a very special training and looks for offence where there is none.

As such, her lackeys in Dudley Council have banned the display these items, lest they offend Muslim staff.

Workers in the council's benefits department have been told to remove, or cover up, all pig products including; toys, porcelain, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.

This sudden attack on the world of pork by Nanny, comes after a Muslim worker said that they were offended by pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the authority.

I am sure that tolerant countries such as Iran, are equally sensitive to the feelings of non Muslims.

The thing is, these pig items have been in Dudley council for years. Needless to say the banning has caused something of an atmosphere.

No doubt the ban has aided and improved inter religious understanding!

The council were asked what was the specific reason, given by the person, for asking for the removal of these item. The council replied:

"It did not matter why it was considered offensive".

There you go folks, you now have carte blanche to complain about anything you like; no reason is required.

Nanny will ban whatever you want.

Go ahead, let yourselves rip!

The Wrong Trunks

It seems that Nanny now believes that all adults are paedophiles, that at least is the inference to be drawn from the problems that Janice Turner of The Times has encountered at her local primary school swimming hole.

She noted that last week her son, and 7 other boys, were banned from swimming.

Why?

They had the wrong trunks!

Her son chose to wear long surfer-style swimwear, which he has worn on many other occasions to other swimming areas.

However, Nanny's lifeguard was concerned that the pockets could fill up with water (yes that would be likely in a swimming pool) and pull him under.

However, the real reason for the ban was given by her son's teacher.

Nanny disapproves of these shorts because they may come off in the pool, not that they have ever done so before.

Should they fall off, this will afford adults a glimpse of her sons privates; Nanny of course believes that all adults are paedophiles.

Do not be alarmed that the ban is only aimed at boys, the ban is not sexist; the school also bans girls from wearing anything other than black and navy blue swim suits, lest they go transparent.

Janice poses the question:

Which is the bigger danger: the real one of a generation of children barely able to swim, or the largely imaginary one of predatory paedophiles lurking by the side of every pool?

The problem with Nanny's attitude is that creates a high level of fear in the minds of children, towards adults.

That surely can't be healthy.

Softly Softly

I was going to give a jolly old rant about the daftness of Nanny on this siren story.

However, given the fact I am labouring under a stonking hangover from hell today, I have more than a little sympathy for people who don't want to hear loud sirens:)

Therefore I merely report the story for information, without the customary smart arse comments and associated "wit".

It seems that the police may find themselves in court if they play their sirens too loud.

City councillor John Warmisham of Salford, Lancashire, said that response vehicles stationed at the new Pendleton station on Belvedere Road were making life a misery for neighbours.

A spokesman for a local residents' association, said:

"There have been a lot of complaints at our meetings ever since the station opened in January. The racket is terrible."

Warmisham has warned that he will ask his environmental health officers to launch legal action if there isn't a cut in noise.

Tuck Off! Part II

Yesterday I noted, see "Tuck Off", that Nanny's ban on traditional tuck food fayre would mean that schools would have to start inspecting lunch boxes.

Well guess what?

Some already do!

Wharrier Street Primary school, in Newcastle, has already instituted this policy. Dinner ladies at the school, acting "under orders", are confiscating "banned" products from pupils' lunch boxes.

Bernadette Doherty, the headmistress, says in an Orwellian fashion:

"This is for the benefit of the children"

Now some of the crafty scamps will of course try to get their daily sugar and fat fix from outwith school premises.

Nanny is trying desperately to stop that, and is using all the laws at her disposal to prevent her rules being disobeyed.

At Thomas Tallis secondary school a fast-food van regularly turns up outside of the gates, and teachers have to watch as children go out and buy chips at lunchtime.

Nanny tried to stop this by invoking her environmental laws and health and safety rules, but to quote a spokesman for Nanny:

"Unfortunately he (the fast food man) was complying with everything and there was nothing we could do."

That statement raises all sorts of concerns about Nanny's approach.

Don't you think it is rather scary that Nanny will bend and twist laws, designed for an unrelated purpose, to try to get her own way?

Nanny doesn't get it does she?

People won't change unless they want to change.

Tuck Off!

I am really beginning to think that Nanny must have had some very unpleasant experience with food, when she was a child; that at least would be one explanation for her seemingly never ending obsession with telling us what we should eat.

Nanny's dear old chum Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly decided to have another go at our diets last week, by banning most of the products on sale in the school tuck shop (for my non Brit readers, a tuck shop is a sweet shop based within school grounds).

Opus Kelly said that crisps (did you know that crisps contain a very high amount of vitamin C), chocolate and fizzy drinks would be banned from sale in schools from September 2006.

If they are so dangerous, why is she not banning them now?

Does that not leave a whole year for the greedy and ignorant to sue Nanny for putting their little brats at risk, by exposing them to these "dangerous" products?

Anyhoo, in 2006 schools will be required by law to empty vending machines of the products, and remove them from tuck shops.

Opus's spokesman said that new legislation would cover "any way that food is served in schools, in tuck shops and vending machines".

That surely means that a child's packed lunch box is also subject to this law?

Taken to its logical conclusion it means that, in order to comply with the law, schools will have to search lunch boxes and confiscate "non conforming" sandwiches and biscuits etc.

It's not just crisps and fizz that are banned; burgers, sausages and other foods high in fat, salt and sugar content will also be outlawed as part of new nutritional standards for school canteens.

Ms Kelly told delegates at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last week:

"I am absolutely clear: the scandal of junk food served every day in school canteens must end.

And because children need healthy options throughout the day, from next September no school will be able to have vending machines selling crisps, chocolates and sugary fizzy drinks."

If these products are so bad, why has Nanny taken since 1997 (when she first grasped power) to act?

Aside from the obvious issues about freedom of choice and packed lunches, we do live in a free market economy etc, there is another small point. Vending machines are controlled by outside contractors, under the Government's Private Finance Initiative.

The contracts will have to be changed; that will cost a lot of money, if the companies are willing to change them.

I would like to make simple personal observation here.

When I was a child; I ate chips, burgers and sausages at school with no ill effects. I am now 43, and am not obese (in fact ladies, I am quite fit and trim;)).

The reason being, that whilst at school I may have indulged, at home my parents made sure that I ate properly; ie vegetables, fresh meat etc.

The health issue for some children is the fact that they eat shit all day; the fault lies not with Nanny, but with their lazy ignorant parents.

Now, we as a society are going to have to make a choice; do we let people live their lives as they wish (even if soem of us disapprove of their ignorance and stupidity), or do we dictate what they eat at home as well.

If Nanny is serious about her desire to improve the eating habits of the children, then this is the nettle that she will have to grasp.

To my view, Nanny is not serious at all; these headline catching "bans" are merely gimmicks pushed onto Nanny by other headline grabbers, such as Jamie "I work for Sainsburys" Oliver.

That is the real trouble with Nanny, she is not sincere; and that is why no one listens to her.

Nanny Bans St George

Nanny has got her knickers in a twist over St George again.

This time she is getting worked up over the flag of St George, and its supposed racist connotations.

Nanny's chum Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, has banned staff at Wakefield jail from wearing ties pins featuring the Cross of St George.

It seems that she is worried that some of the prisoners residing at Her Majesty's pleasure there, Ian Huntley the Soham killer is one, may feel that the pins are a racist insult.

The reality is of course different.

The pins had been bought by officers to support a cancer charity.

Ms Owers was not moved by this, in a report on the jail Ms Owers said:

"While we were told that these had been bought in support of a cancer charity there was clear scope for misinterpretation.

Prison Service Orders made clear that unauthorised badges and pins should not be worn."

Nanny should remember the old adage, drummed into me whilst I was studying to be a Chartered Accountant, "substance over form"; ie look at the reality behind the facade.

The Dangers of Sweets

Nanny does seem to have a bit of a thing at the moment about sweets and diet.

Not only does she consider sweets to be bad for the health, but she now has decreed that they are also weapons of mass destruction.

Well dangerous weapons anyway.

Think I am kidding?

Nanny held her big debate on Iraq last week.

However, it was interrupted by a furious woman from Unison storming onto the podium complaining about being banned from bringing sweets into the conference.

Quote:

"I want to know why I have been stopped from bringing a bag of sweeties into the conference. It is bureaucracy gone mad!"

It seems that Nanny was worried that they could be used as missiles.

I also undertsand that an elderly lady had a bag of Mint Imperials confiscated, for fear that she might create mayhem by rolling them along the floor.

Bonkers!

Nanny Bans Freedom of Speech

It's been a busy week for Nanny, as she had to put on her annual Nuremberg Rally; this time held in Brighton.

As ever with these events, Nanny becomes particularly testy when people try to disrupt the rallies by speaking "off message" and by trying to express their own views.

Nanny was very annoyed that one individual had the temerity to interupt her dear old friend Jack Straw, whilst he was making his speech about the logic of the Iraq war.

Nanny was so cross that she had the man forcibly removed from the conference hall.

His crime?

He shouted out the word "rubbish" during Straw's speech.

There was of course a double irony for Nanny:

1 The forcible removal was shown on national television

2 The delegate, Walter Wolfgang, is an 82 year old Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. He came to Britain to escape strong arm bullying by dictators.

The incident, needless to say, made national headlines. This really pissed Nanny off so much, that her best chum the viper of spin Alastair Campbell wrote angrily in the Grauniad as follows:

"Was it really so newsworthy as to virtually wipe out coverage of debates on health and education, the tone of which was mature and challenging?"

Funny how Nanny gets worried about the "real issues", only when the spin goes against her.

Anyhoo, Nanny's problems with the media coverage did not end there.

She has managed to get herself into a row with Channel 4, after a team from its current affairs show Dispatches was banned from the conference.

Nanny has been formerly accused of control freakery by the broadcaster's head of news and current affairs, Dorothy Byrne.

Ms Byrne has sent a strongly worded letter to Jo Murray, Labour's chief press and broadcasting officer, after the Dispatches crew was refused entrance to Nanny's rally.

The team had initially been given permission to attend Monday's speech by Gordon "Smiler" Brown. However, when the crew arrived at the conference centre on Monday, it was informed that all Channel 4 documentary makers were banned.

It seems that Nanny not only banned Channel 4, but all other current affairs and documentary crews from the event.

I think Mr Wolfgang may have to consider moving again, Nanny has banned freedom of speech and freedom of reporting.