Prat Of The Week

This week's Prat of The Week Award goes to one of Nanny's henchmen, Terry White, from the Labour Communications Unit.

White has decreed, in an email to Allan Murray a member of the public, that sports fans who wave the flag of Saint George are racist.

This follows on from a comment made by an ex-minister, Gisela Stuart (German born), who claimed that the rise of Englishness is a threat to democracy.

Mr Murray had written to Nanny saying:

"Why is it that as a party you dislike the English so much?

I am fed up to the back teeth with Labour's endless dumbing down of the English.

The Labour Party are trying to wipe England off the UK map."

White responded in a rant worthy of Nanny herself:

"England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past.

It is a fact that the right and extreme right in Britain cloak themselves in the English flag, the cross of St George and claim to be the true representatives of the English.

Wherever there is hooligan behaviour, usually linked to extreme right-wing political groups eg, at football matches here and abroad, it is the flag of St George that is displayed."

Utter....wait for it....bollocks!

Nanny is using the tired old argument that we should be guilty for our past, and to atone we must never mention our nationality again (except by way of shame).

Piffle and balderdash!

You can no more undo your past, than you can disinvent the wheel.

Yet Nanny is more than happy to encourage "racial awareness", and a yearning for separate identities, by encouraging devolution in Scotland and Wales. I won't even begin to discuss the Smooth Talking Bar Steward's shambolic attempt at a Northern Regional Assembly!

When you start to unpick the fabric of a United Kingdom, that took many centuries of bloodshed and toil to unite, you will get a backlash.

Nanny has realised that she may have spoken out of turn here, and has done what comes naturally to her; she has disowned White. A Labour spokesman said:

"We cannot condone these comments and they in no way represent the views of the Party. We apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."

Too late, you have exposed your warped thinking to the world; now suffer the consequences.

Those of you who wish to tell White and Nanny what you think of them, can contact them at the following address:

Terry White
The Labour Party
16 Old Queen Street
London SW1H 9HP

08705 900 200

info@new.labour.org.uk



Give them hell!

Nanny Bans Fat People II

It seems that my post yesterday about Nanny Banning Fat People, where I suggested that obesity was but the thin end of the wedge, may have been somewhat prescient of the shape of things to come.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (perversely named NICE) have issued guidelines that suggest that medical help could be refused to heavy drinkers, smokers and those who are overweight.

Principle 10 of the guidelines on Social Value Judgements state:

"NICE and its advisory bodies should avoid denying care to patients with conditions that are,or may be, self-inflicted (in part or in whole).

If, however, self-inflicted cause(s) of the condition influence the clinical or cost effectiveness of the use of an intervention, it may be appropriate to take this into account."

-Who decides what is self inflicted?

-Who decides what constitutes obese?

-Who decides what constitutes heavy drinking?

Nanny!

A poll by the website www.doctors.net.uk found one in five doctors said they had withheld treatment from a patient because of their "unhealthy" lifestyle.

Decisions are already being taken without our consent/knowledge, based on subjective judgements about our lifestyles.

The future is now!

Nanny Bans Fat People

Nanny, as we all know, has had a long hatred for all of those people who are different to her. One of the recurring themes of her daily harangues is that of food, specifically what we eat and how much we eat.

Needless to say, those of us who do not conform to her "analy retentive" beliefs on this subject are castigated as being second class citizens.

Specifically, those people who Nanny would describe as being "overweight" are subjected to daily lectures about getting more exercise and losing weight.

Up until now, the lectures and the implied ostracism were the "only" things that the "overweight" had to put up with. However, Nanny has now added a new weapon to her armoury in her war against the "obese". She has now decided that those people that she classifies as "overweight" will be denied certain operations on the National Health Service (NHS).

At least that's what her acolytes in Ipswich Primary care Trust have decreed. These charming people, unelected and unaccountable, have decided that the overweight will be denied hip and knee replacements; until the appropriate amount of weight has been lost.

Their rationale?

They need to save money, and fat people take longer to heal after such an operation; therefore they propose not operating on fat people.

Easy isn't it? Especially if your not "fat"!

However, I can see a few "flies in Nanny's ointment" over this:

• Who precisely decides as to what constitutes fat? Are these arbiters of fatness going to reveal themselves in public, so that they can debate the issue? I bet they don't.



• The NHS currently works on the principle that people pay, via the national insurance contribution, for a guaranteed health system that will treat (within the available resources) all manner of diseases and all people. There has been no list of exceptions issued, or communicated, to the people paying into the system.



• I suspect that the faceless bureaucrats introducing the "fat bar" had more than a little smile of smug self satisfaction, as they issued their decree. You see Nanny has so conditioned us to despise fatness, that "fat" people are rapidly becoming second class citizens. Once someone is deemed to be less worthy/human than you, it is so easy to treat them a little differently, isn't it? Need I draw reference to Nazi Germany?



• Today we ban fat people from having operations; tomorrow it will be smokers, drinkers and the elderly (they are going to die anyway, so why waste money on them?) who end up on Nanny's "not approved" list. In fact, let us go the whole hog in respect of saving money, and only treat people on the NHS who are healthy. In other words, if you are ill or injured the NHS won't treat you; isn't that the most logical way to save money?

In truth, the British people have been lied to over the last 40 years or so by politicians of all parties as to the abilities of the NHS. As people live longer, and medical techniques advance, the system will simply not be able to afford to treat every single ailment; unless there is a radical overhaul, and debate about what it should be able to do.

Most politicians are cowards, they have stifled the truth and the debate for fear of losing office. The British people need to debate openly about what the NHS is actually there to do, and how it can be funded.

My view, for what it is worth, is that a basic system should be implemented that guarantees a.o. single rooms for all, and treatments for regular and common illnesses eg hip replacements, apendix removals etc. Where the disease or illness is beyond the "norm", eg heart replacement, there should be a private funding top up made by an individual's private health scheme. Where an individual does not have one of these policies, he/she would be offered pain relief and the necessary basic care to ensure that his/her final days were as dignified as possible (including the option for suicide).

Doubtless many will disagree with the above proposal; but that's the point, the issues are not easy. However, if Nanny does not even allow us a debate about them; by the time we reach 65, there will be no health service left at all and it will be suicide pills for all.

Nanny Wastes Money Again!

Full marks for Nanny's ability to come up with even dafter ways of wasting our money.

Eric Laurier and Chris Philo, two human geography researchers at Glasgow University, have spent three years investigating the rise of the "cappuccino culture" in Britain, at the taxpayers' expense.

They have come to the stunning conclusion that high street cafes are convivial places, where people go to enjoy others' company.

The cost to the taxpayer of this waste of time and effort?

£140K, paid for by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Dr Laurier admitted:

"We were studying the everyday life that we all know. The things we are reporting on are things we know already.

There is nothing there that would make you say, 'Oh gosh'".

Among the report's conclusions are that cafes are often nicer places than pubs for women with small children to go to, and that people will stop going if the coffee is not good.

A spokeswoman for the ESRC said that the project was "socially relevant".

A spokesman for this site says "Bollocks!".

Prat Of The Week

This weeks Prat of The Week Award goes to Imran Khan.

What?

Imran Khan, one of the world's finest cricketers...have you gone mad Ken? I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on the net?).

No, not that Imran Khan, but Imran Khan the employee of Direct Line Insurance.

Khan has taken Direct Line to an employment tribunal for religious discrimination. It seems that Direct Line have done an unspeakable thing to him.

They have offered him bottles of wine as a performance incentive.

Louise Cummings, Khan's team leader, said she introduced the incentives as a means of "improving staff morale and performance".

Quote:

"If I had realised that I had hurt anyone's feelings, then I would have taken steps to rectify that immediately."

Khan is claiming that the bottles of wine on offer put him at a disadvantage because, as a Muslim, he cannot drink alcohol and was therefore unable to claim the prizes.

He is therefore seeking damages for "hurt feelings" under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

A cynic might suggest that Khan was just "trying it on".

Tariq Sadiq, speaking for Direct Line, said that another Muslim worker, who had won an alcoholic prize in a similar scheme, had "simply" exchanged it for an alternative.

I am sure that had Mr Khan used his brains, he could have found a suitable alternative.

I was about to say that as a prize for winning Prat of The Week, a bottle of Noilly Prat will be winging its way to Khan; but he would probably find that offensive.

So he will get nowt!

Happy Thanksgiving

I would like to wish my American visitors a happy, and peaceful, Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately the US Ambassador here in London has, yet again, left me off the invitation list for his Thanksgiving party in Grosvenor Square.

Maybe next year!

Ken

Cheers

Now that Nanny has allowed pubs to open beyond 11pm, for the first time since the First World War, has anyone noticed any difference?

Have England and Wales (note they have had late licensing in Scotland for years) been torn apart by drunken rampaging gangs?

No!

As I look out of my window today, I see no evidence of the total breakdown of civilisation that was predicted by the doom-mongers.

Cheers.

Ken

By the way, there is a very real threat to our drinking liberties; it comes from Systembolaget in Sweden.

Systembolaget is the state run alcohol monopoly, you can only buy booze in Sweden through their stores. They are designed to cut down your right to choose when and what you drink; by only opening between 9:00am and 5:00pm on working days, and a few hours on Saturday.

I lived in Sweden for 5 years, believe me Systembolaget is awful.

They feel that their monopoly is threatened by the fact that Swedes can now go abroad, and buy cheap booze (welcome to a free market economy!); therefore they have put together this little film Systembolaget.

Be afraid!

Nanny Boosts Takeaway Sales

Nanny has been lecturing us for a very long time about the dangers of takeaway foods, such as fried chicken and burgers.

They will make us fat and kill us, apparently.

Anyhoo, this constant haranguing has negatively impacted the sales of these foods to such an extent that it is seriously threatening the stability of the economy.

Did you know that approximately 30% of British GDP is generated by the fast food industry?

No, I didn't either.

Nanny, needless to say, has had to back track a little on her anti takeaway stance.

Therefore, she has decided to give the takeaway industry a one off boost in sales today.

Ever since the First World War, when munitions workers were too pissed to build the bombs and shells, Nanny has deemed that pubs in Britain must close at 11pm.

This Thursday this daft old rule will finally be abolished, and those pubs and clubs that have applied for late licences (and have been approved) will be able to stay open beyond 11pm.

However, as with all of Nanny's laws, there is a quirk in the way that the Licensing Act will be implemented.

The change in the law comes into force at midnight on Thursday.

Can you see the problem here folks?

Get it?

Got it?

Good!

Yes, that's right!

The pubs will still have to shut on Wednesday at 11pm, under the old law; drinking up time being 20 minutes, means that there will be a 40 minute gap between closing and re-opening time for those with late licences.

This legal oddity has left the police wondering what to do.

A spokeswoman from Scotland Yard said:

"I didn't realise that it's stupid. Life's never simple, is it?

We are duty-bound to enforce the no-drinking rule but it just seems craziness."

You see folks, there is a cunning point to this legal oddity, Nanny has in fact planned this 40 minute gap all along.

During the 40 minute break in drinking, people will inevitably go to the nearest takeaway.

A one off boom for that much maligned industry.

Nanny, you are a genius!

Note: the figures pertaining to the GDP of the British economy, quoted in this article, may in fact be utter bollocks.

Nanny Bans Carols

Christmas is coming,

The goose is getting fat,

Nanny needs a spanking,

There's no doubt about that

It seems that for Nanny, Christmas is becoming just too Christian these days.

Her chums in the Home Office are threatening to withdraw funding for a memorial carol service for the victims of crime, because it is "too Christian".

The service has been held at St Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square, for the last 11 years. It was set up to help grieving relatives of homicide.

However, Nanny's gnomes in the Home Office have threatened that they will withdraw funding unless the service tones down its Christian content.

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned commercial Christmas eh?

Nanny Bans Tinsel

It's funny how things that we have taken as being harmless over the years, can take on a new and dangerous form once Nanny has got her teeth into them.

One such innocent object, now classified by Nanny as dangerous, is tinsel.

Gill Pyatt, a headmistress at an unnamed school (if anyone knows the name of the school, please can you let me know), has banned her pupils from wearing tinsel in their hair at Christmas after a student accidentally scratched her eyeball.

However, according to the rumour mill, Ms Pyatt plans to ban all Christmas celebrations at the school.

According to Metro, some parents claimed that they were told Christmas would not be marked at all this year because of the large number of Muslim pupils.

What a silly thing to do.

Transport For London - A Contradiction In Terms

Congratulations to Nanny's friends in Transport for London (TFL), who are following the Disability Discrimination Act to the letter in respect of the Croydon tramlink.

The new steps at Morden Road, which were to have made the access to the stop slightly shorter, have been demolished.

This is even more daft than it sounds, as they had never been opened!

Not content with this act of vandalism TFL have now sealed off the steps from the bus stop to the Eastbound platform at Sandilands.

This means that people are once more forced to climb up the shrubs beside them as a short cut, increasing the risk of trips and falls.

Where's Health and Safety when you need them?

It seems that the new steps at Sandilands are rumoured to be not compliant with the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). However, it should be noted that the stop is
DDA accessible by virtue of the level access at each end.

The steps are merely an addition to the existing access.

However, Nanny doesn't give a toss about reality; just the letter of the law, which of course she creates in the first place!

Nanny Bans Toddlers

Nanny has an obsession with education, she claims that she wants the highest standards of education to be available for all.

The fact that, in many cases, the education system is failing the children of this country seems to have passed her by.

Anyhoo, as with many of Nanny's obsessions they tend to be somewhat schizophrenic and contradictory.

Nanny's chums in Fareham Borough Council have got themselves rather worked up over noise pollution. They won't have the peace and quite of their borough disturbed by extraneous and unwelcome noises.

Quite right!

Excessive traffic, noisy neighbours and noisy industrial equipment are a blight on society.

However, Nanny applies her rules to all noise creators; without fear or favour.

As such, Fareham Council have decided that 70 toddlers constitute a noise pollution threat. The toddlers play in a nursery garden, created by £2K public donations, next door to Jim Habens.

Habens has complained to the council about the noise, and the council have acted.

The toddlers must now only play in the garden for two half-hour slots a day, and the nursery Wendy house will have to be sound proofed.

Apparently, if these rules are not followed, the council will then implement a noise abatement order.

I wonder if this is really the best way to start children out on their long road of educational learning and discovery?

ID Cards Are Bollocks

Ken says ID cards are bollocks.

Dame Stella Rimington, ex head of MI5, says that ID cards are bollocks (Bloody hell! A link!).



Why can't Nanny see that ID Cards are bollocks?

Nanny Bans Celebrities

Nanny has decided to ban celebrities; what a bloody good idea!

Unfortunately her ban only extends to those celebs who endorse, what Nanny describes as, "junk food".

Nanny's chums in the Department of Health have issued an advisory document that says:

"Role models for children should not be used to endorse or personally to promote products (high in fat, salt or sugar) or promotional offers to children."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the role of parents to decide what children should eat?

The state should have no part to play in dictating, in a consumer society, who can buy what food product.

Nanny's dictat may end campaigns such as the Walkers crisps advertisements starring Gary Lineker, and David Beckham's £1M a year appearances for Pepsi (no loss there then).

The ban also extends to cartoon celebrities such as The Incredibles, who are used to promote Golden Nuggets cereal, and Spiderman who for reasons best known to himself eats Penguin biscuits rather than flies.

The proposals affect TV and cinema adverts, as well as internet campaigns and product packaging aimed at children under 12.

Needless to say Nanny does not think that her proposals go far enough. Health campaigners want a total ban on advertising "junk foods" to children. They believe voluntary codes will leave "wriggle room" for manufacturers, who will still be allowed to use celebrities to promote "healthy" foods and balanced diets.

Nanny classifies some brands of sliced white bread (which we all know to be the work of the devil!) and chicken tikka masala as "healthier choices".

Interestingly, because Nanny cannot issue a law that covers all potential loopholes, non celebrities that have been created especially for the promotion of "junk food" will not be banned.

In other words, Ronald McDonald and Tony the Tiger live to fight another day.

If only Nanny could kill off that irritating clown, then she might have maintained some credibility!

Nanny Bans Pens

The penis...Oops sorry...spelling mistake!

Start again Ken.

The pen is mightier than the sword, or so the old saying goes.

Evidently Nanny believes in these old sayings, as her chums in the British Standards Institution (BSI) have decreed that fountain pens are too dangerous for children under the age of 14.

Rather frightening to know that for decades children have been using these dangerous instruments, now to be told by Nanny that they can't. I myself had one at the tender age of 10, and ink blotted and smudged exercise books galore with it.

It seems that the BSI are worried that children, who apparently these days are congenital morons (if Nanny were to be believed), will swallow the cap.

Nanny has got so excised by this latest threat to civilisation that she has persuaded Waterman, the well known pen manufacturer, to insert a small slip with its pens which reads:

"This product is not intended for use by anyone under the age of 14 years."

Regrettably, owing to the failure of Nanny's education system, many children are in fact unable to read/understand this warning.

British Standard 7272, drafted in 1990 and updated several times, sets out strict guidelines on how pens should be made.

It says a pen cap should have a small hole to allow a child to breathe if he or she swallows it. Pens with no hole are seen as unsuitable for under-14s.

Needless to say nothing is ever simple in Nanny's Lah Lah Land, some adult pens are now defined as jewellery and therefore fall outside of BS 7272.

Kevin Jones, the headmaster of St John's College School, Cambridge, with 460 pupils aged four to 13, said:

"Perhaps I will have to employ pen police."

Don't joke, I am sure that there will be a some form of Nanny Citizens' Militia formed to deal with this threat.

Nanny Continues To Ban Christmas

I don't know why Nanny has such a bee in her bonnet about Christmas, but here is yet another example of her acting as a kill joy.

Nanny's chums in Waveney council in Lowestoft are planning to scrap grants for festive lights, because Christmas does not fit in with its "core values of equality and diversity".

Pardon my language, but what a load of....can you guess what I am going to say?..

UTTER BOLLOCKS!

A report drawn up by the council, then admits that the move could lead to officials being accused of "not supporting the spirit of Christmas".

Waveney council normally provides grants totalling £10K for festive lights. Its report states that because Christmas focuses only on the Christian faith, continuing the funding would "not fit well with the council's core values of equality and diversity".

The council is proposing to cut the lights grants to £5K next year and to stop them altogether by 2007.

Mark Bee, the council leader, tried to pretend that that the cuts were merely to save money. He said:

"I consider the wording of the document unfortunate and I will be taking it up with the officer on Monday..."

Too late, the proverbial cat is out of the bag Mr Bee!

So stupid, non Christians are in no way offended by the Christmas celebrations; this sort of ban is just patronising and daft.

Nanny Bans Remembrance

Today 87 years ago, the First World War ended. This Sunday, in the UK, it is Remembrance Sunday.

Normally, in the seaside town of Walton Essex, war veterans fire maroons at the beginning and the end of the two minute silence on Remembrance Sunday hedl at the Royal National Lifeboat (RNLI) station.

However, this year Nanny has decided to ban the maroons.

It seems that Nanny's chums in the RNLI HQ have sent a memo to all their lifeboat stations, warning them not to fire maroons because they could misfire or debris could be blown back to shore by the wind.

John Halls, the chairman of the local Royal British Legion, said he was "very sad" that the decades-old tradition had come to an end.

"When we fire the lifeboat maroons in any coastal town where there is a memorial service, it is a reminder of the people who fought for this country."

The people of Walton now plan to use fireworks instead.

Doesn't Nanny disapprove of them as well?

Nanny Bans Bonfires Again

Guy Fawkes night has just been and gone for another year; most of us managed to survive it unscathed, despite Nanny's warnings of doom and disaster.

Nonetheless, Nanny's chums in Test Valley Council Hampshire tried their very best to dampen the local residents' attempts to enjoy themselves on the 5th.

The residents were told by Nanny to spend their evening more constructively, composting their garden waste!

In a leaflet, the Test Valley Council, claimed that smoke from bonfires annoyed neighbours, made people ill and drifted over roads.

The council went on to warn that smoke, ash and smell polluted the environment and damaged people's health, especially those suffering from asthma, bronchitis or heart conditions.

It also warned of the dangers posed by bonfires spreading to surrounding fences and shrubs, as well as smoke causing traffic hazards.

The British people have been organising bonfires for the last 400 years, since the Gunpowder Plot was uncovered; we have managed to survive, and the country has yet to be engulfed in flames.

Nanny should really find something better to do with her time.

A Room With A View

Nanny has so many projects on the go, and so many people working for her (around 7 million now work for the state), that she constantly needs to take more money from her "charges" in order to fund her Nanny State.

Her plans for raising money next year, via a revaluation of the council tax, were thwarted by political expediency. The revaluation was postponed, because Nanny feared a backlash during the general election over higher council tax bills.

However, the election is now over, and Nanny is never thwarted for long in her desire to screw us for more tax. The review of council tax was merely postponed; have no fear, one is coming.

Nanny then came up with a particularly clever wheeze the other day, that would kill two birds with one stone; on the one hand it would raise extra revenue, and on the other it would give all those naughty people who live in "nice" areas a slap for being so bourgeois (Nanny hates the middle classes).

Nanny has decided to reintroduce that old tax favourite of the Middle Ages, the window tax. However, this time she will adapt it to the 21st century; council taxes will rise for those properties that Nanny considers to have a "nice view".

How very scientific!

Officials preparing the ground for the forthcoming revaluation exercise have been told to gather data on whether homes have views, roof terraces and large patios. Nanny has assigned "value significance codes" to 66 features of properties; ie if the box saying patio or golf course is ticked, it means your property is worth more.

Can you guess who is in charge of this revaluation exercise?



Yes that's right, John Prescott (Nanny's Smooth Talking Bar Steward)!

With Nanny's Smooth Talking Bar Steward in charge, you just know that this will work; don't you?

Nanny Scares Children

Nanny felt a little left out of the Halloween celebrations this year, and has decided that although it was over a week ago she would still like to give someone a fright; just to show us that she is human.

Now she put her thinking cap on and wondered, who would it be best to frighten?

The elderly?

No, she frightens them on a daily basis with her council tax and crime stats.

Working adults?

No she frightens them with her tax rises and health care system.

Wait a minute, what about children?

Brilliant, she hasn't frightened them for a while.

Therefore she got together with her chums at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), and formulated a campaign to scare children about fast food.

This way she kills two birds with one stone, she gives the kids a scare and pisses off the fast food industry (which she hates with venom).

Brilliant!

An awareness campaign called Food4Thought found that more than a third of 8-14 year olds had no clue what the main ingredient in potato chips was (some children answered oil, eggs, apples, and flour). Additionally, another nearly 4 in ten of them did not know that milk was the primary item that comprised cheese.

What does this tell us about many children in this country?

They are pig ignorant.

How has this appalling level of ignorance come about?

Parents no longer spend time with their children, in the kitchen, showing them how to cook.

Why?

Nanny has told parents that both of them must work, and parents have happily handed over the upbringing (aside from just the basic 3 R's) to Nanny.

A very dangerous state of affairs indeed.

The BHF has a solution to this, they intend to put up over 600,000 posters all across the UK that show the contents of an average chicken nugget and hot dog (gristle, bone, chicken scrotum and general gunge of that ilk).

This, in their view, will help educate children and deter them from mindlessly consuming foods that they have no idea what it is made of.

Peter Hollins, the director general of the BHF, said:

"Kids have lost touch with the most basic foods and no longer understand what they are eating.

Banning foods or telling children not to eat them is not enough - we must engage children in understanding why certain foods are less healthy than others."

Notice how easily Nanny uses the word "ban" whenever she pontificates on a subject that she disapproves of.

The trouble is, best practice with respect to eating is learnt at home; until parents wrest responsibility for the upbringing of their children from Nanny, change and improvement will not occur.

Relying on Nanny to sort out this mess, merely gives her more power over our daily lives.

Nanny Scares Children - Post Script

Following on from this morning's post about the BHF scaring children, by showing them photos of gristle and other bits that go into burgers and hot dogs.

Were their dubious reasoning followed, with regard to the "evil" of these animal parts, then the following foods should also be blacklisted by Nanny:

- Haggis
- Black pudding
- Pig's trotters
- Oxtails
- Faggots
- Devilled kidneys
- Sweatbreads
- Stuffed hearts
- Braised lambs testicles
- Spotted dick (need I say more?) etc

I have eaten all of these foods (plus a few bucket loads of KFC etc) over the past 40 years or more, and am perfectly healthy.

Nanny should keep her nose out of our food.

Nanny Bans Charity

In keeping with its austere image, Nanny's Inland Revenue have banned staff from being involved this Christmas with Samaritan's Purse; the controversial Christian charity whose founder, Billy Graham, in response to 9/11 described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion".

An internal memo tells staff that they cannot continue to be associated with the charity; because its operations do not conform to diversity policies, and might bring the Revenue into disrepute.

However, very generously, the Revenue do allow their staff to donate to the charity in their own time!

The Revenue's 100,000 employees have supported Operation Christmas Child, run by Samaritan's Purse, since the late 1990s.

Christmas Child sends over a million shoe boxes from Britain to children in countries including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Romania, Serbia, Sudan and Mozambique.

Donors are asked to pack boxes with gifts.

No Christian literature is included in the boxes. However, the charity does separately distribute Christmas stories from the Bible and encourages Bible study in areas where it gives toys out.

A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said:

"We have very clear workplace policies regarding the importance of valuing difference.

When an organisation demonstrates evidence of being at odds with those core values we cannot make special provision for that organisation to be supported on our premises.

To do so would be hypocritical and at odds with our diversity commitments."

The Church of England noted that:

"It does seem a strange way of promoting diversity.

If this charity was aiming to do a heavy conversion job on vulnerable children, that could be criticised. But the shoe box operation is another thing entirely."

Steve Whaley, of Samaritan's Purse, said donors to the shoe box scheme were warned that boxes must not include "anything of a political, racial or religious nature".

As ever, in order to promote her narrow view of "correctness", Nanny ensures that others suffer.

Nanny Bans Dwarfs

The run up to Christmas is now in full swing.

One major part of the traditional British Christmas is the pantomime; where men dress as women, women dress as men and the "principle boy" and leading lady are both played by women who get to kiss on stage in front of children.

No wonder the Brits have a few sexual hang ups!

None of this is at all out of place in the traditional British Christmas. However, there is one aspect of the pantomime that Nanny is very cross about.

That of Snow White's seven dwarfs.

Nanny, for some odd reason, does not like dwarfs.

As such the Coxheath Players (can I say Cox on the net?), a Kent based drama group, have had to replace their seven dwarfs with seven gnomes.

The script was delivered to them (the Coxheath Players) without any reference to dwarfs, instead the word gnome has been substituted.

A spokesman for the Northampton-based publishers said that the change had come from a wish not to offend - gnomes being fictitious.

The script, which the publishers Jasper Publishing said was a popular version performed by about 10 theatre companies a year, also sees some of the traditional dwarf names changed.

Seemingly a gnome, which is a fictional character like a giant or an ogre, it is not offensive.

Karen Birkbeck, who will direct the show for the Coxheath Players, said:

"We have to go by the script and the script says gnomes, so they have to be gnomes, I'm afraid.

We've got a Bossy and a Basher instead of a Bashful and a Doc, but we've still got a Dopey - a very dopey Dopey."

Jim Sperinck, a director of Jasper, said:

"If you were 3ft 6in would you prefer to be called a dwarf in a pantomime or a gnome?"

Missing the point old boy, aren't you?

If you were unhappy with the idea, you would not have auditioned for it in the first place surely?

Additionally, using Nanny's logic, as I am 5 foot 10 inches I am effectively excluded from being able to apply for the part of a gnome/dwarf; doesn't that breach my human rights or something?

Incidentally, whilst we are on the subject, what about the Humpalumpas in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory?

There's a whole host of issues in that............

Nanny Bans Christmas

I seem to recall writing about Nanny banning Christmas last year, how time flies!

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums in Lambeth council have got rather nervous about the forthcoming Christmas celebrations, and the implications for harmony within the borough.

As such they have decided to call their Christmas lights "Winter Lights".

Advertisements for the switch-on of the lights in multi-cultural Lambeth have renamed them, apparently for fear of offending other faiths.

A spokesman tried to weasel out of it, by saying that it was an error by a junior official and not council policy.

In three of Lambeth's main town centres, the lights were referred to as "Winter Lights", while in a fourth they were called "Celebrity Lights".

The council spokeswoman said an official was concerned about people from other religions.

She said:

"It was a junior-level decision and it happened to go into print which was an error basically.

I think it was certainly not a council policy that we should call the lights winter lights."

Needless to say Nanny is trying to pretend that it is all just a mistake.

However, Lambeth were unable to give an assurance that some of its lights would contain Christian connotations.

Leaders from non Christian faiths have said that the ban is ridiculous.

Nanny fails all of her "charges", whatever their faith.

The Cost of Nanny

Those of you who doubt that Nanny's rules affect ordinary everyday activities, should read the following and weep.

Nanny's chums in the EU have issued a "Working at Heights Directive", which affects us here in the UK.

Father Anthony Sutch, of St Benet's Church in Beccles, had to call in electricians the other week to change light bulbs that are 40 feet above the congregation.

However, safety regulations deemed the church ceiling too high for a ladder; therefore scaffolding had to be erected, for a lengthy and costly replacement operation.

The cost?

Yours for £1300!

Another "Bright" Idea From Nanny's Bar Steward

Those of you who are worried about the stability of the housing market, may need to turn away from your screens now.

Nanny has decided that she wants to add to the regulatory burden of selling a house, and has selected one of the finest minds in her cabinet to tackle this tricky subject.

Can you guess who that is?

Yes, that's right, none other than Nanny's smooth talking bar steward John Despot.

The very mention of his name in association with the housing market, something that underpins the British economy, should send shivers down everyone's spines.

Anyhoo, dear old John has come up with a real humdinger of a plan.

The benefits or rationale of his scheme, to either seller or buyer, remain unclear; nonetheless that has never stopped him in the past from doing something, and that most certainly won't stop him now.

He wants to introduce home information packs during 2007, which he says will reduce the cost of buying a home.

Really?

The packs would be prepared by the seller, at an estimated cost of up to £1000; theoretically they would provide the buyer with all the information that he/she would need, eg ownership evidence and a property "health report".

However, as with all of Nanny's ideas, this idea has not been thought through.

• Pre implementation there will be a rush of property sales, to avoid the £1000 cost and huge administrative burden; this will undoubtedly destabilise and inflate the already highly sensitive housing market.



• The regulations will spawn a whole new class of "property cowboy", people and firms who will charge exorbitant fees for preparing these packs; needless to say they will operate without any form of regulation.



• The fact that a seller prepares one of these packs, will be in no way a guarantee of the condition of the property; buyers will still have to pay for a survey. So how exactly does this reduce the cost of buying a property John?

The Bar Steward of course doesn't care about any of these problems, as he already has use of several homes (one for each of his Jaguars).



Buy a selection of "Bollocks To The Bar Steward" T shirts and thongs here.