Monday, January 31, 2005
Ringtone company, Jamster, has got itself into trouble with Nanny "wannabees".
Jamster's crime has been to use a computer graphic, Crazy Frog, to advertise its ringtone products. Seemingly some 60 people have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the frog; "Crazy" is showing, in their view, a little too much below the waistline.
Surely we have more important issues to address, than the design of a frog?
However, there is one good thing that to have come out of this attack of Nannyitis; someone has set up a petition to ban ring tone adverts. You can sign it by visiting Ban Ring Tone Ads.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Sarah McCaffrey was spotted by Nanny’s police, holding an apple while driving her car in December 2003.
They sought to prosecute her for dangerous driving. However, such was their obsession with meeting Nanny’s targets for prosecutions, they took 13 months to finally "bring her to justice"; at a cost of £10K.
Seemingly Sarah’s mistake, in the eyes of Nanny, was to argue that holding the apple did not mean that she was not in control of her car. Nanny’s police were so outraged at being contradicted, that they commissioned; the police force helicopter, a light aircraft and a patrol car equipped with a video camera to provide photographic evidence of the offence.
Would it be too obvious to suggest that if the police devoted as much time and energy to preventing real crime, then we would sleep more peacefully in our beds?
This sorry tale illustrates the problems of a Nanny state; Nanny’s friends and “tools” become so obsessed with pleasing her and achieving arbitrary targets set by her, that they lose sight of reason and common sense.
It bodes ill for the future; as Charles "Fungus" Clarke takes upon himself the right to imprison people he doesn’t like, without holding a trial before a jury.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Small firms are being warned this week about a new fraud, that plays on people’s deference to Nanny. It seems that businesses across the UK, are being targeted by a bogus health and safety compliance firm.
Businesses are receiving letters, and bills, from an organisation calling itself the “Health and Safety Registration Enforcement Division”.
This bunch of crooks is charging hundreds of pounds for so-called registration services.
The Health and Safety Executive, the genuine Nanny organisation, is warning business not to fall for this con.
The real Health and Safety Executive have launched a website, that help firms with their health and safety queries.
I don’t know about you, but this scares me almost as much as the scam merchants!
You can view it here Health and Safety.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
They instead make you go through a lengthy, and tortuous automated menu system (usually prefixed by 8070); before allowing you to talk to one of their "customer care" representatives.
A cynic might suggest that this lengthy queuing system is designed to put you off calling them!
Anyhoo, I have come across a site that circumnavigates the computer "doorman", and gives you phone numbers for a real human beings.
The site is www.saynoto0870.com; and although it may not have every Nanny company listed, it does have many household names.
I would be very grateful for your assistance on this one please.
I am currently working on a project, details of which will be revealed in the fullness of time, where I need documented examples of sleaze in New Labour.
I am looking for web links to newspaper articles, from the last 8 years or so.
Should you be able to point me in the right direction, please email me with any relevant links.
Many thanks for your help.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
However, this latest outburst of Nannying really goes beyond the pale.
It seems that Nanny feels that teddy bears, given away as prizes in gambling arcades, are too much of a temptation to people to gamble!
Nanny therefore wants to ban them.
Nanny believes that these cuddly bears lure youngsters into a lifetime of gambling. May I ask, has anyone ever won one of these?
I know that I haven't.
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport argues that young people should still be allowed to play at the arcades; in itself a contradiction of logic. surely?
However, it believes the prizes should not be too big. A spokesman said:
"The Government believes that children should be able to play these machines but the stakes and prizes should discourage them playing too much."
Now I must say that even by Nanny's warped reasoning, this latest nonsense is absurd. Nanny seems to have forgotten that she is loosening up the rules on casinos; these, you will recall, actually give cash prizes away!
Surely cash is far more tempting to gamblers, than teddy bears?
I would also remind Nanny that she happily endorses the National Lottery, surely one of the biggest gambling lures to ordinary people that there is.
Those of you wishing to save the teddy bear, may care to purchase one of Nanny's finest (seen here) from Nanny's Store.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
It seems, and this I must admit is a tad far fetched even by Nanny's standards, that gravestones present a health and safety hazard.
Nanny has got it into her head that certain types of gravestones may fall over, and injure someone. Now as far as I am aware, in the many centuries of burial with gravestones, this has only ever happened once; when a small child was playing around, and managed to knock one over.
Needless to say Nanny doesn't worry about statistics, she has happily instructed her minions in local councils around the country to take action.
Take action they have, and are busily ripping up hundreds of gravestones around the country. Needless to say, this is causing a good deal of distress to the relatives of the deceased.
Nanny's original solution, was to lay the ripped up gravestones flat on the ground. However, Nanny's health and safety team pointed out that this caused a "trip hazard"!
The councils, ever anxious to do Nanny's bidding, are now relaying the flat gravestones so that they can't trip you up.
In Nanny's Britain, even the dead cannot escape her hectoring and rest in peace!
Monday, January 24, 2005
They are labouring under the deranged impression that flowers are dangerous.
This strange belief has caused grief for two Spalding flower shop owners; Jane Fletcher, of Flowers 'N' Things, and Emma Peake of Daisies Floral Design.
They have received warning letters from the council, telling them to remove their floral displays from outside of their shops.
It seems that, in the eyes of the jobsworth council, these bright and colourful displays are a health and safety hazard for near sighted pedestrians.
In a fine example of British resistance to dictatorship, the ladies are refusing to remove their displays; arguing that they have been trading in this manner for years, without complaints from real people.
Paul Rusted, area highways manager for Boston and South Holland division, sent a letter threatening the ladies with the removal and destruction of their property if they do not comply.
The perversity, of this already ridiculous situation, is that Flowers ‘N’ Things has a licence for chairs and tables for its coffee shop. However, despite Mrs Fletcher offering to pay for another licence for flowers, the jobsworth council refuse to discuss the matter.
By the way the council’s policy of not allowing goods to be displayed on the pavement has, apparently, been in force since 1980.
Why then do they seek to enforce it now so aggressively, some 25 years after inception?
Maybe the new Freedom of Information Act could be used to extract an answer from them? Those wishing to ask the council about this daft decision can write to firstname.lastname@example.org
I am sure that they will be pleased to assist you!
Sunday, January 23, 2005
"We have already made clear we are determined to see fast progress in this whole area. There is a strong case for action to limit the advertising and promotion to children of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar..."
"We will monitor progress through Ofcom [the official regulator] and if by early 2007 sufficient progress has not been made we will introduce a compulsory framework for regulating the promotion of food to children.."
"But we are still seeing contradictory messages going out to the public, such as the recent two-for-one promotion of burgers or toy promotions..".
Nanny just can’t wait to legislate, and criminalise poor old Ronald and his chums.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Seemingly they feel that Tony, the Honey Monster and their associates are in fact evil manifestations of all that is wrong with our society.
Namely freedom of choice and consumerism.
Tony and his chums are to be banned, as they encourage children to eat cereals. It seems that Nanny doesn't feel that parents have any control over their children these days, and therefore seeks to intervene directly in their upbringing.
In a small concession to common sense, Nanny may allow Tony to appear on TV late at night.
Those of you who still would like to see Tony, may enjoy this vinatge clip from 1965. Visit Tony Tiger to view it.
Friday, January 21, 2005
It seems that, in the opinion of Dr Hazlewood, homework is a dinosaur.
"Homework, like the national curriculum, is a dinosaur..."
In view of this, he has banned it; and given his pupils the opportunity to "manage their own learning".
Now that'll work, won't it children?
This rather radical idea has taken everyone by surprise; including, so it seems, his own school. School policy notes that:
"regular homework is an essential element of learning and contributes to the development of sound study habits..".
Parents are even asked to tell the school if they think their child has been given too little homework.
This "brainwave" was not entirely Dr Hazlewood's own idea, plagiarism? tut tut, but the idea of the Royal Society for the Arts (RSA); which has concluded that teachers are not there to transmit knowledge.
May I ask what their role is then?
The Department of Education has belatedly said that homework is "an essential part of a good education". Unfortunately they are the very same idiots who funded the RSA project in the first place.
That's the trouble with Nanny, she doesn't keep track of what her acolytes are doing.
Dr H is no stranger to daft ideas; he has already introduced "cross-curricular projects", whatever they are, and has allowed pupils to mark each other's work.
The intellectual basis of this idea to ban homework, and I use the words with a degree of irony, is that pupils are to be encouraged to "love learning for its own sake".
Seemingly pupils will be instilled with:
"competences for learning, citizenship, relating to people, managing situations and managing information..".
Exams it seems only impede pupils' progress!
That is all very well, but please tell the employers that when they are selecting a short list of interview candidates from over 100 CV's.
This daft policy will do the pupils no favours; as the real world, like it or not, relies on exams and other dinosaurs to grade and classify people.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Unfortunately, in order for Nanny to be able to do this to Ms Quinn, the rule is being applied to all divorced mothers who defy court orders in respect of granting access to their children.
As to whether this new law actually helps the poor children, who are caught in the middle of the parental battle, well Nanny hasn’t got round to thinking of that yet!
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
After all, fighting evil around the world does tend to make you think about the meaning of life; doesn’t it? Especially when you associate with Christian fundamentalists.
It has been the case, for many years, that the Scottish Calvinists have held the upper hand at Nanny’s court.
However, in recent years Blairy, through the influence of his Catholic wife, has sought spiritual comfort in the teachings of Rome; he was even reported to have communed with the Pope himself.
This thawing of relations with Rome has led Nanny to conclude that maybe the Calvinist influence needs to be taken in hand, and a more balanced government created.
Just such an opportunity arose with the recent Cabinet reshuffle, following David “trail without jury” Blunkett’s departure.
The position of Education Secretary became free.
Nanny immediately thought of her old friend Ruth Kelly for the role. Not only does Ms Kelly have children, she is a Catholic; in fact she is a member of Opus Dei.
This appointment would reign in the influence of the Calvinists. Needless to say Nanny, in her haste, did not bother to check this organisation out.
Opus Dei is rather an interesting organisation; it is, one might almost say, an organisation within an organisation.
In order to belong to it, you must be Catholic; however, you must be a “special type” of Catholic.
Opus Dei was founded by Josemaria Escriva in 1928. He had, shall we say, some rather forthright views on many issues; on women, for instance, he said:
"You should be like a carpet where people can step onto".
Escriva then went on to describe the “ideal” member of Opus Dei:
- He/she must be a fanatic, who does not make concessions
- He/she must be a warrior who blindly fights, instead of peacefully discussing with others
- He/she must offer blind obedience, and never thinks by themselves
- He/she must feel guilty for sexuality; seemingly, people who feel guilt are easy to control!
- He/she must be heartless; the heart must be given to God and, of course, to Opus Dei
- He/she must be without scruples
- He/she must be beautiful, intelligent and look down on others as though they are only animals
- He/she must secretly work behind people’s backs
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
- Deliberately poisoning your adopted child, by force-feeding him salt?
- Or smacking your child so that he/she develops a small bruise?
Neither, according to Nanny.
Nanny believes that both crimes are equally dreadful, and consequently you will receive 5 years if convicted of either of the above.
Another well balanced, and well thought through, piece of legislation from Nanny!
Monday, January 17, 2005
Nanny has a rather Calvinistic streak, she disapproves of wealth; rather she disapproves of others who are wealthy, and constantly seeks ways to denude these people of their money.
One of Nanny’s friends, Paul Goggins the Prisons Minister, has come up with a real “doozy” of a plan for redistributing wealth.
He has proposed that wealthy people, convicted of non imprisonable crimes, should pay more in fines for the same offence than those with less money.
Nanny Goggins says, and I quote, that this new system would make fines “fairer”.
Nanny’s new criminal tariff includes the following:
- The maximum fine for an offence like failing to stop after an accident would triple to £15,000
- The maximum fine in a magistrates' court will rise to £15,000 for an adult, from £1,000 to £3,000 for offenders aged 14-17 and from £250 to £750 for under 14s
Nanny has stuffed the prisons so full of people, even though she says that crime is falling, that she has decided that no more people can in fact be sent to prison.
Therefore, in future, judges have been asked not to send so many people to jail when they are sentencing.
This is excellent news for Nanny and “Smiler” Brown, as it means that they can fine them instead!
Saturday, January 15, 2005
However, Nanny has had a few nightmares about the fox hunting ban debacle; where Blairy's own office, fearful of the chaos that would ensue during the forthcoming general election, leaked a tip to the Countryside Alliance as to how they could "scupper" the ban for the next 7 years or so.
Nanny is not going risk the same problems arising with other animal issues. Therefore her proposed bill to protect goldfish from the stress of being given away at funfairs, and then being flushed down the toilet, is being quietly dropped.
It seems that Nanny is worried that disreputable organisations, such as www.nannyknowsbest.com, would take the "piss" out of her; and accuse her of creating a "Nanny State".
Tut tut, such mockery of our elected "leaders" is most certainly not approved of by this site!
Anyhoo, the welfare of the poor old goldfish is being sacrificed to save Nanny's blushes.
Do you feel that goldfish are getting a "raw deal"? Do you think that they should be saved, and this bill enacted?
Please feel free to post your views on goldfish here, they will of course be ignored.
Friday, January 14, 2005
One area that has been of particular concern to her, is the fact that those of her "charges" who seek to acquire the age old skill of cake decoration are being discriminated against.
In particular she is concerned that there is a certain "educational snobbery" being applied against those with cake decorating skills, in favour of those with qualifications in lesser subjects such as Physics.
To this end, Nanny has decreed that a distinction in cake decorating is worth more than an A grade in GCSE Physics.
There are those of you who may feel that this system is "bollocks". However, our old friend Stephen Twiglet (Nanny's School Standard Minister) has come to Nanny's rescue. He accuses detractors of:
"Old fashioned educational snobbery..."
"The world has moved on....This is a significant step forward in recognising the achievements of all pupils and of the importance of the flexible and vocational routes of learning..".
You will recall, as reported on this site (see "Nanny's Twiglet"), that Mr Twiglet has himself a little trouble with some of the more old fashioned educational skills; ie basic grammar.
Maybe he should have gone into cake decorating instead?
Thursday, January 13, 2005
It is reported that the Greater Manchester Police are adopting an Orwellian approach to the word “township”; they are banning it from being used in the force.
Seemingly it was adopted, around a year ago, to describe sub divisions within the Manchester police force. Quite how “township” is indicative of sub divisions I don’t know.
Notwithstanding that, Chief Inspector Jeff McMahon has issued a memo banning the word; on the grounds that, because of its associations with apartheid, it is racist.
As from now, all memos and signs with the word “township” will be replaced by the equally undescriptive word “partnership”.
The costs of removing signs, and reprinting letterheads, has not been disclosed; doubtless an enquiry as to the cost, using the new Freedom of Information Act, could be made.
Any such enquiry could of course be deemed to be a frivolous waste of Nanny’s time!
I wonder if the good people of Manchester feel any safer, now that they are being policed by “partnerships” instead of “townships”?
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
It seems that Scotland Yard has had to withdraw 180,000 fixed-penalty notice forms, after discovering that the phone number for people to call to pay the fines was incorrect.
These were issued in November last year, the problem was only brought to the attention of the police by people complaining that they could not get through on the phone lines.
It seems somewhat odd to me that it has taken this long for them to be withdrawn.
Whilst the police contend that the fines are still valid, a lawyer is quoted as saying that the error means that people will be able to contest the fines if:
"..they could prove that they were unable to read addresses for payment because of dyslexia or poor literacy skills...".
This sorry tale highlights the problems with many of Nanny's "initiatives", whilst they may be put forward with the best of intentions (that's very reasonable of me isn't it?), their implementation is lazy and slipshod.
In other words, Nanny cannot be bothered to think through the consequences of her actions; she merely seeks to grab the headlines.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
O’Brien “spilt the beans” in a detailed article, that he wrote this week for The Muslim Weekly.
In brief, the article tells Muslims that Nanny’s party is the only party that they should vote for; if they know what is good for them. Quote:
“..But this is not the first and only time that Labour Party has delivered for Muslims. When I was a Home Office Minister in 1997, the Muslim Council of Britain lobbied me to introduce not only a new law which would increase sentences for racial violence and harassment but also to recognise the particular problems faced by Muslims. As a result we were able to amend the law to make religion a factor in any violence and harassment. Today, new Crime Bill, announced in the Queens Speech is coming before Parliament to toughen the laws on incitement to religious hatred…”
O’Brien then goes on to describe Michael Howard as being “the most prominent Jewish figure in British politics” and asking “what will Michael Howard do for British Muslims?”
In other words, O’Brien blatantly plays to a perceived prejudice that Muslims and Jewish people cannot work together.
O’Brien’s nasty little article displays all that is odious, and unpleasant, about Nanny and her friends. They seek to rule by division, setting one group against another, and by buying votes.
The proposed law on religious hatred is a Trojan horse, in the democratic structure of this country. Were it already in place I guarantee that the Sikh extremists, who shut down the play in Birmingham in December, and the Christian extremists who are issuing death threats to BBC executives over the airing of the Jerry Springer opera would have used it for their own unpleasant ends.
People who seek to impose their inflexible ideas on others, by the use of violence, are scum; they should not be given laws that strengthen their hand!
Mr “Trial Without Jury” Blunkett once said:
“I am very clear that some of the noisiest and most high profile political and religious extremists in this country have no mandate to speak for the communities they claim to represent and evoke a reaction which plays into the hands of racists..”
This bill, if it is passed, will give those extremists an extra tool in their armoury. Nanny, by playing to the gallery, has sunk to the level of the religious extremists; stop this unholy bill now!
Monday, January 10, 2005
Blairy is really fed up with Smiler's constant attempts to hog the headlines.
We all know that, as far as Blairy is concerned, she bestrides the world like a colossus; and is less than happy to have Smiler muscling in making pronouncements on world poverty, Tsunamis or indeed co-operate with authors who write less than flattering accounts of life in the Number 10 Bunker.
Therefore, Blairy has applied for an ASBO to be placed on Smiler; forbidding him to be anywhere near Blairy during important meetings, and media events.
The first such meeting where Smiler will be ASBO'ed is the Davos World Economic Forum, which Blairy will attend on 27 January; Smiler is forbidden from attending.
Who said that ASBO's were just for the impoverished underclass?
Sunday, January 09, 2005
The website was littered with spelling errors such as; "recieved", "minster" and "commision".
It seems that Mr Twiglet must have missed out on some of the basics of reading writing, whilst at school; doubtless he will blame the Tory education cuts for that.
One of Nanny's spokesmen at the Department for Education said:
"Any corrections necessary to the website will be made straight away."
I suspect that there are a few more websites out there, run by Nanny's chums, that also contain a few howlers; if you know of any, please let me know.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
As from now, this site may also be accessed via the domain name www.laboursleaze.com
Friday, January 07, 2005
She came to this conclusion whilst on holiday in Egypt during, and after, the Tsunami disaster.
One part of her solution to this problem, is that she has decided to give a very large amount of aid to the victims of this disaster; the good news being (from her point of view) is that the money that she gives will not be hers, but the taxpayers.
No pain, no gain!
The second part of the solution to this problem is brilliant, even by her standards; she has decided that her “charges” should participate in voluntary work.
In order to make this easier for people, Nanny has decided to make “volunteering” compulsory.
Yes that’s right, you will be told to volunteer.
Each month of 2005 will be “themed” to a particular Nanny issue; eg January’s theme is health.
Brilliant isn’t it?
I don’t think this concept of “communal service” en masse has been used by any country, since Germany in the 1930’s.
One wonders where Nanny gets her ideas from!
Thursday, January 06, 2005
The matter has now been resolved.
After a few emails, back and forth, between myself and that most respected of media organs in which I suggested that maybe they would like to print a story about this site; they responded, very helpfully, by saying that they will not be taking me up on my suggestion.
So much for co-operation between media organisations!
Feel free to write to them telling them that this site deserves some publicity, The Times.
Her pleasure is more than enhanced when these trips, and the accommodations, are provided gratis by a foreign businessman or politician. Nanny feels that the bonding she achieves whilst on holiday with these people is invaluable.
Anyhoo, Nanny is concerned that some of her friends are not always afforded the opportunity to lead the life that she leads and to experience the pleasures that she experiences.
In view of this, she has decided to set up a travel agency for her "special" friends. This agency will act much like a dating agency, it will aim to match people with similar outlooks and backgrounds and place them in an exotic locale; so that they may bond, and gain a better understanding of each other.
Nanny's travel agency has had its first successful trial run, by matching Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark with one of Nanny's friends in the Scottish Parliament Jack McConnell (Scotland's First Minister).
They spent an idyllic time together, with their families, in Kirsty's villa in Majorca during New Year.
This holiday doubtless ensured that they strengthened their already close bonds.
Those of you with long memories will recall that Kirsty's company, Wark Clements, was awarded the contract to make a documentary about the dismally overbudget Holyrood parliament (£500M actual against a budget of £40M). Wark Clements then refused to hand over tapes to the Fraser inquiry into the spiraling cost of the project.
MSPs expressed concern about the role Mr McConnell played in this row last year, when he refused to support a bid to order them to be handed over.
So you see, Nanny's travel agency does help people gain a better understanding of each other; it also strengthens bonds, and ensures that they can work together in harmony.
Those of you wishing to sign up to Nanny's travel agency may be in for a disappointment, I am afraid that it is only open to her "special" friends in politics and the media.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
She is always "tub thumping" about social inclusion.
Nanny's fickle gaze has now turned to that bastion of prejudice, the Lake District National Park.
Seemingly, in Nanny's opinion, her targets for social inclusion are not being met by the Lake District National Park. Namely, not enough people from minorities and other groups are visiting the parks.
Nanny is concerned that the park only seems to appeal to the white middle classes, people like her neighbours in Islington in fact. I don't blame her, I wouldn't want a bunch of Islingtonites tramping through my undergrowth either!
Anyhoo, Nanny is determined to address this issue. Therefore in a splendidly daft solution, even by Nanny's halfwitted standards, she has decided to ban the free guided walks carried out by over 100 volunteer rangers .
The activities facing the axe, include a programme of 900 events run by 300 rangers. These include a magazine, informative talks, slide shows and children's farm visits.
Nanny's friend Paul Tiplady, national park officer, told the volunteers of the decision by letter. Quote:
"..more regional and EU funding would be attracted by refocusing on the urban young, people from ethnic communities and disabled people..".
In other words, it is merely stunt to grab more money from the EU; as we all know Nanny doesn't give a stuff about the countryside anyway.
If anyone can explain quite how axing volunteer rangers will change the socio economic mix of visitors, will they please explain it to the rest of us.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Yet, it seems, that she has a little vice of her own that she has tried to keep secret; namely, an unhealthy addiction to being in the company of power players in the tobacco industry.
As already reported on this site (see "The Stain of Nicotine"), Nanny’s dalliance with the tobacco power brokers goes back some years.
Bernie Ecclestone whetted Nanny’s appetite for nicotine and tobacco, by donating £1M to Labour. Unfortunately, Nanny had to give it back; once the media found out about it.
Not content with just taking money from tobacco, Nanny is also very happy to enjoy the largesse and hospitality of the tobacco industry.
Alain Dominique Perrin, a French tycoon and leading figure in the tobacco industry, is a close friend of Blairy Poppins.
Indeed he is such a close friend, that he gave Blairy and his “cost conscious” wife a free 5 day family holiday in his 15th-century chateau in the Lot region of south-west France in 2002. Oddly enough, Blairy “forgot” to record this in the register of members’ interests.
No matter, the Tories put that to rights by drawing it to his attention.
Now it seems that there has been yet another “dalliance” with the boys in the tobacco industry.
Some 18 months ago Norman Lamb, a Liberal Democrat MP, asked for details of who has dined with Blairy at public expense at Chequers (during 2001 to April 2003).
As with any request made to Nanny, it took a “wee while” for an answer to be extracted; some 18 months in fact!
On the list of luminaries, from the world of business and entertainment, to have dined at Blairy’s court was one Mr Alain Dominique.
Now the eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed that the name is similar, but not identical, to Blairy’s chum in the tobacco industry.
Mr Lamb queried this, and guess what?
It turns out the name had been the subject of an unfortunate, and “accidental”, typographical error.
Yes, it was in fact Nanny’s dear old friend Mr Alain Dominique Perrin.
Funny that his name had been “mis-typed”!
This sorry little tale of obfuscation, largesse, delay and deceit bodes ill for the smooth and efficient working of the much heralded Freedom of Information Act.
It does, however, speak volumes about the level of hypocrisy of Nanny; and the contempt that Nanny and her friends have for open government, the British people.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
As from yesterday, Nanny's Freedom of Information Act came into force.
This Act supposedly gives the citizens of Britain the right to extract information from Nanny, and her civil servants, about how the country is run and how decisions are made.
Needless to say, Nanny has made sure that it will not be as easy as it first sounds to extract information:
- She appointed her "trusted" and "respected" friend Lord Falconer of The Dome, to oversee the implementation of the Act. He has managed to ensure that the the Act has as many legal loopholes, enabling Nanny to avoid responding to information requests, as a Swiss cheese.
- Nanny also ordered her civil servants to shred and delete all emails, and other electronic documents stored, that were over 3 months old; just in case Falconer "cocked it up".
To this end she has created a new post, that of Freedom of Information Officer.
Given the high profile nature of this job, Nanny hunted high and low for a man who could provide the necessary gravitas and had experience of dealing with difficult issues and sensitive information.
Nanny was very lucky, a man who exactly fitted the bill came on to the job market over a year ago; he has happily accepted the role.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is pleased to announce that it has managed to secure an exclusive, direct, internet link with the new Freedom of information Officer.
Therefore if you would like to talk to him directly, please visit Nanny's Freedom of Information Officer and ask him a question.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Nanny's chums in the British Horse Society, which incidentally is patronised by the Queen, have criticised the Queen for riding the other day without a hard hat.
Surely what the Queen chooses to wear, when out riding, is her business?
It looks like Nanny is starting off 2005 as she means to go on, namely by putting her nose into matters that don't concern her.