Yellow Peril

This week we "endured", according the media, the hardships of a one day strike by Nanny's council workers.

Nanny's council staff are upset about their final salary pension schemes not being treated in the same way as their "brothers" in Whitehall.

It is a fair point for Nanny's employees to ask for equal treatment between themselves. However, what Nanny's workers are conveniently ignoring is that many of us in the private sector, who do not work for Nanny, no longer have the luxury of final salary pension schemes; they have been deemed to be prohibitively expensive, and as such are being fazed out.

Nanny's staff should take note of the above!

As to the effects of this one day strike, well maybe I lead a very blinkered and sheltered life, I noticed not one iota of difference.

Food supplies, power, water, phones, TV were still all readily available; I could work unimpeded. The hospitals and police functioned, and people still went about their daily business.

Croydon functioned as normal!

Therefore I have to ask this, if we do not notice Nanny's council workers going on strike, what exactly do they do?

I can answer my own question, here is a fine example of the added value of Nanny and her lackeys (who are paid for out of our taxes).

Motorists in Sheepcote Street Birmingham were issued with parking tickets when yellow lines were painted around their cars, having parked on the street which had no yellow lines.

The £60 fines were put on windscreens of parked cars last week, after Nanny's council workmen painted the lines on either side of the wheels and occasionally on the vehicles themselves!

Eamu Begum, a victim of the Yellow Peril, said:

"I park here every day and have had no problems before.

The yellow line goes around some of the cars and they've even got paint on one of the vehicles."

Eventually Nanny's chums in Birmingham City Council, having received a number of complaints, agreed to waive the fines.

Jobsworth wankers!

Seven million people now work directly for Nanny (note this figure excludes those working for Nanny's favoured suppliers such as Crapita); excluding those in the front line value added services, such as health care and the police, what the hell do these people do and why are we paying them?

The high level of public sector employment, paid for by the private sector, is unsustainable.

I am highly displeased with the situation!

The Farting Chair

I have to admit that I never thought that I would be writing about farting chairs, it seems more like something out of Benny Hill!

Have we descended to that level?

Anyhoo Sue Storer, deputy head of Bedminster Down Secondary school, is taking her ex employers to an employment tribunal.

She is claiming overwork, intimidation and stress.

Fair enough, perfectly reasonable grounds with which to make a claim.

However, it seems that the nub of her case (at least the way that the media report it) is the fact that she had a farting chair. Much like the chairs that CJ used in Reginald Perrin, her chair made farting noises whenever she sat or moved on it.

Mrs Storer told the tribunal that her two joint deputy heads, who were both men, were given new "executive" chairs without having to ask; whereas she continually had to apologise to pupils, parents and other teachers for the noises.

She ended up resigning from her job, and is now claiming more than £1 million, based on lost earnings and loss of pension, against Bristol City Council for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination.

In reference to the chair, she said:

"It was very embarrassing to sit on.

I asked for a chair that didn't give me a dead leg or make these very embarrassing farting sounds.

It was a regular joke that my chair would make these farting sounds and I regularly had to apologise that it wasn't me, it was my chair."

Seemingly a consignment of new chairs arrived in May 2002, and she was not allocated one.

She even tried using health and safety to justify a new chair (quite why farting constitutes a health and safety issue I don't know).

Quote:

"I had specially requested a chair under health and safety regulations and I didn't get one."

When asked why she did not sort out the problem, she said:

"It's a health and safety issue for an employer to ensure you have a comfortable chair."

She said that she had raised the issue with the health and safety co-ordinator, Dick Hibdidge, a fellow deputy head.

Quote:

"After 12 months of not receiving a chair, I put in a memo and still didn't receive one."

Richard Bevan, the chairman of the school governors, said:

"I just can't understand why that issue wouldn't have been resolved. I would have thought that anybody in a senior position could have sorted out that problem."

The head teacher said that one delivery of chairs sat in reception for two weeks.

Quote:

"If it was an issue, I would have expected her to help herself."

Herein lies the problem with the Nanny state. We have all become so used to relying on, and hiding behind, rules and regulations, that we have forgotten to use our initiative and common sense.

Common sense would have dictated that both parties addressed this issue, and found a simple way of obtaining a new chair.

Common sense, it seems, was sadly lacking in this case.

Breaking News

Breaking news...

Blairy Poppins to be interviewed by the police.

See www.laboursleaze.com

Breaking News

Breaking news.....Blair's aides facing possible corruption charges.

See www.laboursleaze.com

Put That Light Out!

Nanny said "Let there be darkness",

And lo there was darkness,

And Nanny looked around and saw what she had done, and was mighty pleased with her work...

Here endeth today's lesson.

Does that sound a little far fetched?

I am afraid not.

For you see ladies and gentlemen, Nanny is very upset about the amount of light pollution that is being emitted these days.

You know the sort of thing, street lamps, car headlights and lightbulbs in houses. All of these add to the general brightness of our surroundings, and enable us to function when the sun sets.

Unfortunately, Nanny is a creature of the night and prefers the embrace of the shadows. To this end her chums in the Campaign for Dark Skies, they fear that the amount of light prevents people from seeing the stars, have scored something of a victory.

As from April 6th light pollution will become a statutory nuisance, and refusal to obey an order from Nanny..."put that light out!"... to dim an offending illumination will be a criminal offence. Nanny will fine you up to £50,000.

The trouble is that it is Nanny, and her ministerial offices in London and the local councils, that are more often than not polluting the night skies.

Anyhoo, that small point is being swiftly swept under the carpet by Nanny. Her chums in the much respected and efficient local councils will police the new regulations.

Complainants will be asked to record the problem with a detailed note of times and dates of nuisance, and take some photographs for evidence.

The light owner will then be spoken to, to see if a compromise can be reached. If this fails, the environmental health officers will then take a decision as to whether the lighting is in fact a nuisance and request that it is abated. If the order is ignored, the local authority may begin legal action.

Pound to a penny that this law will be used in private vendettas between feuding neighbours, and by those who are insane who have nothing better to do than to poke their noses into other people's business.

By the way the following are exempt from Nanny's new law; airports, bus stations, road, rail transport facilities and lighthouses.

It is reported that the first target for the busybodies are the floodlamps used to illuminate Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square.

As Sir Edward Grey once said:

"The lights are going out, never to be relit in our lifetime".

Nanny Bans Organs

Ooh vicar, what a massive organ you have!

Jokes like these will soon become a thing of the past, if Nanny has her way.

It seems that Nanny's best chums in Euroland are worried about the state of our organs.

Please submit your favourite organ joke via the comment box...

Anyhoo, an EU directive has been issued which is aimed at controlling lead waste. Nothing wrong with that, except for the fact it impacts British organs!

You see folks, organ pipes contain lead; Nanny feels that the lead content of these pipes pose a serious threat to our health and safety.

I would venture to ask how many of you have actually sucked an organ...but I guess that would be taken in the wrong way!

As soon as an organ faces refurbishment, or rebuilding, the EC directive comes into play. Organs at Salisbury Cathedral, St Paul's in London, Worcester Cathedral, St Albans Abbey and Birmingham Town Hall are among the first that may be facing the chop as they are to be refurbished.

Nanny's regulations permit electrical equipment to have a maximum of 0.1% of their weight as lead. Organ pipes have a lead content of a stonking 50% or more. Nanny's chums in the Department of Trade and Industry has advised organ builders that, in the interests of directive harmony, they must "prepare to comply".

Now at this point you may have thought that an organ was a wind device..more jokes please...but you see, the wind producing part of the instrument is powered by an electric motor.

The great Harrison and Harrison organ at the South Bank, which is now undergoing refurbishment, is under immediate threat. Under EU Directive 2002 95/EC RoHS and EU Directive 2002 96/EC WEEE, it will technically be illegal to reinstall it.

The Salisbury Cathedral organ, where the console is being renovated, is also in danger of breaking Nanny's new law.

Tim Hone, head of liturgy and music at the cathedral, said:

"We would have to use a piano in perpetuity."

One point that even a 10 year old could have worked out, not Nanny of course, is that the lead in organ pipes is not thrown away but re-used. Therefore, if common sense were to be used, the directive should not apply.

However, we all know that Nanny and her lackeys do not exeicise common sense; they merely follow and implent the laws to the letter.

In a letter to organists nationwide, Katherine Venning, the president of the Institute of British Organ Building, said:

"There is a very black cloud on the horizon.

This is not a safety issue.

Pipe makers live to a ripe old age, with no known damage to their health.

The use of tin-lead alloy is essential.

There is no known substitute that will give equivalent results.

Pipe organs last indefinitely, and present no threat to the environment."

A lackey for the DTI said that the directive did apply to organs, and that Britain could not deviate from a "harmonised approach".

There is a possible solution, remove the electric motors and resort to hand pumping...cue more jokes..to keep the organ going.

People of Britain, stand up for you organs!

CRACC Launches Manifesto

Croydon Ratepayers Against Croydon Council (CRACC) launches its manifesto. See www.cracc.co.uk

A Scottish Farce

My heart felt commiserations to the good people of Scotland who, since this weekend, have had to endure Nanny's smoking ban which has been imposed upon them by the Scottish executive.

The ban on public smoking is being interpreted in a number of ways:

• Tayside are planning to ban smoking in public parks and anywhere near schools and hospitals



• Highland Council are banning its employees from actually taking fag breaks. Seemingly "they will be doing themselves harm in company time". So drinking at lunchtime is still OK then is it?



• Edinburgh City Council will be employing undercover "narks", who will report anyone seen smoking in a public place illegally. Shades of the Third Reich methinks, where people were afraid of doing or saying anything lest their neighbour be a secret Gestapo agent

The smoking ban has been imposed, according to Nanny, to improve the health of the Scottish people. Yet the fact that Scotland has Europe's highest drug abuse problem seems to have passed Nanny by. Shouldn't she be addressing that as the key health issue?

Oh, if I may just point out one small fly in Nanny's self righteous oinkment?

It seems that Scottish ministers are paying into a pension firm that has £126m invested in the world's biggest cigarette company!

Jack McConnell, the first minister, and Andy Kerr, the health minister, will get a nice little payout from investment firm Baillie Gifford, which owns 3m shares in US-based Altria, makers of Marlboro cigarettes.

The value of Altria shares has risen by 230% in the past five years. Parliament officials believe that the £10m pension fund the firm runs for all Scottish ministers and MSPs is directly invested in tobacco firms.

A tad hypocritical of Nanny, wouldn't you say?

Nanny Speak

Freedom, it seems, is a troublesome concept for Nanny to understand.

Lat year Universities UK issued a guide on dealing with hate crimes and intolerance on campus. It advised vice-chancellors of the following:

"Proportionate interference with the lecturer's right to freedom of expression is permissible where necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others".

In other words, if Nanny doesn't like what you say she will stop you saying it!

That is wrong!

Nanny's minions in the University of Leeds are currently using this rule to silence one of their lecturers, who has set the cat amongst the pigeons with his views on race and gender.

Today it is a controversial lecturer that they silence, tomorrow it might be you!

Nanny's 30 Year IT Project

Nanny loves IT, she loves to boast that she will make the UK the world's leader in respect of the "wired economy"; she also has a special love for the surveillance opportunities afforded by IT systems and the web.

In Nanny's view, IT will be the bedrock of her "Brave New World".

Unfortunately there is one small fly in Nanny's oinkment, she is crap at IT projects!

Colin Talbot, Professor of Public Policy at Manchester Business School and a leading adviser to the National Audit Office (NAO), has recently gone public with criticisms of Nanny's IT capabilities.

He says that it will take another 30 years before Whitehall can successfully deliver major IT projects, unless fundamental changes are made.

The Professor believes that endemic problems in the civil service mean that IT delivery failures will not be solved, and that Nanny's eGovernment Unit's Transformational Government (TG) strategy is "hype" (that's polite Professor speak for Bollocks!).

Professor Talbot says:

"The strategy reads like technology is a cure-all,

which is massively over-hyped and doesn't square with the record of large-scale government programmes."

He then lambasts Nanny's preference for the "gifted amateur", which in effect means that senior civil servants lack hands-on experience and are unqualified to do the jobs that they were hired for.

Quote:

"We won't get over these problems until there are root and branch changes.

At the current rate it will take another 30 years for there to be any significant impact."

He should not be so pessimistic, as long as Nanny keeps using the services of high quality firms such as Crapita, there is nothing for us to worry about!

Oops!

Sorry folks in my earlier article about Crapita, I put the wrong link in; it should of course been www.laboursleaze.com

Ken

Nanny's Pussy Problems

The sad demise of Humphrey, the Downing Street cat, reminds us of Nanny's trouble with pussies.

I don't know why, but she doesn't seem to like them; you will recall that Blairy banished Humphrey shortly after moving into Downing Street in 1997.

Anyhoo, not content with banning pussies in Downing Street, Nanny has extended her pussy exclusion zone to Orkney.

The good people of the Highland Park distillery on Orkney have for generations (200 years in fact) kept a distillery cat, to keep the mice and rat population down.

The most recent occupant of the important post was Barley, who was sadly knocked over the other week. Up until now the distillery would have replaced Barley with a new mouser. Unfortunately Nanny's dreaded pussy police, the Health and Safety executive, have put their big noses into what is not any of their business.

Nanny has banned the distillery from employing anymore cats, seemingly there is a health and safety risk here!

I would make two observations:

1 Surely the threat posed by mice and rats to health and safety is greater than that posed by a cat?

2 The distillery has employed a cat for 200 years, without any ill effects on its customers, why this sudden sense of danger now?

Under Nanny we have become a nation of pussies!

Chairman of Crapita Quits

BREAKING NEWS....

The Chairman of Crapita (sorry Capita) has just quit, see www.laboursleaze.com.

Capita (known by some as Crapita), made its fortune bidding for contracts from the public sector. Since the last election it has secured the payroll provision for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

In February it was awarded the £120M contract to represent the Department for Trade and Industry over miners' personal injury liability claims.

In December it won the contract to administer the British Waterways pension scheme.

In September it was given the contract to provide IT services to the Department of Work and Pensions. It also collects the BBC's licence fee and administers the London congestion charge.

The company states:

"Our multiple contacts and contracts across central government enable us to play a core role in the reform of public services,

meeting e-government targets,

joining up government initiatives and achieving a cultural change in service delivery

Capita's breadth of expertise positions us well to assist with meeting these challenges."

Capita was involved in the disastrous launch of the Criminal Records Bureau in 2002. The company was fined £2M for its failings in providing criminal checks on people working with the vulnerable.

In 2000 Capita was appointed as the customer service provider for the Individual Learning Accounts Scheme, which went £70M over budget.

Nice work if you can get it:)

The Cost of Nanny

Oh dear, is it that time of year again?

Yes folks, Budget Day is once more upon us.

Gordon "Smiler" Brown (known by his staff as Mr Potato Head) returns to the dispatch box this afternoon to increase our taxes, with the depressing regularity of an unloved season.

The quite astonishing thing is that Brown is now taxing us at levels that we have not experienced since Dennis Healy did in the dark days of the 1970's.

Doubt me?

According to Ernst & Young, Smiler is raking in £1M per minute from us.

Peter Spencer, economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club a forecasting group, said:

"It's an all-time high and we're entering uncharted waters.

We know higher taxes help explain what is happening on Britain's high streets."

Treasury figures show tax revenues will total £490BN this year, up from £271BN when Brown took office. The £219BN rise is equivalent to £9K for every household in Britain.

Yet where is the money going?

Is the health service any better?

No!

Are schools producing well developed, literate, employable leavers?

No!

Are pensioners receiving a decent pension?

No!

Are are urban landscapes being redeveloped in a "human friendly" form?

No!

Where the fuck is the money going Gordon?

Answer: it is paying the 7 million people who now work for Nanny. Unfortunately, whilst this may keep people off the unemployment register, it provides little added value to the economy or indeed to the well being of the nation.

Background reading: "The Road to Nowhere - The Delusion of the Burgeoning Public Sector".

Happy Budget Day folks!

Criminal Probe Into Labour

Breaking news: read Criminal Probe Into Labour

Nanny Breaks The Law II

Further to my earlier article today about Tessa Jowell breaking her own Licencing Laws, by singing/performing in public without a licence, it seems from the comments received that Westminster City Council won't prosecute her because no one has complained.

Those of you who feel that Tessa should be fined £20000 for breaking one of her own laws, may therefore wish to complain to Westminster Council.

Please feel free to do so via this link Westminster City Council Feedback Form.

Nanny Breaks The Law

I wonder if Nanny's chum, dear old Tessa Jowell, is feeling that she is getting a little too much press coverage these days?

Well, tough, she has some more!

It seems, as is the case with Nanny's hypocritical approach to the law, whatever laws her humble charges must obey they are not applicable to Nanny and her chums; loans for peerages, money laundering, not paying council tax etc...you know the sort of thing.

As the old saying goes:

"One law for Nanny, another for the rest of us".

Anyhoo, it seems that dear old Tessa Jowell (the lady who doesn't understand/know the mortgage arrangements on her own home) broke her own licensing laws.

OOHH!

Tessa was hosting an event for womens' campaigner Emily Pankhurst, on March 8 in Central London, during which a group of MPs and journalists had a jolly old sing-a-long.

Nothing wrong with that, in pre Nanny days. However, you will recall that Nanny introduced a new licensing act; this prohibits all manner of events unless they have a licence.

Guess what?

Tessa, being above the law, didn't apply to Westminster City Council for a licence.

Westminster City Council are claiming that she should have applied for a temporary event notice (TEN) for the occasion.

A spokeswoman said:

"Under their own remit they should have applied for a TEN.

But we are not prosecuting."

They bloody well should, if the event had been held by you or I; they would have prosecuted!

A lackey for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it did not believe the event required a licence; well they would say that wouldn't they?

Quote:

"Because the singing was incidental to the memorial service, it does not fall under the terms of the Act

The event was held in private, there was no alcohol consumed and it was not-for-profit."

Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster summed it up rather well:

"This fiasco has shown the government's own MPs and their own agencies don't understand the tortuous new licensing laws.

Worse still,

the government's numerous excuses have shown that even those who drew up the new laws don't understand them either."

Well what would you expect from a woman who claims that she doesn't know about the mortgage arrangements on her own home?

You believe her don't you folks?

Tessa set the law up and, if Westminster Council had the stones to prosecute, faces a £20K fine.

Can we bring a private prosecution?

We deserve something far better than this bunch of lying, deceitful hypocrites running the country.

Nanny's Troublesome Erection

Dear old Nanny simply adores monuments, much like a pathetic third world dictator there is nothing she likes better than constructing a massive erection in a public place.

These erections serve a useful purpose, in her mind, of taking people's minds off the real issues in life and of reminding her humble charges as to her magnificence.

One such erection, specially commissioned by Nanny to staunch the media hysteria after the death of the Royal fashion icon, is the Diana Memorial Fountain.

You will recall that this £5M erection has had a few "health and safety" issues since it was commissioned.

It should therefore come as no surprise to hear that it has suffered yet another problem.

Tessa Jowell, Britain's "highly respected and financially transparent" culture secretary, has revealed that joints between the building blocks are showing hairline cracks because of subsidence.

This sorry excuse of an erection, which has now come to symbolise all the major failings of Nanny and her lackeys (cost overruns, badly thought out, unnecessary etc), will need further repairs to help it withstand the effects of weathering and subsidence.

Jowell has needless to say played down this latest problem, well she would wouldn't she?

She insists that the fountain is in no danger of falling down. The question is, would you trust a woman who claims that she knew nothing about the mortgage arrangements on her own home to be able to judge the structural integrity of an erection?

There is further good news for this costly fiasco, the inquiry by the public accounts committee, is expected to highlight a catalogue of errors with the project and lambast those responsible.

So far it has cost over £2M more than originally estimated.

Although there is no sign that the stone itself is breaking, cracks have appeared in the joints between some of the 545 blocks of Cornish granite.

Now if they had only used Italian marble, I am sure Nanny with her impeccable Italian connections could have found a good deal on a ship load!

Nanny clearly used cowboy builders and designers in this sorry little project, if she cannot even build a fountain why on earth should we trust her with more important and larger projects?

Self Sacrifice

I suspect that there are some of you who may be feeling that Nanny is all talk and no action.

You probably feel that she claims to care about the ordinary men and women under her charge, yet when it comes to demonstrating that she cares there is precious little action.

Well let me tell you how wrong you are, Nanny does care; and I can prove it.

The recent rise in unemployment has caused Nanny no end of grief and lost sleep, she has wracked her brains trying to work out what she can do to help matters.

Then one of her best friends, David Mills (husband of Tessa Jowell), stepped into the breach. He has single handedly increased the number of jobs available to the unemployed, at quite a cost to himself I would add.

Companies House lists Mills as having five current appointments, but it also notes that he has 46 resigned appointments and 54 dissolved appointments.

Now that's a sacrifice, socialism leading by example!

Do Unto Others

Funny that Nanny's Attorney General got so miffed about having his phone conversation recorded by Sir Ian Blair, the Head of the Metropolitan Police.

After all, Nanny is quite happy to monitor the conversations and comings and goings of us mere mortals!

Nanny Bans Plaster

Nanny has a morbid fear of risk, now that would be all well and good if she kept that to herself; unfortunately, she doesn't, and insists on imposing her zero risk policy on all and sundry.

There are a number of problems with a zero risk society, which I refer to as "The Immutable Laws of The Universe":

• It is impossible to achieve a state of zero risk



• The costs of trying to achieve zero risk are truly staggering, and are simply not economically viable



• Struggle gives life meaning



• Profit is the reward for risk.
  
  We live in a capitalist society, and rely on companies and individuals to earn money to make the economy work and grow. Without this growth we would still all be festering in caves.
  
  Zero risk means zero profit, which in turn means that no one would go into business and the economy would grind to a halt

Unfortunately Nanny hasn't grasped these immutable laws of the universe yet!

I am sure that Julie Scott would be inclined to agree with me, that Nanny has gone too far in trying to achieve her view of Nirvana.

Julie was called by staff at Uphill Primary School, near Weston-super-Mare Somerset, last week after her nine year old daughter Emily cut her finger.

The staff at the school have been so brainwashed by Nanny about zeroising risk, that they told Mrs Scott that local council guidelines meant that they were unable to put the sticking plaster on Emily's cut finger.

Mrs Scott had to go to the school herself to bandage her daughter's finger, and left a box of plasters by her desk in case of any further mishaps.

The school claim that strict guidelines, passed down to them from Nanny's hobgoblins in North Somerset Council, meant that they were not allowed to administer plasters.

Emily's father, Kevan, said:

"The whole saga is absolutely ridiculous.

My daughter had a tiny cut and I just cannot see the reason why a plaster couldn't be put on her finger by the staff.

I am not criticising the school at all which has always been great.

The staff I've spoken to there think the rule is stupid also.

When my wife went in to put the plaster on Emily's finger the teachers were apologising to her for having to come in.

It's a ludicrous guideline that the school seem to have been given, people should be men not mice.

Members of the Parents and Teachers Association were saying just the other day how absurd it was.

This is another example of the Nanny state

and the kind of rule that was probably drawn up by a committee

because nobody with any sense would have come up with it on their own."

The hobgoblins in North Somerset Council were not impressed with such a frank expression of opinion by one of Nanny's subjects, a troll for the council said:

"We provide broad guidelines for first aid in schools and there is no mention of using plasters.

Each child joining a school has to produce a medical declaration which includes allergies

and therefore it is down to the school to use its judgement about whether it is appropriate to use plasters or not.

This case highlights that we perhaps need to re-issue guidelines to schools to clarify the issue."

In other words they got it wrong, but being mindless lackeys were not prepared to admit that they got it wrong and blamed the school.

This case exposes Nanny's mindless zero risk policy to be the nonsense that it is. Mankind has been cutting and grazing itself for hundreds of thousands of years, yet it has survived until now.

I well recall my "yoof", when knees and elbows were regularly scrapped by tumbles in the playground. A knotted handkerchief sufficed to staunch the blood flow, and scabs were regularly picked in the following days with glee.

Go on, admit it, you all did the same!

I am now 43, fit and healthy; I managed to escape all forms of blood poisoning and long term scar tissue, despite falling foul of Nanny's current day absurd rules.

These rules will simply turn us into a nation of weaklings, unable to survive the slightest cold or cut.

Nanny, instead of zeroising risks, has issued death sentence on the next generation.

The Wrong Rubbish

Nanny hates litter,

I hate litter,

You hate litter,

We all hate litter!

One thing, at least, that we can all agree on.

Therefore full marks to Andrew Tierney, of Hinckley, who threw some litter into a litter bin on a lamp post last month.

Regrettably for Andrew he reckoned without the snooping and prying eyes of Nanny and her troglodytes.

A fortnight later he received a letter from the trolls who work in Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, they were fining him £50 for his trouble.

Why?

Well you see, Andrew had thrown away two pieces of junk mail that had been thrust into his hand by the postman, as he left for work.

In Nanny's eyes junk mail counts as "domestic refuse", and as such should not be put into a public litter bin.

Two questions immediately spring to mind here:

1 What sad, pathetic, snooping, twat had nothing better to do with his/her life than to spy on Andrew and report him?

2 Was it worse than spying, did some troll from the council go through the contents of the bin and read Andrew's name and address on the letters?

3 Should Andrew have simply thrown the letters onto the street?

Needless to say, Andrew is not taking this pathetic fine lying down; he is going to court over the matter.

Quote:

"I've been fined for doing the right thing

I could have easily chucked those letters on the ground, but I put them in the bin.

What has happened is a joke.

The council is barmy.

I never thought you could get a fine for putting rubbish in a bin

that's what they are there for."

He added:

"The council has told me to pay up or appeal

and there's absolutely no way I'm paying up.

No one I know was even aware a fine like this exists.

You get fined for chucking rubbish on the floor.

You get fined for chucking rubbish in the bin.

So what exactly are you supposed to do?"

The jobsworths at the council refused to back down, and rather incongruously noted that the bin's purpose was to "to keep streets tidy".

A Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council troll noted that junk mail "constituted household waste" which "has a separate collection."

The troll went on to say:

"A fixed penalty notice is served to people who we believe have committed an offence.

Anyone who feels they have been issued with a penalty unfairly can appeal,

and we will consider each case based on the evidence before us.

Our litter bins are there to keep streets tidy, as they enable the public to deposit small amounts of litter.

They are not provided for household waste."

What a plonker!

Now the council are considering putting signs up on the bins, no doubt at great expense!

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council chief executive Steve Atkinson, has he not got better things to do with his time?, got involved in the spat and said:

"If the evidence does not stack up and we are potentially guilty of over-reaction then we need to deal with it in the right way.

If we have over-reacted we will hold our hands up and acknowledge it."

It is hardly surprising that council tax bills keep going up. We will soon suffocate under a morass of red tape and snooping officialdom.

Simple solution, abolish all local councils; they seemingly serve no purpose other than to suffocate and tax their local residents.

On that particular subject you may find www.cracc.co.uk to be of interest:)

Nanny Bans Granny

It seems that not only does Nanny hate teenagers, but she also hates the elderly.

That at least is the experience of Betty Wilbraham, an 82 year old grandmother, who was going for a quiet drink in her local pub - the Hereward in Ely Cambridgeshire.

Betty, as per the custom of a lady brought up in a more genteel age, wears a hat when she goes out. Unfortunately the Hereward has imposed a "No Hats" policy, in order to allow their CCTV system to identify trouble making scumbags.

Now this policy, if applied in a sensible manner, is perfectly reasonable; there are trouble making scumbags who use hoodies and hats to hide from the camera. It is not unreasonable for the pub to ask "likely looking lads" to reveal their acne and pox ridden faces, lest they start to "kick off".

Unfortunately we live in the age of Nanny, where the state has taken responsibility for every aspect of our lives.

The result?

We no longer take responsibility for any aspect of our lives, and we have stopped thinking and using our common sense.

Needless to say Betty's hat caused the jobsworth morons running the pub some form of seizure, they asked her to remove it for security reasons.

The staff were of the opinion that there was a risk she would not be recognised on CCTV cameras if she started any trouble.

I would point out that the hat had maroon ribbons, I am sure that she could have been tracked down by our ever resourceful boys in blue in the event of her "kicking off"; after all if they have the nonce to record the Attorney General on the phone, then they certainly can track down an 82 year old.

Betty, towering above many at just over 5 foot, is none too impressed with the pub and vented her spleen:

"It is ludicrous to think that a little old lady like me could cause trouble in a pub.

I don't consider myself a threatening person.

It just shows the ridiculous nature of some of these rules and regulations.

Everyone is obsessed with security these days.

The girl told me that the pub was a hatless zone.

I did what she said because I did not want to make a fuss and I don't like to disobey orders.

I'm a hat person.

If I am going out to lunch I always wear a hat.

My mother wouldn't have set a foot outside the house for a loaf of bread without her hat.

She would have been horrified if ladies went to lunch without their hats."

Tony Love, the manager and evident lackey of the Nanny state, said:

"We put up the new signs

because we were finding it difficult classing what was a cap.

All customers and staff are treated the same.

In this day and age you don't know who are the troublemakers.

It is pointless having CCTV to protect people if those who cause trouble hide their faces.

I do understand Mrs Wilbraham's point of view but it is for her protection as much as anything else."

Love has clearly fallen under the dubious spell of Nanny, he misses the essential truth that is vital to the harmonious interaction of a mature and vibrant society; namely that people should apply common sense and use their judgement when interacting with people.

Relying on the state to act as arbiter will simply turn us into a nation of mindless automatons, destined to decay and wallow in our own filth as we wait for Nanny to wipe our bottoms.

Nanny Arrests Gollys

Nanny, you will recall, many moons ago banned Gollies on the basis that they were deemed to be racist.

However, sometimes with Nanny simply banning things does not quite give her the "kick" that she used to get in her younger days. Therefore she has to resort to more draconian measures in order to feel the same "rush".

Nanny's chums in the West Mercia police were in need a of a little "rush" themselves recently, evidently arresting criminals doesn't quite provide the same buzz that it used to. Therefore they decided to arrest some Gollies, who were "loitering with intent" in a shop window.

The dolls were seized from the window of a shop on suspicion of causing "alarm, harassment or distress" under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I can't quite see the scenes of "alarm and distress" that a few stuffed toys can have caused, but evidently as the result of one complaint from some sad individual the police felt that they had to act; you know that they always act very quickly when it comes to robberies and other acts of criminality.

The dolls were on display in the window of Pettifer's hardware and general store in Bromyard Herefordshirewhen, owned by Donald Reynolds.

Mr Reynolds feels that the entire event was "a ridiculous farce".

He was having lunch on February 12, when the police called. He was asked to bring a key to the shop, where he found an officer.

Quote:

"He said, 'I've come about the gollies. We've had a complaint they are causing offence'.

I couldn't believe it."

The officer then clambered into the window display and seized the dolls. I would note at this stage that it is perfectly legal to sell Golliwoggs. However, Nanny warned Mr Reynolds that putting them on display could be judged offensive.

Mr Reynolds had bought 100 Golliwoggs in three sizes, and they had been selling like "hot cakes".

Mr Reynolds added:

"When I realised what the police wanted with me that day I thought, this is society gone mad.

When the police said they had received a complaint

I thought I was on Candid Camera."

Needless to say, the police eventually realised that they had acted stupidly, and returned the Gollys.

The police said:

"Officers consulted appropriate partner agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service.

No offences have been identified and the items will be returned.

Suitable advice about the sensitivities of placing such items on display is being provided to the store owner.

West Mercia Constabulary considers the matter to be closed."

Note the phrase "no offences have been identified". In other words they acted without there ever being a breach of the law, but they looked very hard to try to find one!

Can the police, or rather should the police, be able to do that?

Is it their role to act as "thought police"?

I think not!

The police, having given the Gollys a large amount of publicity and drawn everyone's attention to the matter, can now be content in the knowledge that the Gollys will be publicly sold at an auction for charity.

Nanny at her finest!

Nanny Bans Bonking II

Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny banning bonking, there may be some of you who have decided that Nanny's rules have made it simply too difficult to engage in sex with another human being; as such you may have concluded that the only other solution is to "fly solo".

I'm afraid it will not be as simple as that.

Nanny has just released an urgent health advisory notice about the dangers of masturbation, see below.

Sorry folks!

Nanny Bans Bonking

WARNING THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS PHRASES OF A SEXUAL NATURE

Those of you who wish to indulge in the traditional British Saturday night pastime, of having a few drinks then having a bit of rumpy pumpy, may find themselves a little disappointed.

Nanny has decided to interfere in our sex lives, and has issued some guidelines as to what we have to do before indulging in our sexual pecadildos. In fact we will all have to complete some paperwork before we get our legs over in the future.

In Nanny's view we are simply too irresponsible to be allowed to have sex on our own (not literally folks!), in future it will have to be under her strict supervision. I always thought that she had voyeuristic tendencies.



To this end Nanny's chums in the Home Office are launching a £500K publicity campaign telling men to ensure that a woman has consented to sex, lest they be accused of rape.

The campaign will start next week and will feature; radio adverts, ads in men's magazines, stickers on condom machines and posters in pub toilets.

Nanny believes that we are all "confused" about sex, or rather the implications of her Sexual Offences Act 2003.

In other words, Nanny knows that her act if taken literally (which happens all to frequently these days with her daft laws) will cause almighty problems for us mere mortals. Another example of a badly drafted piece of legislation, which we have to suffer.

The act states that the burden to prove consent lies with the man, who has to show that he had taken 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the woman had consented to sex.

In other words, all men are rapists until they prove otherwise.

One of Nanny's troglodytes in the Home Office said:

"Giving consent is active not passive, and it's up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity."

The act also states that a person must have the freedom and capacity to consent to sex, which means that if a woman is drunk she has not the ability to give consent.

Now think about that for minute will you, Nanny is saying that women once they have a few drinks are too stupid and irresponsible to be allowed to make decisions. Nanny says that only the man, even if he himself has had a few, can actually be relied upon to make a rational and informed decision. In a nutshell, Nanny believes that women are not able to look after themselves.

Ladies, may I ask, how do you feel about that?

Are you not capable of looking after yourselves, under normal circumstances, on an evening out?

Don't you think that Nanny is being a tad patronising here?

I would also note that the presumption that the man has to prove that consent was given, means that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has been abandoned.

Nanny really does hate "due process"!

The only, and most effective, way that people can be sure that they will not fall foul of this daft law is for each party to the rumpy pumpy session to sign a waiver before they "get down to it".

I would also note another problem with Nanny's view of sex, what about lesbians and gays?

Who in the coupling there takes the "man's" role of protector of the "weak and feeble" woman in Nanny's distorted and confused view of sex?

The law is a total arse, Nanny has forgotten the fundamental rule governing British society; namely that British people can only have sex when they are pissed out of their brains.

Nanny Bans Parliament

We all know that Nanny has nothing but contempt for Parliament. In her eyes it is an annoying obstacle to her plans for "improving" how we live our lives.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to hear that she is working on ways to usurp Parliament's right to pass laws and debate government Bills.

A couple of weeks ago Nanny proposed a Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws.

Constitutional experts are calling it "The Abolition of Parliament Bill".

The actual title of the Bill is "The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill". This Bill will give ministers the power to alter any law passed by Parliament.

Read that again, and think about what it means!

The only limitations will be that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison, and that it cannot increase taxation.

All other laws can be changed.

The mechanism for change would simply be that a minister proposes an order, then the law is changed.

This means that ministers would not have to debate their proposals, or answer any questions about them; ie Parliament will be by-passed and neutered!

It seems that if the Bill is passed any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and companies, could be reorganised or abolished.

Nanny says that there is nothing to worry about, she claims that the Bill will not be used for "controversial" matters.

Hands up all those who believe that?

Nanny should remember that the purpose of Parliament is to subject ministers and their laws to scrutiny, and to make them accountable for their actions. This ensures that, where there is an effective opposition, the worst excesses of government can be avoided and that the laws passed are workable and reasonable.

However, Nanny doesn't give a stuff for Parliamentary obstacles; she is in a hurry to leave a legacy.

Beware an old woman in a hurry!

Nanny Bans Black Sheep

Nanny is a firm believer in the principle that if she starts moulding a child at a young enough age, then she will have that child for life.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that Nanny seeks to interfere in the education and development of pre school toddlers.

Nanny's best friend Stuart Chamberlain, manager of the Family Centre in Abingdon and the Sure Start centre in Sutton Courtenay Oxfordshire, has decided that traditional nursery rhymes are no longer "PC". As such he has decided to rewrite a few old classics, lest the originals "cause offence" to children.

Ladies and gentlemen I present Chamberlain's version of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"; altogether now:

"Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep..."

Enough of that crap!

It seems that Chamberlain is worried that the word "black" is racist, what a prat! By the way, what the f**k is a rainbow sheep anyway?

Chamberlain justifies his inane idea in an interview with a local newspaper:

"This is fairly standard across nurseries.

We are following stringent equal opportunities rules.

No one should feel pointed out because of their race, gender or anything else."

In addition to black sheep being banned, poor old Humpty Dumpty loses his raison d'etre and no longer has "a great fall"; as Nanny feels that children will be upset by the idea of him falling off a wall.

I would remind Nanny that whilst she saves children from the trauma of an imaginary egg man falling off a wall, the same children are happily subjected to daily diet of violent abusive shit such as EastEnders on the TV.

Which is worse, I wonder?

By the way, in case your wondering, Snow White has lost her seven dwarfs!

Nanny's lackeys in Ofsted, the watchdog which inspects Sure Start centres, confirmed the new policy; it seems that centres are expected to "have regard to anti-discrimination good practice" and that staff should "actively promote equality of opportunity".

The DfES washed their hands of the matter, in true Nanny style, by saying:

"We don't support this approach to the teaching of traditional nursery rhymes,

but any such decision would be taken locally."

In case you are wondering, "Baa Baa Black Sheep" was written in 1744 as a political protest about wool imports; ie it has nothing to do with racism, but of course Nanny is too lazy and too stupid to bother checking that out.

Nanny Comes A Calling

"You'd better watch out

You'd better take care

You'd better check your underwear

Nanny's coming to town

Nanny's coming to call

Nanny's coming to call on you, today.."

Yes folks, up until now Nanny was just someone you read about and had nightmares about.

Now she's coming to town, possibly to a home near you, in person!

Cue the dramatic "DUN DUN DUN!" music.

Nanny has decided that some people really don't know how to behave. Therefore she is going to send in her own battalion of supernannies to the homes of "problem" families.

This is yet another of Nanny's answers to anti social behaviour.

Nanny will send disciplinarians, no jokes about phone box cards and personal services please folks, to impose order on problem households.

Specially trained social workers will use similar techniques to those used by the Channel 4 series "Supernanny", they will be assigned to individual families for up to 15 months.

Nanny's chums in the Home Office say that there will be "no escape" from them, as they spend "morning, noon and night" with parents and their youngsters.

I thought that house arrest was generally only practiced by third world dictatorships?

The nannies will do the job of the parents, and totally take over every aspect of the family's daily lives; they will arrive early each morning to ensure the household is out of bed and youngsters sent to school. Their tasks will include ensuring children are properly fed and dressed, and encouraging layabout parents to find a job.

It really has come to this, that the state is now taking over the role of the parent!


Once that happens, any last vestige of resistance to Nanny will be crushed.

Nanny's little troll, Hazel Blears the Home Office minister, puts it rather "eloquently":

"What makes this project distinctive and different is that a lead person 'grips' the household and the range of services and professionals that are involved with the families."

Case workers will be ordered to do whatever it takes, within the law, to gain access to the family home every morning. They will stay until the young children are put to bed in the evening, and until they are confident the older children are off the streets.

Nanny's Home Office said:

"These workers will be with the family morning, noon and night.

If they have to shout through the letter box and bang on doors to get through the door, that is what they will do."

By the way, this will cost £15,000 per family.

Nanny has forgotten that the reason that families are behaving like this is because the state, by interfering in our daily lives, has taken away people's self responsibility.

To my view there is simpler solution, stop paying benefits to anti social scumbags and run them out of town.

Less than a hundred years ago local communities would take matters into their own hands when a family was considered to be disruptive. The residents would gather outside the house of the nuisance family, and start to bang dustbin lids and shouting until the family got the message and left town; the family would be literally "drummed" out of town.

We do not owe people a living; PERIOD!

Tuck Off!

Nanny's obsession with svelte waistlines shows no sign of abating. She has issued yet another edict about how unbelievably fat we are becoming, and yet again is trying to interfere in our eating habits.

This time she is targeting school children. In a spectacularly naive move, Nanny is instructing schools to stop selling junk food and instead make children eat seeds.

Yes that will work!

As Samuel Johnson once said:

"A small boy in search of vitals is an abomination".

The thought of Nanny trying to satisfy young appetites with a handful of seeds is really beyond a joke. Unless the seeds were coconuts, I really don't think that this latest "initiative" will suck-seed (get it?..come on folks I'm really trying here!).

Anyhoo, Nanny's friends in the School Food Trust (SFT) have issued draft guidelines that say nuts, seeds and yoghurt drinks should replace crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks in tuck shops.

Nanny is going to introduce laws to stop children eating sweets and chocolate, that will be among the toughest in the world.

Ironically this new "initiative" comes just days after the Audit Commission attacked Nanny for her indecision and lack of leadership, over the implementation of measures to curb child obesity.

Nanny will ban crisps (which, by the way, are a very good source of vitamin c), but for some strange reason will allow cakes and biscuits. Erm aren't cakes and biscuits fattening and bad for the teeth?

Nanny's chum Dame Suzi Leather, chairman of the SFT, said that the rules, to be introduced from September, were necessary because children were eating too much sugar, fat and salt with "little or no nutritional value".

Quote:

"They [the new rules] cannot succeed if pupils are surrounded with chocolate, crisps and drinks that fill them up with sugar and fat during the school day.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when these products are removed, behaviour improves and this could also have implications for better learning."

There you are folks, Nanny makes up rules based on anecdotes, not scientific fact!

Dame Suzi is not just content with banning vending machines and altering tuck shop menus, she is also going to poke her nose into children's lunchboxs. Nanny will issue lunchbox guidelines, telling parents of what should be included in a healthy diet.

Not her business!

Now here is why all of these rules will fall down:

1 Children are given large sums of pocket money each week by their parents. The children use this to buy "banned food" off school premises. My local store, owned by my friend Karim, is awash with kids buying Jamaican patties, chocolate and crisps when there is a school break.

2 The majority of a child's calorie intake takes place outside of school.

3 The poor diet of children is largely down to the muck being fed to them by their parents. How does Nanny intend to deal with that?

4 It is not the state's job to regulate what people eat. If parents are too stupid or lazy to feed their children properly, the responsibility for their children's ill health rests with them, not with the state.

5 When I was a child I ate a full breakfast, school lunch, dinner and a supper; all of this was washed down with 3 pints of milk a day. I am now 43, in excellent health and indeed am slim and "athletic" (yes ladies it's true:)).

5 These people did not become great British icons by eating nuts and seeds:

The Great Tax Avoidance Con II

Last week I wrote that

"Nanny is working herself up into a frenzy over tax avoidance schemes",

and that

"..tax avoidance is perfectly legal; it is tax evasion that is illegal".

It seems that I was very wrong about this, and must apologise to Nanny for my error.

You see ladies and gentlemen Nanny is more than happy to allow tax avoidance and tax evasion if, that is, you are connected in some way with the government.

I am very sorry for any embarrassment or distress that I may have caused Nanny and her acolytes.

Read "Why Didn't HMRC Prosecute David Mills?" to see if you are eligible to avoid/evade paying tax.

Nanny Bans Abbey Road

In what is a splendid example of how Nanny doesn't think her rules and regulations through, it seems that the BBC have narrowly escaped prosecution and a possible fine after it held an "illegal" gig featuring Coldplay at the Abbey Road Studios.

It seems that both the BBC and the studio could have been prosecuted, after it was discovered that the show last month contravened Nanny's new licensing laws.

Nanny's chums at Westminster Council, in a remarkable display of mindnumbing obstinacy, decided to seek legal advice about prosecuting; when a former adviser on the Licensing Act discovered that Abbey Road doesn't have the required entertainment license.

Now the astute amongst you may have noticed that the Abbey Road Recording Studios are RECORDING STUDIOS, isn't that where you would think that musicians would perform?

Unfortunately, using logic does not come easily if you work for Nanny's thick headed and "jobsworth" councils.

Councillor Audrey Lewis, for Westminster Council, is quoted as saying:

"The new licensing laws have ensured there is confusion about the status of many premises and what they now have a licence for.

Abbey Road studios were not licensed for the Coldplay concert but, after talking to the premises, this appears to have been a genuine oversight".

Here's a radical suggestion to all of Nanny's council lackeys, how about using some common sense for once?

Or is that expecting a little too much?

Abbey Road Studio issued a statement, which showed the level of confusion resulting from Nanny's ill thought out law:

"In recent days we have received different advice from different departments within Westminster Council as to which licence is appropriate for our business.

Once we have a definitive answer from Westminster Council, if there is a need to vary the licence, then of course we shall do so."

In other words, Nanny doesn't understand her law either.

I warned, in an earlier article (At The Circus), that Nanny's ill thought out licensing law would cause problems; evidently she wasn't listening to me!

It makes you wonder as to how many of Nanny's other laws have been ill thought out.

Educashun, Educashun, Educashun

As we all know, Nanny is very keen to "improve" educational standards and exam results.

To this end she has "rigorously" measured exams results each year, in the expectation that they show an improvement. There are two ways to improve exam results:

1 Improve the quality of education, and ensure that the pupils sitting the exams are trained to give of their best.

2 Reduce the standards of the exams, and make them easier to pass.

Needless to say Nanny has opted for option 2!

Nanny's new exam in mathematics will allow pupils to achieve an A grade without answering any of the most difficult questions.

Teenagers will also be able to gain a grade C, which is vital to their schools' ranking in Nanny's league tables of examination results, by answering questions intended for students with much lower abilities.

Nanny's exam watchdog, The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has written to schools saying that the new GCSE course will be introduced in September.

The first pupils will sit the exam in 2008.

The current GCSE, which is set at three tiers of difficulty, will be replaced by Nanny's new "improved" version which has two levels.

Pupils who currently take the lowest tier in the present system can get only a grade D at best, which according to Nanny's chums in the teaching profession is "demotivating".

Unfortunately Nanny still can't get it through her head that some people are brighter than others; there are people who, no matter what you try to teach them, are as thick as a plank.

The new structure will make it possible for every student to achieve a grade C, in theory.

Tony Gardiner, a past president of the Mathematical Association, said the new structure was intended to "turn more Ds into Cs" in order to help Nanny reach her targets.

Quote:

"The effect will be that there will be fewer hard questions.

People entered for the higher tier will see that there are only a few hard questions,

so they can ignore those and concentrate on the others".

Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, put the boot in further and said:

"Exams are meant to provide information to employers, sixth forms and universities of a student's capabilities.

It doesn't do them or the student a favour to provide a false picture."

An independent review of the new GCSE, by academics at London University's Institute of Education, found that all but the most able pupils were likely to gain higher grades than they would under the present system.

In a mock paper of the "higher" tier of the new syllabus, 80% of questions were set at a difficulty of grade B or lower. Pupils needed only 67% to gain an A grade and 81% for an A*.

The report stated:

"All the examiners at the awarding meeting were exercised by the relative lack of questions at grades A and A* levels of demand."

The review went on to say that 55% of questions were set at the D and C grade levels, but students could obtain a B with 49%.

Nanny is doing no one any favours here, except of course herself, those pupils who "succeed" in passing will be fooled into believing that they have some academic ability; employers and universities will simply find other ways of streaming the wheat from the chaff.

The Great Tax Avoidance Con

Nanny is working herself up into a frenzy over tax avoidance schemes. These are legitimate methods used by companies and individuals to avoid paying tax.

Nanny and her "friend" Gordon "Smiler" Brown (nicknamed "Potato Head" by his own staff) are being very clever in their campaign against tax avoidance. They are allowing the media to run with the idea that tax avoidance is only a rich man's tool, used by the unscrupulous to avoid paying what is in Nanny's view their moral obligation.

Indeed, Nanny has even persuaded her old chum Auntie to run a Money Programme documentary about it tonight. Doubtless we will witness some very fine schemes indeed including; offshore companies, paying people in bales of hay and artificial losses.

All of this goes on, that is true. However, what Nanny doesn't like to remind you is that tax avoidance is perfectly legal; it is tax evasion that is illegal.

Tax evasion is whereby an individual or company deliberately and knowingly makes a false tax declaration, with a view to defrauding the Inland Revenue, eg not declaring a source of income.

Tax avoidance is whereby the taxpayer uses the law to legitimately reduce their tax bill. This can include fancy schemes such as being paid in bales of hay, but also includes what every tax payer does (if they are aware of it) eg claim additional personal allowances or offset allowable costs against income.

Nanny, by allowing the media to portray tax avoidance as morally reprehensible is moving towards banning tax avoidance; ie those offsets and allowances that you and I currently take for granted will be disallowed.

Why?

Simple, she is running out of money and needs to find more ways to tax us.

The Nanny state is financially ruinous for us all.

One might suggest that were Smiler Brown to focus his efforts on streamlining the tax system, instead of making it more complicated, then people would devote less time and money to looking for ways to avoid his increasingly complex and incomprehensible rules.

However, Brown is an arrogant individual and will never admit to the fact that it is his complex and expensive rules that are creating ever more "ingenious" tax avoidance schemes.

The right to practice tax avoidance is as important to the tax payer, as is habeas corpus to every citizen of Britain. Unfortunately, Nanny has little respect for that either.

We Are All Screwed

I must congratulate Nanny on her "skills" at deceiving the public, that's you and me folks, as to what she is really doing about cutting back on the number of public sector employees.

You will recall that a couple of years or so ago Nanny's best "friend" and neighbour, Gordon "Smiler" Brown, said that he would cut back the number of public sector employees by around 70,000.

Well folks, guess what?

The number of people working for Nanny remains at 7 million, in fact it is rising.

Not only that, but Nanny and her chums have been secretly adding to the number of state employees by keeping them off the official headcount.

How has she done this?, I hear you ask.

Simple, she has brought in consultants.

Nanny's ever respected and efficient HM Revenue & Customs is now hiring £1,000 a day management consultants to carry out IT tasks for its new IT department, Information Management Solutions.

Nanny has already hired 80 of these outside "wonder" consultants.

The odd thing is that these consultants are being hired as business analysts, and are doing the same work that Revenue staff do for £120 a day.

What does Nanny think that she is doing?

Many of the consultants were hired from PA Consulting, although some are also freelance consultants.

It is very reassuring to know that such a sensible and cost effective use our money has been thought up by our future Prime Minister.




The future looks "bright"!

Doesn't it?