Nanny has rather a schizophrenic approach to life; for instance on the one hand she champions her ASBO scheme (designed to try to stop rampaging teenagers and other assorted nuisances ruining everyone else's lives), and on the other she is obsessed with human rights.
The problem with this schizophrenic approach is that it sends mixed messages, and in the end does more harm than good.
Nanny recently decided that a perfectly harmless device, designed to rid a supermarket of annoying teenagers who would loiter outside and cause trouble, was in fact an infringement of the teenagers' human rights.
What was this device?
The Mosquito, a sonic teen deterrent, which emits a high-pitched sound that can be heard only by those under the age of 20.
Seemingly, if you are under 20, the ear-piercing noise is so annoying that you can only can bear it for only a few minutes. Adults barely notice it.
The device has already been bought by dozens of shop-owners, shopping centres, local authorities and police forces, including the Metropolitan Police. It is non-confrontational, non-violent and is used to move teenagers on.
One of the first shops to install the Mosquito was a Spar supermarket, in Newport South Wales.
Since it was installed last October, the number of times police have had to be called to the shop to deal with gangs of rowdy youths has decreased by 84%.
In other words, the device works!
However, Nanny's chums in Newport Community Safety Partnership (which was set up by the local authority and the police) ordered the shop to switch off the Mosquito until human rights and health and safety issues have been "fully resolved".
Needless to say, Spar are not impressed; a spokesman described the decision as absolutely disgusting.
"These louts can infringe our rights to run a profitable shop for the community yet we can't dare infringe on their right to make life a misery for our shoppers".
A safety partnership spokesman responded:
"We have a responsibility to the human rights and health and safety of the whole community to consider before approving the device or investing in more of them.
Our issue with the device is that it is indiscriminate.
It may well target yobs and move them on but other children use the shop as well.
If the noise upset a baby in a pram or caused a dog in a neighbouring house to bark incessantly then these are issues we would have to address.
If a child rode past on a bicycle and had an accident because of the noise the responsibility would be partly ours for authorising the Mosquito."
Compound Security, the company that makes the device, insists that it is safe and that it does not breach the human rights of young people.
The nub of the problem is this, Nanny is showing fear and weakness; teenagers/children will always take advantage of that.
The human rights argument is being used by Nanny as though the teenagers were being flogged or imprisoned in an Iraq jail. That is patently not the case.
I would also note that if teenagers choose to behave in a loutish and sub human way, then they have by defintion denounced their human rights.
Those of you who would like to see CRACC's solution to yobbery, should read the manifesto on www.cracc.co.uk; it will work, that I can assure you.