An Exercise in Futility

I must commend Nanny's latest initiative on trying to persuade smokers to quit the evil habit.

Nanny has set up a special website (www.packwarnings.nhs.uk/index.aspx) which asks smokers and non smokers to fill in a questionnaire about their smoking habits, job and ethnic origin.

It then takes the respondee onto a page showing a series of photos that Nanny wants to print on fag packets. The smoker/non smoker is invited to select the one that is most likely to put them off smoking.

The "winning" photo will then be printed on fag packets next year.

One small point about this rather odd site. The smokers who respond to the survey are well aware of the dangers of smoking, and by definition will not be deterred from smoking by seeing a photo that they have already chosen; those who don't smoke have no ability to determine what will put smokers off smoking.

An exercise in futility if ever there was one.

Nanny Bans Rudeness

Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny's Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) setting up a Diversity Awareness Unit, it seems that our good friends in the DVLA have also been worrying about our moral well being as well as our diversity.

Nanny's trolls in the DVLA have banned thousands of number plates, because they're too rude.

The DVLA has drawn up a blacklist (hasn't Nanny banned that word?) which includes registration numbers such as AA55HOL (asshole) and D055ERR (dosser).

Small point here, personalised plates are part of the "free market" whereby we as consumers can buy and sell what we want.

Quite Why Nanny chooses to interfere in the workings of the free market I have no idea.

Anyhoo, plates such as M1 BUM (my bum) and HO03 KER are also banned.

In addition to "rude" words, the ban covers plates with religious connotations such as JE55USS or references to terrorism such as HA06MAS (Palestinian group Hamas) and registrations which could be traded by far right groups like AU55WTZ (Auschwitz) and GO05TEP (goosestep).

H8 GAY was withdrawn last month, because it can be read as "hate gay". Even number plates from the 1930's such as AR53 are being withdrawn.

The DVLA said:

"We'll withhold any plate that causes offence or embarrassment."

Twats!

Who decides what is offensive then Nanny?

Small point, why is it I can go out and have a T shirt printed with any of the above and walk around the street wearing it (maybe I get a sound kicking, but that is my choice); yet I am not allowed to put it on my car?

Nanny doesn't get this freedom of speech thing does she?

DVLA Spends Your Money Wisely!

It is good to know that Nanny tries hard to spread her "diversity" awareness attitudes to every part of her bloated bureaucracy.

Her minions in the Driver Vehicle Lincensing Authority (DVLA) have been labouring hard to prove to their mistress that they are as aware of diversity issues (ie the fact that everyone is different), as any other part of Nanny's bureaucracy.

As such the DVLA opened a £224K a year diversity unit in 2004.

Now that is rather old news, is it not?

However, the reason that I am writing about it now is that the cost of this daft waste of time and money has only just been unearthed via the Freedom of Information Act.

This Diversity Unit, what a splendid piece of nonsense, consists of nine people which replaced the equal opportunities unit in September 2004.

Aside from the annual cost of this unit, a further £50K is being spent on making the DVLA's 7,000 staff more aware of diversity issues; eg it is introducing systems to let Muslim women customers show their faces only to female staff.

This is all very well, but there are other issues that Nanny's trolls might like to address instead; eg complaints to the DVLA have gone up from 1,468 in 1997 to 4,777. Furthermore, the DVLA admits that it "loses" 734 documents annually.

The trouble is, resolving problems such as incompetency requires time, effort and skill. The fact is Nanny doesn't give a stuff, and prefers to waste her time and our money on pointless "easy" activities such as Diversity Units.

Nanny's trolls in the DVLA said:

"Diversity for DVLA means understanding and valuing

the full diversity of the community it serves."

No, I have no idea what that means either!

What they should have said is that the DVLA will endeavour to improve its appalling performance.

One other point, if the DVLA believes that its staff are not sufficiently "diversity aware", what have Nanny's other agencies such as the Commission for Racial Equality been doing?

Criminal Are Us

Despite the fact Blairy Poppins and many of her friends, even her wife, are connected in some way or other with the legal system; she seems to have a real grudge against due process, and prefers instead to dish out instant justice.

I wonder if this is related to something that happened in her dim and distant childhood?

Anyhoo, it was recently reported that Nanny's most respected and efficient Home Office had wrongly labelled 1,500 people as criminals in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database.

This blunder has led to some people being turned down for jobs, or university places.

Nanny's Home Office said that the errors arose when personal details were similar to a recorded conviction, but represented "a tiny proportion of cases"; in other words they cocked it up.

The Home Office went on to say that 90% of disputes were resolved within 21 days and, while regrettable, it would not apologise for "caution".

It said it made "no apology for erring on the side of caution".

One of Nanny' trolls from the Home Office said:

"The Criminal Records Bureau's first and foremost priority is to help protect children and vulnerable adults

by assisting organisations who are recruiting people into positions of trust.

These cases are clearly regrettable,

but represent a tiny proportion of cases

0.03% of the nine million disclosures issued by the CRB since it began operating in March 2002.

We err on the side of caution in these rare cases precisely

because it is vital to ensure that the disclosure individuals do not fraudulently try to claim they have no criminal convictions when in fact they have."

Now here is the rub, Nanny wouldn't apologise for this as she is of the firm belief that it is better to put innocent people in jail rather than allow criminals to walk free.

That concept may play well in the tabloids, who routinely scream for blood, but it overturns centuries of jurisprudence in this country. The very bedrock of our justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that it is better for a guilty man to walk free rather than for an innocent man to go to jail.

Nanny has reversed that, and has set us on a very dangerous downhill course towards dictatorship.

I hope to God that we are soon rid of her and her nasty, headline chasing, acolytes.

Nanny's Toilet Training

Those of you who think that Nanny is a tad anally retentive may well be right.

She has become somewhat vexed over our use of toilets; specifically she is worried that we don't know how to use them. Nanny's trolls in Tayside NHS trust have decided that we need a bit of toilet training; they have issued an instruction book on how to use the toilet.

Nanny's trolls have issued a four page leaflet entitled Good Defecation Dynamics, complete with a diagram.

Can you believe it!

The book reminds you to breathe when sitting upon the throne. Wise words indeed Nanny!

Posture is also important:

"Do not slump down but keep the normal curve in your back.

Keep your mouth open as you bulge and widen.

You should aim to do this every time you open your bowels."

The book adds:

"When you sit on the toilet make sure your feet are well supported;

you may need to use a small footstool."

Money well spent!

Instant ASBO's

Blairy Poppins has new plans for her beloved ASBO's, she intends to give the police powers to impose them on the spot without recourse to the courts.

Nanny's scheme has been dubbed "instant ASBO's".

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this another example of Nanny's drip drip drip erosion of due process?

Maybe she has watched Judge Dread a few too many times?

I guarantee, much like all of Blairy's "ideas", this will come to now't.

Twats!

Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny banning lollipop men, it seems that Nanny as something of an anti lollipop fetish.

Sorrell Walsh a GCSE student was in Manchester city centre and happily munching on her 95p Twister (an ice cream on a stick), one of Nanny's hated foods, when she saw a friend of hers on the other side of the road and carelessly abandoned the wooden (biodegradable) stick on a wall.

Naughty, I agree.

Fortunately Nanny was on hand to admonish her..how is it that Nanny is able to catch such minor offences; yet rapes, murders and assaults are left unchecked?

One of Nanny's litter wardens saw that the wooden stick had been left behind, and immediately confronted Sorrell issuing her with a £75 fine.

Sorrell burst into tears, and offered to bin it. Nanny was having none of it, Sorrell was presented with her ticket stating that failure to pay could bring a court summons and fine of up to £2,000.

One of Nanny's Manchester City Council spokesman said:

"Manchester has taken a zero tolerance approach against littering over the last few years and we will continue to do so.

Individuals must take responsibility for helping to keep the city clean

and not expect others to clear up after them.

We have consistently shown that we will take action against individuals who flout the rules."

A law, and those who seek to enforce the law, can only be workable and attain people's respect if common sense is exercised.

A simple telling off by the warden, and an apology from Sorrell would have resolved this matter.

Whilst Manchester rids its streets of lollipop sticks, how is it doing on ridding its streets of drugs, gun crime and assaults?

A disproportionate response to a minor error, in my view.

FYI, title chosen especially for Bagpuss.

Nanny Bans Lollipop Man

Nanny believes that everyone should have a role in society, and that we should stick to our predefined roles.

This is especially the case if you are a lollipop man (for the benefit of non Brits - this a person who stands outside school gates wearing a long white coat and carrying a large round sign on the end of a stick, he guides the schoolchildren across the road with his "lollipop").

Michael Hunt, an ex RAF officer who is now lollipop man, went beyond his call of duty by helping children cross a busy road.

He was employed to help primary school children cross one road of a T-junction in Marown, Isle of Man. However, he started helping those who were struggling to cross the other adjacent road too.

Nanny didn't like that, and her chums in the Isle of Man transport dept told him to stop helping on this second road.

Why?

It's too dangerous, Nanny said that the second crossing did not meet safety requirements.

Nanny's solution?

Simple, the children must cross by themselves.

Mr Hunt's response:

"The politest thing I can say is that it is a load of horse manure."

Knobheads!

You're Nicked!

Dominique Sampson, a care worker for the elderly, thought that she was doing a good deed the other day by stopping her car to help an elderly woman who had fallen over in the centre of Wilton.

Indeed she was, except from Nanny's point of view that is!

Dominique was spotted by a "parking ambassador", and promptly given a ticket.

Despite protesting to the"ambassador", Dominique was told that he had already written out her ticket and could not cancel it.

Jobsworth knobhead!

The "ambassador" helpfully suggested that Miss Sampson write to Salisbury district council, explaining what had happened, and the charge would "probably be waived".

Ha!

No such luck.

Miss Sampson was told that Nanny's lackeys on the council were not going to waive the charge, because there was "no documentary evidence".

Miss Sampson said of her brush with Nanny:

"She (the elderly lady) was coming out of a fruit and veg shop and suddenly tripped and fell over.

I pulled up on the side of the road and went across to her.

I was with her two or three minutes, making sure she was alright.

She said she lived close-by and felt able to walk home.

She said she was OK.

I went back to my car to find a ticket on the windscreen.

I saw the ambassador nearby and explained to him why my car was there.

He told me he could not cancel the ticket because he had already written it out but,

in view of what I told him,

he suggested I write to the council explaining the circumstances and he felt sure the council would waive it."

Miss Sampson said she did just that and was furious when, a few days later, a parking fine arrived through the post.

She said:

"The council said that,

because there was no documentary evidence to back my explanation,

they would not cancel the charge."

A spokeswoman for Nanny confirmed that the letter had been sent, and said that the council was obliged to follow legal procedures.

Seemingly Miss Sampson should now appeal!

Quote from Nanny's lackeys:

"The appeal will be heard by an independent adjudicator

who can take into account the circumstances

The lady should ignore the claim for a fine and lodge an appeal,

when the next stage of the legal procedure will kick in."

Miss Sampson will definitely be lodging an appeal but, not unreasonably, is questioning why this could not have been done with the evidence the ambassador could have given thus saving the cost of an appeal.

As Bagpuss would insist I say:

TWATS!

Drought Update

By the way, it's still pissing down!

Ken

Nanny's Drought Warnings

Er how is it that Nanny and the water companies have been bombarding us, who live in the South East, with dire warnings about drought and stand pipes; yet, as I write this, it is pissing down outside my window?

Maybe if Nanny and the water companies stopped wasting time and money on drought warnings, and deluded plans to tow icebergs up the Thames, and instead concentrated their efforts on fixing the appalling number of leaks in the water distribution system; that would go some way to solving the problem.

Oh, I forgot, Nanny and the water companies are incompetent and useless!

Sorry Bagpuss

Bagpuss has quite rightly scolded me again, for once again forgetting to include an essential word in my previous article on Nanny's chocolate audit.

Namely: Twats!

Sorry Bagpuss, I will try to ensure that this omission does not happen again.

Ken

The Joy of Chocolate

You know how some people are worried about the NHS?

Waiting lists, hospital infections, staffing shortages, drug shortages, funding etc?

Well, the good news is that Nanny is not worried about these issues at all!

She is instead worried about boxes of chocolate given to nurses and hospital staff.

Pardon?, I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on this site?).

Yes that's right, chocolates!

Nanny's chums in the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust, which is £8M in debt and have imposed 300 job cuts, have announced a chocolate audit.

A what? I hear you ejaculate.

A chocolate audit, whereby staff have been instructed to count the boxes of chocolates left by grateful patients.

Seemingly Nanny believes that this is a good way of measuring patient satisfaction.

Needless to say, some people think that this idea is...

How shall I put it?...

Bollocks!

One unnamed employee of the trust, is quoted in the media as saying:

"It's an unbelievable distraction from the main tasks in hand.

Surely the measure of satisfied patients is that they have been successfully treated, not how generous they are?"

Figures for the Royal Cornwall Trust showed that last year there were 8,000 gestures of gratitude, including boxes of chocolates and thank-you cards and letters, compared with 316 letters of complaint.

A Royal Cornwall Trust spokesman said:

"Like many hospitals, the trust informally records expressions of thanks as a small element of gauging levels of satisfaction.

This is not a compulsory audit and records are not expected to be completed at the expense of time spent on patient care."

Anytime spent doing things that are not involved with patient care is, by definition, at the expense of patient care.

How do they think staff will be able to perform this audit, if they do not do it at the expense of their main work?

I also guarantee, as sure as eggs are eggs, that once Nanny's bureaucrats have got hold of it will become compulsory.

Absolutely pathetic!

More Nanny Smoking Nonsense

Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny's chumps in the Scottish Executive banning smoking on stage, it seems that Nanny's English lackeys have realised how stupid that is. Nanny is now trying to implement changes to the anti smoking laws that will allow smoking on stage in England.

Actors will escape a blanket ban on smoking on stage, after West End theatres led a revolt against the move.

The revolt warned that many plays would be difficult to stage if characters, such as Sherlock Holmes or Winston Churchill, had to stop smoking.

Nanny, doubtless realising how daft the Scottish Executive looks, has revealed a plan to exempt live theatrical performances and film and television recordings from the ban, where smoking is "integral to the plot or storyline".

Funny that explicit sex, violence, murder, wife beating etc are all happily allowed; yet smoking was about to be banned!

The decision comes after some pressure was put on Nanny as to the impact of the smoking ban, due to come into force next summer, on current West End hits such as Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? and Billy Elliot and future productions such as The Graduate.

Nanny's Health minister Lord Warner said:

"The Government are considering a specific exemption to ensure that smoking can take place on stage during live theatrical performances,

or during film and television recording,

where smoking is integral to the plot or storyline."

He said that Nanny's public health minister, Caroline Flint, was writing to theatre groups, film directors and TV producers to set out Nanny's "intention" to exempt actors from the smoking ban.

Needless to say it will be a bureaucratic mine field to deal with this. Ministers expect extensive consultation on the details of the special consent for actors to light up, including who would be allowed to do so.

Some argue that such an exemption would be impossible to police. Theatres which allowed smoking on stage, where it was not permitted, could be fined 2,500.

I find it quite ridiculous that so much time and effort is being wasted on this, when common sense dictates there should never have been a ban in the first place.

Tory health spokesman Earl Howe said:

"Many plays would be rendered artistically impossible, indeed risible, if the actors were prevented by law from smoking.

Current examples of smoking on the London stage include

Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? and, notably,

Billy Elliot.

In some plays smoking is required, for example,

in all plays by Ibsen except one,

almost all plays by Noel Coward,

in all plays by Simon Gray and, perhaps most notably,

in John Osborne's Look Back In Anger."

Another example being Carmen, Carmen's opening scene is set outside a cigarette factory with many chorus girls, and Carmen herself, lighting up.

In other words, smoking is part of our cultural heritage. Nanny, by trying to ban it, is trying to mess with our cultural heritage and change who we are.

The Scottish Play

Nanny's great obsession is our well being and health, so she says. She likes nothing better than to poke her nose into our eating, exercise, drinking and smoking habits.

One particular "bete noir" (how very continental of me) of hers is smoking. We all know that she is striving mercilessly to banish smoking from our lives, I wonder where she will make up the tax shortfall that this will produce?

Although Nanny, has in many cases managed to ban smoking in offices and other public places, she is still not happy. One area that concerns her is the theatre, and the depiction of smoking on stage.

Nanny, not surprisingly, is against it.

Seemingly we are very stupid, and the sight of someone smoking will simply encourage us to do the same. I am 42, and have been exposed to smokers in pubs, in movies and in theatres; yet I don't smoke...How can this be?

Anyhoo, Nanny's special friends in the Scottish Executive have threatened to ban performances of Tomek Borkowy's plays in Scotland.

Eh?

Tomek Borkowy is a fringe venue manager, who runs the Hill Street Theatre at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Guess what his crime is?

He wants actors in his plays to smoke on stage.

Unfortunately, Nanny's lousy Scottish Executive banned all smoking on stage; even "herbal" cigarettes, whatever they are?

Mr Borkowy intends to defy the ban on smoking on stage, because he believes it is an "interference with art".

The irony is that Mr Borkowy gave up smoking ten years ago, and believes that people should not smoke in bars etc. However, he plans to defy Nanny's lackeys in the Scottish Executive and stand firm with fellow protester John Byrne.

Mr Byrne is a playwright who has threatened to block performances of his work in Scotland, unless the ban is lifted.

Nanny's morons on the Scottish Executive have turned down appeals for exemption from theatre producers, advising them to use fake cigarettes with powder instead.

Eh?

Fake fags, with powder?

If it weren't so serious, it would be laughable!

Surely, if a fake fags look realistic won't they encourage people to smoke anyway?

Mr Borkowy thinks Nanny is a moron:

"As a venue manager, how do I react to the company that is coming from down south or abroad and they have smoking on stage?

I have to ban the scene with the cigarette or break the law.

I decided as a venue manager to break the law.

This is interference with art.

This shows how our beautiful politicians don't think about the art

and the theatre at all.

They don't give a damn.

I would like someone to take me to the court,

because I will go as far as the European Court of Human Rights."

Mr B runs the risk of a few fines if he defies Nanny's chumps in the Scottish Executive.

There is a £50 fine for individuals who flout the legislation, and a £200 penalty for the manager or person in control of any no-smoking premises who allows others to smoke there or fails to display warning notices. Failure to pay brings on a hefty £2,500 fine.

Mr Borkowy said:

"You have to allow actors to smoke.

I am for the ban, but I am against the stupidity of politicians.

They measure everybody with one stick.

I came from Poland, and fought all my life any kind of censorship.

For me, this is a part of censorship, because as a director I cannot have the freedom to show Princess Margaret with a cigarette, Churchill with a cigar, Sherlock Holmes with a pipe.

This is inconceivable."

The theatre and comedy producer, David Johnson, quite rightly pointed out how stupid Nanny is:

"The ban is ludicrous, it's pathetic, frankly.

You can show sex on stage but you couldn't show them smoking afterwards."

This just goes to show how ridiculous Nanny has become. More interestingly it shows, as other articles on this site have done, how particularly ridiculous and extreme the Scottish Executive has become.

A clear case, if ever one were needed, for making sure that the dour Scottish potato head Brown does not replace Blairy.

If that were to happen, God knows where we will end up!

Erratum

Apologies to Bagpuss for my omission in the previous post.

"Twats" it is then!

Ken

Fylde Flies A Kite

Congratulations to Nanny's chums on Fylde Borough Council, who certainly know how to spend their council tax payers' money wisely.

The "good old boys" on the council have been getting a bit of a bee in their collective bonnets recently about kite flying on the beaches. Many a kite flier goes to Fylde as, by all accounts, the conditions there are ideal for flying kites.

Unfortunately, this being Nanny Britain, the council has got a bit nervous about this activity; there was a minor accident involving a stunt kite and a person walking a dog on the beach, the three (kite, walker and dog) became entangled. The council has, of course, now banned the flying of kites.

However, Nanny is never happy with half measures, she has also decided to conduct a study into the flying of kites to see if it is dangerous. As such Fylde Council will spend £15K of taxpayers' money on this study.

They will hire a team, yes a team, of experts to conduct the investigation.

Nanny's council safety boss, Sue Fazackerley, has promised that the experts would be working there "for as long as it takes".

Value for money, by anyone's standards!

Feel free to tell Fylde Borough Council what you think of their use of taxpayers' money, by writing to them at this address listening@fylde.gov.uk. They promise a response within 1 working day!

How To Improve Police Response Times

One of the frequent complaints made these days about the service from Nanny's police, is that they are slow to respond when you are reporting a crime such as burglary, yet heavy handed and quick off the mark with other issues such as speeding or dog scaring.

Well Spiv (one of the regular contributors here), a fellow chartered accountant no less, has come up with rather an ingenious method for getting the police to turn up to an incident whilst the crime is still being committed.

Imagine this, if you will, you are a home owner who one night hears burglars messing around in your home or garden shed.

You ring the police up, and they say that they will send someone in a few hours as there is no one available.

An all too frequent excuse these days!

Hang up, then call them back in 30 seconds.

Tell them that you have shot and killed the intruder.

I guarantee that a squad car, containing a suitably equipped armed response team, will race around to your home within 5 minutes.

When they find a living intruder and ask why you said that you had shot him, you can respond by asking how it is they managed to turn up in five minutes if there was no one available?

I think it is a brilliant solution to slow police response times!

Man Arrested For Scaring Dog

Oh dear what a funny old country we live in, I didn't think that I would be writing this headline I must admit.

It seems that Nanny has taken her love of her furry little friends one step further.

Frank Cook, a farmer of 77 years of age, saw a dog worrying his lambs and decided to scare it off by firing his shotgun (note he did not aim the gun at the dog).

Needless to say Nanny was not best pleased, and sent six (yes six!) police cars to arrest him.

Mr Cook was in fact well within his rights to kill the dog. However, he simply fired from behind it, and then apologised to his neighbour who owned said mutt. Mr Cook even promised to pay any vet bill for the misunderstanding.

Needless to say, the neighbour having been well indoctrinated by Nanny, decided to create a fuss and called the police.

Six of Nanny's finest police vehicles arrived containing a dozen armed officers, some of who then drew their weapons.

Mr Cook was then arrested, put into handcuffs, placed in the backseat of a squad car and frogmarched (or would it be frogdriven?) to jail where he was photographed, and had his DNA and fingerprints taken.

Needless to say Mr Cook was eventually released released without charge.

Mr Cook was a tad pissed off at his treatment and said:

"I am a law-abiding citizen and did not deserve this treatment.

I couldn't believe all this had happened on a nice spring day.

I was standing out on the lawn with my grandchildren, when this armed flotilla of police cars arrived.

Our jaws just dropped.

To my utter astonishment, no fewer than six police cars drove up.

Armed policemen stepped out of the front and stood with their guns at the ready.

Then three men came across the lawn.

I was approached by one of them and asked whether I was Frank Cook.

On assuring them I was, I was then cautioned and arrested.

I protested and told them not be silly and to send the armed men back into their cars and then I would talk to them.

They would not listen.

Instead, one officer put an arm lock on me, frogmarched me to a car and pushed me in.

They told me they were arresting me for criminal damage."

Mid Bedfordshire Tory MP Nadine Dorries, who has taken up Mr Cook's case, said:

"This is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I cannot believe that something like this can happen in England."

Given the slack jaw morons running this country, I can well believe that it has happened.

Nuff said!

Spies Like Us

One of the most unpleasant side effects of living in a Nanny state is the fact that many people seem quite happy to start to spy on their friends, neighbours and strangers; reporting them to Nanny for any perceived misdemeanour.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that the staff at Tescos, in Barnstaple, were happy to "shop" someone to Nanny the other day.

"Pete Williams", a pseudonym, is a deer hunter who took his photographs of a recent hunt to his local Tescos.

Deer hunting, I would note, is perfectly legal. Yet Nanny's nasty little spies took it upon themselves to report Pete to the police.

The police ended up questioning Pete for several hours about his perfectly legal activity.

"Peter Williams" said that he was "made to feel like a terrorist".

Tesco's actions are all the more strange, as they have no ban on photographs of shooting, and its privacy policy says:

"We will never pass your personal data to anyone else".

Rather odd that they passed on the details to the police then isn't it?

Anbyhoo staff at the Tescos, as seems to be the way of the Nanny state these days, took it upon themselves to act as judge jury and executioner and decided to disapprove of what Pete was doing.

They judged that the photographs of him with his gun and a deer that he had shot were "inappropriate", although he had broken no animal cruelty or firearms laws.

Two policemen arrived at Pete's house on a Sunday morning, with a set of prints given to them by Tesco.

After questioning him, the police accepted that he had a firearms certificate and had not broken any laws.

Simon Hart, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said:

"This is one of the most disturbing and ridiculous examples of ignorance and demonisation, of which Tesco should be ashamed."

Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco, said:

"On being asked to view the prints, our store's management team decided that there was cause for concern

and as such contacted the police."

A second letter on behalf of Sir Terry said:

"Tesco does not discriminate against any lawful section of the community.

We are confident that the actions of our staff were within the law."

Evidently spying is now acceptable!

Tesco added:

"We are sorry for any upset or distress caused to the gentleman.

However, if our staff are concerned about

the content of photographic material it is

right that they should seek advice from the appropriate authorities,

in this instance, the police."

Nanny and all other petty dictators manage to maintain their power base by encouraging a climate of fear and mistrust, the most effective method of doing that is to encourage people to report each other to the state.

Feel free to tell Tesco what you think about them reporting Pete to Nanny, via this link customer.service@tesco.co.uk

Wasting Our Time and Money

I would like to tell you of a little issue that I have just uncovered regarding our marvellous Inland Revenue (IR).

I was speaking to the IR today, concerning a request for information that they sent for P60's etc (nothing dramatic).

The only thing is, that they had already requested this information and indeed have been supplied with said P60's (twice to be precise).

The lady I spoke to at the IR was very nice and apologetic. It seems that many people are being sent these "blanket" requests.

Why?

There has been a system failure at the IR, which has meant that some of the records have not been uploaded.

Nice to know eh?

Prescott's Off The Hook

Breaking news...In a breathtaking display of double standards, Nanny's police will not be investigating Prescott's sexual misconduct in a public office (despite the fact that two police officers were prosecuted earlier this year for having sex whilst on duty).

In other news, it seems that the Tories (if last night's Newsnight is anything to go by) are having a tough time thinking up questions for Mr Prescott when he appears before the Commons next week.

Their problem is that the questions have to be based on what he does.

Frankly no one has a clue as to what he does.

Please can you help the Tories come up with some sensible, probing questions?

They have to be related to what Prescott does, Newsnight managed to identify a few things:

-He will chair a few committees, but we have not been told which ones

-He is part of the UK Kyoto team

-He has responsibility for developing relations with China

The mind boggles!

The best submission might win the Prescott Memorial Thong, the decision will depend on my mood at the time and the weather etc. Please state your size.

Nanny Bans Pies

Yesterday I made the rather "throwaway" comment, that Nanny would move on from regulating ice cream sales to regulating what we eat at home.

Well it seems that she has moved a step closer to doing that.

Nanny's best chums in the Scottish Executive, these guys really like to regulate people's lives, have warned bar owners in Scotland that they may be forced to stop serving chips and traditional pub meals.

The Executive are considering proposals to force landlords to have policies to promote "sensible eating", as a condition of their licences.

Next they will be banning booze in pubs!

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said that the eating advice was aimed at banning meals such as pies, beans and chips from being served.

Quote:

"It's a dangerous road to go down, and we are very concerned about it.

Everybody has their own ideas about food - if you speak to vegetarians for instance.

There is a danger most customers will get caught in the middle between official guidance and people who want to eat what they want.

It should be up to the individual to decide what they consider healthy."

As we all know, pies are an excellent means of soaking up the booze. A rocket salad simply won't do that!

Anyhoo, under the proposals bar owners would have to provide healthy-eating advice to their customers. This would be something to witness in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night!

Janet Hood, a lawyer who is head of the British Institute of Innkeeping in Scotland and is helping to draft the guidance, said the "sensible eating" clause had been proposed by advisers appointed by the Executive.

She said:

"It would be quite inappropriate for licensees to offer eating advice.

They are not qualified to deal with this sort of thing.

I would normally have assumed that the protection of public health would relate to the sale of alcohol.

What if a hefty person comes in asking for something considered unhealthy?

Do we direct them to the salads and face accusations of being 'fat-ist'?"

Quite right!

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said:

"We will listen carefully to all views before taking decisions."

Does anyone seriously believe that?

Last month it was reported that Nanny's Executive was considering banning the sale of packets of ten cigarettes, in a bid to tackle smoking among young people.

My sympathies are with the good people of Scotland, who seem to have a more rampant infestation of Nannyism than we have in England.

The Dangers of Beer

Following the demise of The Smooth Talking Bar Steward, Nanny has issued an urgent warning to all men about the dangers of drinking beer.

The warning comes in the form of a short public information film, which she urges you to watch.

To view the film, please click The Dangers of Beer.

True British Spunk

I received this letter (see below) today from a regular visitor, who was enraged by the daft decision of Nanny to fine Daniel Roy for trying to save his friend from drowning.

If I may say so the author, by sticking two fingers up at Nanny and by swimming in the Mersey, displays true British spunk!

Can I say spunk on the net?

My thanks to the author for writing to me.

Here is the letter:

Hi Ken,

Re the above, I just sent the following to Weymouth's Tourism department:

"£68 fine, 1 year's conditional discharge, and if I remember correctly, £460 pounds costs. All inflicted on a young man for diving into the local harbour to save someone from drowning. You even have the brass neck to prosecute the rescuee. As a keen swimmer you can be sure that I've struck you off my list of places to visit, and I'll persuade as many others as I can to follow suit. I'm not interested in "Health and Safety" nonsense. I swim in one of the busiest rivers in Europe, Liverpool's R. Mersey, just hundreds of yards from container ships and other large vessels. Perfectly safely, from a designated bathing beach."

Yes, the rescuee WAS also prosecuted.

I wouldn't take a boat there either. If I fell in no-one would rescue me, and if I survived I'd end up before the beak having to sell my boat to pay the fine.

Yes, I do swim in the now clean, but muddy Mersey perfectly safely and legally from New Brighton's EU approved bathing beaches. Just hundreds of yards from rapidly moving supertankers etc. and in full view of Liverpool's famous waterfront. And I should be taking part in a charity swim the 1.5m across the river in August

What could be so hazardous about Weymouth's little harbour to justify their stance?

NB I'll forward a copy of their reply - that is if I get one!

Nanny Bans Mr Whippy

Nanny has something of a horror of seeing children, or indeed adults, enjoy themselves. Frivolity, in her world, is a waste of time and energy and should be stamped out.

Needless to say, the sound of Greensleeves and the sight of a brightly coloured van selling ice cream is regarded by Nanny as being just toooo frivolous. Therefore she has decided that Mr Whippy, and his chums, should be banned from selling their highly dangerous and evil ice cream near schools.

Mr Whippy and his chums have been playing Greensleeves and selling ice cream to generations of British kids, and their parents, for the past 60 years. Now Nanny's chums in the health lobby have decided that ice-cream vans are a danger to children's health.

An amendment to the Education and Inspection Bill will be put forward this week. In the amendment, local authorities will be given new powers to stop ice-cream vans from operating near school gates.

This miserable bastard move comes on top of regulations being imposed by local authorities that ban ice-cream vans from using pay-and-display parking spaces, and rules that set up "ice-cream-free" exclusion zones around busy shopping streets.

Nanny's chums in Newham council informed Mr Whippy and his mates last month that it would fine van owners up to £80 if they used pay-and-display bays. Greenwich council has banned the vans from its streets altogether.

Miserable, sad, pathetic, jobsworth, bastards!

West Dunbartonshire council has introduced an exclusion zone around schools for vans.

As one dietitian said, all this daft ban will do is push the children into buying less healthy food and sweets at their local store.

Catherine Collins, the chief dietitian at St George's Hospital, Tooting said:

"This is the kind of blanket ban that gives the health lobby a bad name.

A healthy diet can factor in a sugary treat such as an ice-cream.

It is the frequency of that treat that is an issue.

Most choices from an ice-cream van would provide fewer calories and fat compared to a free choice from a newsagent."

Nanny is having none of that. Chris Waterman, the executive director of the Confederation of Education and Children's Services Managers (eh?), said:

"There are millions going into healthy food in schools, yet kids are rushing to spend their money on food from mobile vans

(Editor's note: it's called the free market matey!)

The ice-cream van industry may be saying it is in meltdown but for the sake of our children's health and safety we should keep the icons at Bournemouth and Blackpool but stop them driving around schools."

Twat!

As ever Nanny fails to make the distinction between a once in a while treat, and a daily overindulgence. If you are stupid enough to eat tons of ice cream every day then you will make yourself ill, but then that's your choice surely?

For the record a large single ice cream cone contains about 139 calories. A chocolate Flake adds about 100 calories.

A Mars Bar contains nearly 300 calories.

Will Nanny be banning those as well?

The next step that Nanny will be taking is to regulate and monitor what children eat outside the school gates, ie she will be insisting on regulating what they (and their parents) eat at home.

Are you happy with letting her do that?

Come Play With Me

Carrying on with yesterday's theme of educashun, it is "reassuring" to note that Nanny is still determined to "get 'em whilst they're young".

Nanny is now aiming her anti racist policy at toddlers and pre schoolers. In Nanny's view you can be a racist, even though you are still in nappies.

Herman Ouseley, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has got it into his head that staff at nurseries need to be on the look out for racism amongst their pre school charges. He is of the belief that to stop prejudice from developing, while children are still three years old, staff need to ensure that different racial groups "play together right from day one".

"Play together right".

Now there's an interesting expression...who decides exactly what constitutes the right sort of playing together?

Well, we all know the answer to that don't we children?

Nanny of decides!

Ouseley (sorry, Lord Ouseley) is of the belief that children may learn to categorise people as early as the age of three. He therefore recommends that nursery staff should "discourage separate play", and "help children to unlearn any racist attitudes and behaviour they may have already learnt".

"Unlearn"???

How very Orwellian of you my Lord!

Ouseley is quoted as saying in the journal, Race Equality Teaching:

"It is important to consider whether patterns of play are consistently based on racial or cultural grounds.

If, for example, Muslim children nearly always play together and seldom play with other children, the question needs to be asked,

'Is there a reason for it that may relate to culture?

Or apprehension?

Or prejudice?'"

Jane Lane, who co-authored the article, is an early-years equality adviser whose publications are recommended by Nanny's Sure Start scheme. She believes that conventional wisdom that toddlers are "colour blind" is wrong.

She says:

"There is a view that children do not learn their attitudes until they are about five.

But people in the early years know that children at a very early age

at the age of three

are categorising people.

I am not talking about white children; I am talking about all children.

Many, many are racially prejudiced, for all sorts of historical reasons."

Margaret Morrissey, the spokesman for the National Confederation of Parent Teachers Associations, disagrees. She notes that children do not generally notice colour until at least the age of six, and that "artificial" attempts to force the issue could be detrimental.

Quote:

"In all the time I have been involved in nursery education, since about 1975, I have never seen children segregating to play."

So there you have it folks, a disagreement between those who actually work with toddlers and those who theorise.

My views, as simplistic as they may be, go along the following lines:

• Children should mix together, irrespective of class, race, sex (up to 11 as single sex schools produce better results) or religion.



• People, like it or not, notice differences. Girls and boys notice that they are different. Those who are black, brown or white notice the colour difference and those who wear religious ornaments and clothing will notice and be noticed for their differences.



• To be different is not wrong.



• To believe that you are superior is wrong and destructive.



• Nanny should encourage mixing in, but should not attempt to prescribe as to what constitutes "playing right".



• Nanny should not try to impose social engineering on children, especially when her ideas are based on theories not scientifically proven fact.

How Sad!

How sad!

I will be weeping into my beer if this story turns out to be true.

See what makes Ken weep here.

In The Mix

Nanny is very concerned that all aspects of society "accurately" reflect her views as to what, and who, makes up that society.

As ever, In Nanny's view the best way for her to influence how society functions is to "get 'em while they're young". Therefore schools are to be required to balance the social and racial mix of all their pupils under Nanny's new rules, designed to end backdoor selection.

Schools will have to carry out detailed research into applicants, to ensure that they "attract all sections of local communities".

In other words, schools will not be given a choice in who they select. This may be fine for "social engineering", but it is not fine for those pupils who do not conform to the intellectual "norm" or "average".

Regrettably, despite political dogma claiming otherwise, those who are the brightest or slowest are often failed by schools that do not practice streaming or selection. The most apt analogy being that the convoy can only travel as fast as the slowest ship.

Those who are the brightest become bored and frustrated as the class meanders along at a snail's pace, whilst those who are in need of extra tuition to help them reach the "norm" are not given the attention that they need.

It is a lose lose situation.

Anyhoo, Nanny doesn't give a stuff about reality; she is only concerned with dogma. Schools will be banned from asking about the financial, employment or marital status of parents before a child is admitted, to ensure fairness. Questions about a child's "behaviour or attitude" at primary school, when deciding on admissions, will also be banned.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said:

"These proposals are inconsistent and I think they will place impossible demands on head teachers."

Nick Gibb, a Tory schools spokesman, said that teachers would be:

"bogged down conducting analysis for social engineering reasons."

The new rules also state that faith schools should "encourage local people of the faith, or of other or no faith, to apply for their school."

Er doesn't that kind of undermine the concept of a faith school?

Unworkable and unreasonable!

Another Nanny initiative that will end up in the dustbin of history.

Job Description

Poor old John, Nanny's faithful Smooth Talking Bar Steward, he finds himself in a rather emabrassing situation.

He was sacked, in all but name yesterday, from his much treasured position of Deputy Prime Minister.

Yet Nanny has allowed him to keep his salary, title and all the free accommodation and other perks that went with the job.

Some naughty people have suggested that this generosity from Nanny is because Prescott has something on Nanny...but that's not how politics in Britain works surely?

Dear old John is a very sensitive soul, and is worried as to how this might look to the voting public. Therefore he would be very grateful indeed to receive suggestions as to how he might "earn" and justify Nanny's largesse.

Please submit your suggestions as to what Prescott should do to earn his money to enquiryodpm@odpm.gsi.gov.uk, marking your mail "Justifying Prescott's Salary and Perks"

Prescott Loses Orifice...sorry..Office

Breaking news...Nanny's Smooth Talking Bar Steward, or as he is now rather affectionately known "The Serial Groper", John Prescott has been relieved of his orifice...sorry office.

However, although he is now no longer in charge of the Orifice of The Deputy Prime Minister, Prescott will still be called Deputy Prime Minister.

Why?

If anyone can tell me what the Deputy Prime Minister without an orifice is meant to do, and why he is being paid to do it, I would be most obliged.

Wot's a Wotsit Worth?

Ever wondered wot's a Wotsit worth?

In Nanny's world, a hell of a lot.

That at least is what Hilary Buckland found to her cost, when she chucked one Cheesy Wotsit (not the packet...but the Wotsit itself) from her car window in Luton.

Nanny's little spies from Luton council were watching. They decided that, despite the fact that a Chjeesy Wotsit is small, biodegradable and would have been eaten by the birds in a nano second, they would report her.

Hilary has now been fined £75 by Luton Borough Council, who have spent £200 of tax payers' money enforcing the fine!

Way to go lads!

Thanks

CRACC would like to thank all of you who voted for CRACC yesterday. CRACC registered a very respectable 229 votes.

The really good news is that Labour were kicked out of Croydon.

CRACC

Off The Buses

When I first heard about this particular Nanny daftness I assumed that I was in fact in some form of parallel universe, or altered state of consciousness.

Yes, maybe I have been watching too much Dr Who!

Anyhoo, I soon realised that I was still on planet earth and in Croydon.

Nanny's chums in the Gloucestershire police take the health and safety of their officers very seriously, quite rightly so.

However, I would suggest that they may be taking their concerns over health and safety a little too far in the case of one of their community support officers Ian Yeomans.

Mr Yeomans was supposed to cover the Gloucestershire village of South Cerney from a police station three miles away, but the job did not come with a car.

The parish council quite reasonably suggested that Mr Yeomans could use the hourly bus services.

Fair enough?

Not in Nanny's world!

Gloucestershire police said he would not be allowed to use the buses, until the health and safety implications had been examined!

Er what precisely do they think will happen to him on a bus, that doesn't happen to the rest of us that use them?

Maybe they had read of the dangers of cans of paint brought on by pensioners?

Inspector Steve Williams said a health and safety check was needed for "all police activity".

Cretins!

Mike Stuart, council chairman, said:

"This over-cautious attitude has really gone beyond the realms of reality."

Have no fear, Nanny has found a solution that will cost her nothing (but will of course cost the taxpayer more money), Gloucestershire police will pay for Mr Yeomans to have access to a car.

The Arrogance of Labour

The arrogance of the national Labour Party (see www.laboursleaze.com) and the local Croydon Labour Party (see www.croydonsshame.com) is breathtaking.

May the 4th presents the electorate with a golden opportunity to give Nanny the drubbing she so richly deserves.

Make sure you exercise your vote, and vote against Labour. If you live in Croydon, or know anyone who lives in Croydon please point them towards Croydon Ratepayers Against Croydon Council CRACC.

Vote CRACC on May 4th to rid Croydon of Labour.

Welsh Farce Continues

As much as I enjoy seeing the current Labour "administration" (that word implies competence!) being kicked from pillar to post, I do feel that Nanny's trolls in the North Wales Police really ought to have their collective heads banged together for pursuing Bliary Poppins for alleged anti Welsh remarks.

You will recall that this very stupid issue blew up a while ago, when Bliar allegedly watched Labour underperform in the Welsh Assembly election...SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!!..and allegedly said:

"Fucking Welsh"

Background reading Hoisted by Her Own Petard and Prat of The Week.

Anyhoo the "good old boys" in the North Wales Police, who clearly have no crimes to investigate, have spent six months investigating this issue. They have had top-level discussions between forces, and repeated trips to London for interviews with former colleagues of Bliar.

The Crown Prosecution Service has recommended that they should not to proceed with the investigation of this "race-hate crime". That does not deter the "good old boys" in the North Wales Police, who estimate that there is at least a month's more investigating to do!

Aran Jones, chief executive of Cymuned, who clearly doesn't live in the real world where old people are attacked, houses robbed and our troops are dying in Iraq, believes that this issue is vital for the survival of life as he knows it.

He said:

"It would be morally correct for charges to be brought or for the Prime Minister to say he didn't say that."

Doesn't get out much does he?

Suffice to say this investigation is absolutely pathetic.

The award to North Wales police chief Richard Brunstrom, of Prat of The Week made in October 2005, stands. He has made his force and the law in general a laughing stock.

I cannot believe that the majority of the people in Wales think that this is a valid use of police resources.

Money Well Spent

It is reported that the accounting firm, Champion, based in Salford, has been given £35,744 in lottery money to pay for a Salsa teacher to teach classes at its headquarters.

The firm reportedly undertook the classes as part of a health and lifestyle assessment.

Champion claims the Salsa classes and other health activities it is offering to its employees, are aimed at removing the image of accountants as overweight, middle-aged men in braces.

You will note that the phrase "...aimed at removing the the image.." is used, as opposed to "getting our staff fit and healthy".

I have a feeling that this is more of a marketing ploy, rather than a genuine health and safety initiative. Indeed the first class was only held on 29th March, Champion state that:

"We're hoping that everyone enjoys it so much that we can make it a regular occurrence in the Champion office!"

In other words they are just testing it out.

Why should they get Lottery money for this?

Needless to say Nanny's chums in Sport England, which distributed the money, have no such qualms about giving charitable money to a presumably profitable firm that employees middle class "fat" (in the nicest sense) accountants.

Sport England deludes itself by calling the money an investment, which is part of a "targeted programme in the North West to encourage employers to put more emphasis on sport and physical activity".

Morons!

All that has happened here is that a canny firm of accountants have found a way of subsidising their employee perks programme, as well as garnering some free PR.

The money the National Lottery raises is meant for much needier causes than this, so Nanny claims anyway.

A disgraceful waste of Lottery money by anyone's standards!

A Shameless Plug

I would like to recommend that you try to lay your hands on the Spring 2006 edition of O2, the magazine published by O2. It is not available in the shops, but distributed direct to businesses.

Anyhoo, in this edition there is a particularly fine article written against the Nanny State, in which the author (who reserves particular disdain for the Treasury) argues that state interference is throttling business.

The article is lucid, relevant, punchy and well researched.

Oh and by the way, the article is written by me.

Ken