Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Fylde Flies A Kite

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!

15 comments:

  1. Maybe the town council in question should nip over to Weymouth where every year they hold an international kite festival on the beach (however, they should make sure they don't fall into the harbour). I can't remember any fatalities in the past although one year a parachuting Teddy bear got a bit damp after a gust of wind blew it into the sea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:46 AM

    Surely they've missed a trick there - they could also have banned dog walking (or indeed any kind of walking) on the beach?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Breathing.

    They forgot to ban breathing.

    We all know that the seaside comes with a strong ozone content don't we? And that ozone is a dangerous substance which damages plants and has a deleterious effect on the upper atmosphere.

    It therefore stands to reason that people should be discouraged from breathing the stuff, especially in the larger quantities apparently to be found at the seaside and especially when the lungs are working harder from all the exertion of walking and throwing sticks for dogs.

    Don't suppose the ozone is particularly healthy for dogs either - I'm surprised the RSPCA has not prosecuted the owner.

    And I certainly hope the dogs do not defecate on the beach since that is clearly unhygienic, especially in an environment where children play. Clearly the risks are s great that dogs, period, should be banned. From everywhere.

    Which then leads on to parents who should be banned from keeping children since they are wont to to A) Take them to the beach where dogs foul;

    and

    B) Take them to a place of high Ozone risk ...

    Oh, nearly forgot, high sun exposure as well (well, maybe not in Fylde but you get the drift ....)


    Maybe we should ban Fylde? (And Weymouth - would not want to be thought of as a Southernist or Northernist ... anyway I'm a Midlander and safely about as far away from the Ozone ravaged coasts as it is possible to be on this island.)


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:45 PM

    Is there something in the water over there in the UK?

    I find this stuff unbelievable, exceopt it's true. Socialism in action.

    The generation of Churchill must be shaking their heads.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alan G1:52 PM

    Grant,

    you also forgot sand. Sand should also be banned because it can be a skin irritant if it gets into socks, shoes and clothing and and in high winds it can cause severe eye damage. Fylde council might want to consider either:

    a) Removing all the sand from the beach or;

    b)Cover the beach in concrete turning it into one huge pier.

    Since option b) would create a risk of people falling in the water, Fylde council would then have to build a wall along the seafront to prevent access.

    And Grant, your flippant remarks about sun exposure in Fylde are scandalous and are worthy of censure in this day and age. You really shouldn't underestimate the risks.

    In option b) above, the council could also build a roof to cover the whole beach and protect people from the hazards of exposure to the sun. In fact, the best option would be for a gigantic "tunnel" to be built along the shoreline. Fitted with artificial lighting to simulate sunshine, air conditioning to filter out ozone and other noxious substances, non-slip surfacing (sand coloured) to mimic the beach and decorated with murals of the sky and ocean, this would be the ideal environment to take one's exercise and enjoy the benefits of the great outdoors without the attendant risks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:04 PM

    A team of experts. Yes!

    In the good old days, this was called "Jobs for the boys." A nice euphanism for corruption and hog-troughing at the taxpayer's expense.

    I wonder how many years it will take for the "team of experts" to report back to council on their findings.

    Many years no doubt. At a thousand quid a day, I'd be taking my time too.

    No doubt the "team of experts" will have to travel to Jamaica, Bali and Australia to see how those countries deal with the problem of kite flying on beaches. These trips will be taken during winter of course.

    I think the simplest soloution to kite flying is how the Taliban addressed this important social issue in Afghanistan.

    If you were caught flying a kite, you were shot or had both hands amputated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps they are following the example of Pakistan after a spate of 'killer kites ' over there.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1728703,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bagpuss5:28 PM

    Ken -

    I am very disappointed that you passed up an ideal opportunity for my favourite single-word paragraph, so I'll add it here:

    Twats.

    ReplyDelete
  9. the experts would be working there "for as long as it takes".

    Economist Milton Friedman elaborated on this principle sometime ago pointing out that there are only four ways to spend money.

    1. When you spend your own money on yourself, you make occasional mistakes but they're few and far between. The connection between the one who earned it, the one who is spending it, and the one who is reaping the final benefit is pretty strong.

    2. When you use your money to buy someone else a gift, you have an incentive to get your money's worth but you might not end up getting something the intended recipient really needs or values.

    3. When you use somebody else's money to buy something for yourself, such as lunch on an expense account, you have some incentive to get the right thing but little reason to economize.

    4. Finally, when you spend other people's money to buy something for yet someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is the most remote - and the potential for mischief and waste is the greatest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Grant8:40 PM

    Alan G sadi:

    "Grant,

    you also forgot sand. Sand should also be banned because it can be a skin irritant if it gets into socks, shoes and clothing and and in high winds it can cause severe eye damage."

    VERY TRUE and very remiss of me not to cover that horrendous material - I mean just look waht you can do with sand paper!

    I like the idea of the underground safety beach. Pehaps they could provide useful entertainment by putting a wind machine at one end so simulate a sea breeze. It might also allow people to participate in some nice healthy kite flying ... oh!, well, err, perhaps not.



    Alan G also mentioned "your flippant remarks " Good spot! Flippers, snorkelling, very dangerous - as bad as cockleing really. (how should one spell that non-word?)

    Alan G further said;

    "enjoy the benefits of the great outdoors without the attendant risks."

    Well, I must say I had not thought of that but you are likely right - have the beach attendants been sufficiently vetted to allow them to work with children - or even other adults? Are these people more or less likely to be psychopathic maniacs crawling around in the dunes seeking helpless victims?

    It seems so long ago since a beach attendant was expected to merely extort money for the short use of a deckchair. Now they have all manner of new scams to foist on the sand eating public.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is needed here is a RISK ASSESSMENT. Clearly with all the risks mentioned (and probably quite a few more that you reckless maniacs haven't thought about) a long and involved (i.e. expensive) study needs to be undertaken, policies and procedures produced and then an army of petty minded and vindictive individuals recruited to enforce the rules. Of course this army will need supervised and as it is for the public good, will be paid from taxation with a nice big fat pension and perks to accompany this.

    And don't forget the protective clothing they will need to protect them from the dangers they are policing ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous2:02 PM

    Grant said ban breathing, dogs and parents from keeping children ... well, I think Nanny should go the whole hog and just ban kids. When do we first get the taste for flying kites? As kids. Kids like fun. Nanny doesn't like fun, so she should definitely ban kids.

    How do we ban kids? Simple! BAN SEX!

    There's a challenge for Nanny. Her sleazy politicians will have to stop bonking the staff ... maybe they'll just wank their little willies off ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Grant2:30 PM

    In the previous message Anonymous suggested the solution to the problem is to ban sex. (And presumable artificiall insemination as well?)

    A perfect example of the joined up thinking that those who would control talk about but seem incapable of.

    Might I suggest you apply to the civil service and the political parties for the top role in the Joined Up Thinking Agency. (JUTA) Many perks available, not the least will be a decent pension for when you retire. And probably an hereditary knighthood, though of course such think will only have been re-introduced on the basis that there will be no one to take advantage of them ...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nanny is in good company. The Taleban banned kites too!

    See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4074528.stm

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ban seaweed from our beaches, tis very slippy!!!! I know have some council worker go round and pic up all the seaweed so no one with the mental capacity of this women will slip on it.

    ReplyDelete