Ethnic Quotas

I have said it before, and I will say it again...in fact I said it yesterday...Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering.

Why, oh why, do governments insist on this?

It only brings about pain and misery for those on the receiving end of the "engineering".

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums on the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force recently decreed that companies that bid for multimillion-pound Government contracts will be rejected if they do not employ enough black and Asian workers.

This committee has formulated plans to question competing companies about their attitudes to race, before choosing which to employ. Firms will be asked to provide figures showing the numbers of their black and Asian employees. This figure will be compared with the proportion of people from ethnic minorities living near the company's offices, and will be a factor when deciding the winning bid.

That's right folks, skills no longer matter!

Firms must employ the "right mix" of people if they have a hope of working with Nanny.

How patronising to those "classified" by Nanny as being non white.

Iqbal Wahhab, chairman of the Ethnic Minority Advisory Group, a government-backed think-tank, said:

"These new procurement policies are required to assist employers in making more enlightened recruitment decisions.

It may be unpopular in certain quarters,

but the fact remains that we should not have been in this kind of position in the first place."

Utter bollocks!

Society will only grow and flourish if it is based on a meritocracy, not on biased politically motivated patronage.

A spokesman for the British Chambers of Commerce said that the plans would hinder the competitive tendering process and make it more difficult and expensive.

"Public tenders are already complicated enough.

Lengthening the applications will only further dissuade businesses from applying for public work.

This will do nothing to ensure that government contracts go to the firms with the most competitive bids."

Nanny doesn't give a stuff about the cost, as it is us the taxpayer who funds her daft ideas.

Three pilot schemes are up and running in Job Centre Plus, the Identity and Passport Agency and the Department for Education and Skills.

A pathetic political sop to those who play the victim. Those who play the victim, will always be the victim.

Get off your knees and earn people's respect!

Nanny Bans Fat Women

Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering, and in keeping with her campaign against all things fat she has drawn up recommendations that further ostracise the fat community.

Nanny's chums in The British Fertility Society (BFS) have decreed that free IVF treatment should be limited to those who are of a healthy weight, ie fat women will not be given IVF treatment.

BFS chairman, Dr Mark Hamilton, said that women who were clinically overweight faced safety risks and should make an effort to get fit for pregnancy.

The guidelines say women who have already embarked on a weight loss programme should be considered for treatment.

The question is, what constitutes fat?

Doctors have been using body mass index (BMI) as a measure of fatness, yet according to some the BMI is in fact bollocks; eg a fit rugby player will come in at over 30 on the BMI, yet Nanny's doctors say that 20-25 is the "correct" BMI.

Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS 'value for money' watchdog, say that patients should 'ideally' have a BMI of between 19 and 30, with no absolute upper limit for treatment.

Oddly enough Nanny's other bane of her life, smokers, would not be excluded from treatment, but would be given advice on quitting.

A tad hypocritical, given the fact that Nanny tells us that smoking is the most evil thing that you inflict upon yourself and others.

The bottom line is this, when governments try to social engineer society they always cock it up.

This ban is just a nasty way of trying to save money, other "savings" will be sought in the future; whereby fat people, smokers, drinkers, wankers etc will be denied treatment in the interests of "saving" money. After all, if you are a non smoker, non drinker and not a fat person you are alright aren't you?

Nanny is avoiding the real issue here, namely how do we fund an NHS that seeks to satisfy an ever increasing demand for its services?

Answer: WE CAN'T.

There has to be a debate about what services the NHS can actually provide to everyone (fat people, smokers and wankers etc), and how much we are able to pay for them.

Nanny of course likes to avoid painful questions, and instead enjoys lecturing us on our lifestyles.

Nanny's Concept of Child Abuse

Nanny has an unfortunate tendency to over react to things at times; smoking (even in a public place) is considered a greater threat to non smokers' health than death itself, and tubes of tooth paste are now weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that earlier this month that Nanny's chums in Coordination Group Publications, one of the largest educational publishers in Britain, decreed in a citizenship guide for 14 to 16 year olds that cross-country running is a form of 'physical abuse'.

Nanny's chums in this "organ" describe the sport as infringing children's human rights.

Can you believe that the people who come up with this drivel actually are allowed out in society, without any form of supervision? More alarming is the fact that they are paid for their "endeavours"!.

I am sure that you all remember those "happy" days at school when you were forced out in the freezing wind, snow and rain to participate in some inane run around a field or through some woods.

My efforts were so lamentable that those in charge of the "run" gave up with me and my fellow laggards, we ended up simply walking the course and discussing the state of the world instead.

My point being, that we all survived this so called "abuse".

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11

Just in case you were wondering, Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Has anyone told Tony?

Nanny Bans Catholics

Nanny's chums in the legislature of the People's Republic of Scotland, the protectors of free speech and tolerance (so long as you don't smoke and aren't English), have caused something of a minor storm in a wine chalice by banning the "good old" Catholic practice of crossing oneself.

Needless to say the trouble erupted during a football match between those two stalwarts of religious tolerance, Celtic (the Catholics) and Rangers (the Protestants). Those of you not familiar with some parts of Scotland need to appreciate that in certain areas, the feud between Catholic and Protestant is just one step away from erupting into Belfast in the 1970's.

Anyhoo, way back in February of this year Artur Boruc (goalkeeper) was playing for Celtic in a match against Rangers when he decided to make the sign of the cross.

To the religious scholars of Rangers this was a red rag to a bull, and needless to say there was a barrage of complaints. The police launched an investigation. Last week "judgement" was handed down, and Scottish prosecutors cautioned the hapless Boruc for a breach of the peace.

A Crown Office spokesman said Boruc's actions had "provoked alarm and crowd trouble".

The procurator fiscal had issued the caution as an alternative to prosecution; Boruc now has a criminal record.

Needless to say, Holy Mother Church is none too pleased over this result, and called it "worrying and alarming"; they argue that the sign of the cross was globally accepted as a "gesture of religious reverence".

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, said:

"It's a worrying and alarming development,

especially since the sign of the cross is globally accepted

as a gesture of religious reverence

It's also very common in international football

and was commonplace throughout the World Cup.

It is extremely regrettable that Scotland

seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world

where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence."

Even Ruth "Old Puss Dei" Kelly has waded in, saying she was none too happy with this result.

Now here I must declare an interest, for reasons that are totally unclear to me, my mother persuaded my father that I should be christened a Catholic. Three miserable years at a Catholic school, a system designed to destroy any vestiges of free thought and creativity, convinced me that this was not the path to follow; therefore I can assure you all that I am now a very lapsed ex Catholic.

Anyhoo, I have to say a wry smile crossed my lips when I read of Holy Mother Church's bleating about the ban; you will recall that Holy Mother Church has been more than happy over the centuries to ban all manner of books, films and people. It seems that whilst Holy Mother Church is happy to dish out bans, it is not so happy to be on the receiving end of them!

Hypocrisy, in the church?

Never!

However, as with all things involving Nanny nothing is ever as clear cut as it first may appear. Whilst banning the sign of the cross is to some an over reaction, and to others a necessary ploy to avoid brawls on the streets, there is a more worrying problem here. Nanny on the one hand bans this "inflammatory" gesture, yet all around us (were we inclined to feel offended) we see religious symbolism and gestures from a whole host of differing faiths that could, were one so inclined, be labelled as inflammatory.

Surely Nanny should be banning these as well?

The trouble is, Nanny is selective when she issues her banning orders; ie she is a hypocrite.

This whole sorry story is proof, if ever it were needed, that religion is the cause of most of the trouble in the world today.

I would personally ban all religion, and its symbolism.

God, if he exists, does not need a flawed man made religion to validate his existence.

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking II

Following on from my mail to Ofcom concerning the banning of cartoon smoking, I received a reply from them yesterday.

Read between the lines of the "carefully crafted" bureaucratic non response to my mail and, although they claim to have had nothing to do with the ban, you will see that they did pressure Turner to edit their cartoon collection.

Here is a copy of their mail to me, and my response; this is not yet over.....

If Ofcom, as you claim, took no part in Turner's decision; why were Ofcom involved in the first place?

Kind regards

Ken Frost

http://www.nannyknowsbest.com


From: "OCCbroadcast"
Subject: Ofcom Broadcast Complaints Bulletin 67. Tom & Jerry
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:26:53 +0100

Thank you for contacting Ofcom. You have raised concerns about media coverage of our report on Tom and Jerry. Perhaps it would be helpful if we explained the actual position.

In Ofcom's broadcast bulletin 67, we published a report on action taken by Turner, the licensee for Boomerang, following its receipt of a viewer complaint about scenes of smoking in Tom and Jerry sent via Ofcom.

You should be aware that Ofcom has taken no regulatory action in this matter and has not banned images of smoking in Tom and Jerry or in any cartoon or in fact any programme.

Independently of Ofcom, Turner decided to conduct an extensive internal review of the Tom & Jerry archive library to reassess the volume and context of smoking in these cartoons. The licensee has subsequently decided to edit any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorised or where it might encourage imitation.

We are not aware of evidence from research in the UK that shows a direct correlation

between children who see smoking on television with a greater propensity to take up smoking. (However, broadcasters and Ofcom are required to protect those under eighteen and that protection is particularly important where the youngest children are concerned.) Research published in September 2005 by Ofcom indicates that broadcasters are very aware and responsible in the way they include smoking pre-watershed. It is important however that there is editorial justification when smoking is featured in such series.

We noted in the report that "Stylised and comic actions in cartoons are not intrinsically a concern in themselves - including violence and other activity which in a different context would be unacceptable. However it depends on treatment and context. We recognise that these are historic cartoons, most of them having been produced in the 40s, 50s and 60s at a time when smoking was more generally accepted. Depictions of smoking may not be problematic given the context, but broadcasters need to make a judgement about the extent to which they believe a particular scene may or may not genuinely influence children. We note that in Tom and Jerry, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned."

On this occasion, Turner decided to adopt a precautionary approach. As this resolved the complainant's issue, there was no need for Ofcom to look into the matter further. The full report is below.

Yours sincerely

:: Broadcast Support Team

Tel: 020 7981 3040

Fax: 020 7981 3334

Email: OCCbroadcast@ofcom.org.uk

:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000

www.ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom broadcast bulletin 67 21 August 2006

Tom & Jerry Boomerang, various dates 2006

Introduction

In two separate cartoons Texas Tom and Tennis Chumps there were scenes involving smoking. In Texas Tom, Tom tried to impress a female cat by rolling a 'rollup' cigarette, lighting it and smoking it with just one hand. In Tennis Chumps, Tom's opponent in a match was seen smoking a large cigar. One viewer complained that these scenes of smoking were not appropriate in a cartoon aimed at children.

Response

Following receipt of the complaint, Turner, the licensee for Boomerang, conducted an extensive internal review of the Tom & Jerry library to reassess the volume and context of smoking in these cartoons. The licensee has subsequently proposed editing any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorised or where it might encourage imitation (for example where, in Texas Tom, Tom tries to impress by smoking). Turner believed however, that editing out all references to smoking, where such references neither glamorised nor condoned, might adversely affect the value of the animation.

Decision

Rule 1.10 of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code states: The use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol:

* must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;

* must generally be avoided and in any case must not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised in other programmes broadcast before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is editorial justification;

* must not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised in other programmes likely to be widely seen or heard by under eighteens unless there is editorial justification.

We are not aware of evidence from research in the UK that shows a direct correlation between children who see smoking on television with a greater propensity to take up smoking. However, broadcasters and Ofcom are required to protect those under eighteen and that protection is particularly important where the youngest children are concerned. There are concerns that smoking on television may normalise smoking. For precautionary reasons Ofcom expects broadcasters to generally avoid smoking in pre-watershed programmes. Research published in September 2005 by Ofcom indicates that broadcasters are very aware and responsible in the way they include smoking pre-watershed.

Boomerang is a channel that attracts a large number of children - 56% of its audience are aged 4-14 years. Although historic cartoons such as these may have been made originally for family audiences they are now primarily viewed by children, including very young children, who may be viewing on their own.

Stylised and comic actions in cartoons are not intrinsically a concern in themselves -including violence and other activity which in a different context would be unacceptable. However it depends on treatment and context. We recognise that these are historic cartoons, most of them having been produced in the 40s, 50s and 60s at a time when smoking was more generally accepted. Depictions of smoking may not be problematic given the context, but broadcasters need to make a judgement about the extent to which they believe a particular scene may or may not genuinely influence children. We note that in Tom and Jerry, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned.

However while we appreciate the historic integrity of the animation, the level of editorial justification required for the inclusion of smoking in such cartoons is necessarily high. We will look at all such cases individually.

Given Turner's commitment to adopt a precautionary approach, we welcome its review of archive material and action taken to minimise the possibility of harm.

Resolved

Nanny Bans Tug of War

Now as we all know Ladies and Gentlemen, Nanny tends to get bees in her bonnet about certain aspects of our lifestyle and culture eg; chavs, smoking, fat people, hoodies etc.

These bees cause her to go on and on about her pet hate of the day. However, rarely does her obsessional hatred extend to a particular town or region; until now that is.

Poor old Lyme Regis in Dorset seems to have offended Nanny in same way or another, and is now under her gimlet eye (Bagpuss..subtle Mr Quelch reference there:)).

You will recall that Lyme Regis recently offended Nanny by holding a conger eel cuddling contest, needless to say she banned it.

Unfortunately, Lyme Regis has found this month that yet another of their traditions has been banned by the interfering busybody we have come to "love" and "respect" known as Nanny.

This time it is their historic torchlight procession and children's tug-of-war that has offended Nanny.

Every August since 1948, hundreds of people in Lyme Regis have paraded metre high flaming torches through the town to open its carnival, with the tug of war contest taking place on the beach.

Needless to say no one has ever been injured in either event. However, Nanny's friends in the insurance company that cover the event say that they can no longer provide cover.

Nanny says that the naked flames are a fire hazard, and that the tug-of-war could lead to injury.

Organisers were told they could still go ahead, but would be liable for any claims made if there was an accident.

The result?

The tug-of-war has been ditched, and the torches replaced by small lanterns on the end of a metal pole.

These events, together with the now banned conger cuddling were held to raise money for charity and to provide some harmless fun.

Nanny hates fun!

Festival committee secretary Alan Vian said:

"We are all very sad that things have come to this.

We seem to be living in a world where you simply can't take any risks."

Without risk, life is meaningless and dead.

Present For Bagpuss

Bagpuss,

In recognition of your ongoing support of this site I have found your theme tune; you can download it here: Bagpuss Theme.

Enjoy!

Ken

Nanny Bans Poles

As you are well aware there is something of an hysterical media campaign going on at the moment concerning the 1 billion immigrants that have entered the UK since the beginning of the year, mainly from East Europe.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has banned poles.

Aha, not that sort of pole though!

Nanny has in fact banned firemens' poles, seemingly they are a health and safety hazard.

Nanny's architectural chums who designed and built a £2.4M new fire station in Greenbank, Plymouth, have excluded the pole; they say that they are following safety guidelines.

Needless to say, the firecrews are a tad pissed off; they now have to run down the stairs instead.

However, Nanny is of the opinion that firefighters could suffer repetitive stress injuries, bad backs, sprained ankles and even chaffing to their hands and thighs if the pole (used to enable a quick response) is used.

Designers of the building in Greenbank, Plymouth, say they are following safety guidelines. But crews are furious.

Station officer Ken Mulville said:

"In 30 years in the brigade, I've seen one or two accidents on poles

compared to tens of accidents with people on stairs.

It takes about a second and a half to slide down a pole

as opposed to 15 or 20 seconds to run down two flights of stairs.

Seconds could be critical when responding to a 999 call."

One firefighter at Greenbank said:

"It's crazy they pay you to plunge into burning buildings but won't risk you on a pole."

Bernard Hughes, chairman of Devon Fire and Rescue Authority, is having none of it:

"There have been a number of injuries to firefighters on poles.

A risk assessment was taken and the decision has been made not to put poles in."

Utter Bollocks!

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking

Nanny Knows Best has been up and running for almost two years now, during this time I have written many articles about Nanny's nasty little rules and absurd political correctness.

Given Nanny's daily output of rules and regulations there is a danger that one becomes somewhat "numb", for want of a better word, to Nanny and her rules. As such, sometimes, even I have to step back and read a few times what I have written before the absurdity (no, I don't mean that I write in an absurd fashion!) of it really sinks in.

However, in this particular case my dander was well and truly up before I even set finger to keyboard.

I think it is the combination of the sad little loser being able to stifle artistic creativity, and the fact that a large media organ is playing out Orwell's warning about history being literally airbrushed away that has really got my dander up.

Anyhoo, it seems that in shades of Orwell's 1984, history is being airbrushed away by Turner Broadcasting.

This all started when some sad loser, with nothing better to do than complain, made a complaint to British media regulator Ofcom about the content of a couple of Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Horror of horrors, they showed Tom smoking!

Needless to say, "Disgusted of Pratt's Bottom" or wherever the sad little loser resides took umbridge at this, and told Ofcom that these scenes (scripted back in the 40's) would encourage children to smoke.

Ofcom, following Nanny's mantra that the prejudices of the minority outweigh the commonsense of the majority, immediately sprang into action. Disregarding any form of commonsense they contacted Turner Broadcasting (part of Time Warner) who own the channel (Boomerang) on which the offending cartoons were aired, and asked them to stop showing them.

Turner, showing no backbone whatsoever (this is the result of living and working in the Nanny state), not only complied but are now scouring more than 1,500 classic cartoons including; Tom and Jerry, The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo to edit out scenes that "glamorise" smoking.

Yinka Akindele, spokeswoman for Turner in Europe, said:

"We are going through the entire catalogue.

This is a voluntary step we've taken in light of the changing times."

I have a number of points to make about this nonsense:

1 What about the numerous occasions when Tom and Jerry do immense damage to each other with pots, pans, guns, explosives etc? Are these not also a danger to "innocent" children?

2 Smoking was de rigeur in the 40's and 50's. The cartoons are a reflection of the social mores of the day. To pretend otherwise and airbrush them in this "Nazi/Soviet like" manner, is to deny our own history and to lie to the children. Is this the way we want to raise children, with a lie?

3 Many other characters from history smoke, real and imaginary; Popeye, Churchill etc. Should we airbrush them too?

4 Why does the prejudiced view of one sad loser carry more weight with Nanny and her acolytes, than the unspoken views of the majority?

5 Given the fact that, in Nanny's world, the views of the minority carry more weight than that of the majority I would ask you top drop Turner and Ofcom a line to the effect that:

"I was appalled to learn that you are airbrushing historical cartoons to comply with the prejudiced views of one individual, who has a grudge against smoking.

I would note that your actions are depriving children of a true and accurate historical perspective of society in the 1940's and 50's, and as such your actions constitute a breach of the rules that require impartial and accurate broadcasting.

I would also note that by taking these actions, as a result of the complaint of only one person, you are in effect liable to accusations of being biased and prejudice; ie you are guilty of discrimination.

In view of this I would like to raise a formal complaint with you about this matter, and request that you investigate and reconsider your actions.

I would note, that since you have taken these actions based purely on one complaint, you are obliged to respond to my complaint with the same attention to detail and thoroughness.

I will, depending on your response, consider taking the matter further."

Here are some useful addresses for you to send the above to:

Offcom - graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk

Investor Relations Time Warner - ir@timewarner.com

Turner
Phone 404.827.1700
Address: 1 CNN Center
100 International Blvd.
Atlanta GA 30348
USA

Boomerang - toon.pressoffice@turner.com

Time Warner Board
c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
USA

Don't let 1984 happen because of apathy.

Nanny's Donkey Inspectors

My thanks to one of this site's regular visitors who advised me of the following piece of Nanny nonsense that happened in Fylde, on the eight mile stretch of beach between Blackpool and Lytham St Annes, over this summer.

It seems that Nanny's chums in Fylde borough council are "investing", I of course mean wasting, £18K of taxpayers' money on health and safety "experts" who will check the safety of donkey rides and other seaside pleasures.

Nanny has set them the onerous and "worthwhile" task of looking into the risks associated with the above activities, as well as doing a thorough health and safety check on such dangerous activities as:

- tossing a Frisbee
- practising golf swings
- collecting and sawing up driftwood

Seemingly the council have said that every aspect of beach activity would be examined and assessed.

If necessary, guidelines would be issued to allow them to be enjoyed in a safe manner.

Utter bollocks!

As ever, Nanny is wasting our money on pointless pursuits.

Prats Of The Week

This week's prestigious "Prats of The Week Award" goes to Nanny's chums on North Norfolk District Council, who seem to have something against circuses.

Circus Mondao happily erected (can I say erected?) its big top in a field at Beeston Regis, near Sheringham, for a month long stay from August 1.

No problem, so far, with that.

However, owing to Nanny's complex licensing laws there was a bit of a bureaucratic cock up causing North Norfolk District Council to insist that the tent and all the equipment be dismantled after 15 days.

Then...wait for it...wait for it...be re-erected (can I say re-erected?) again on the other side of the field.

Petra Jackson, Ringmistress, thinks it's bollocks.

Quote:

"It's a complete nightmare.

We are going to have to perform for two weeks on one half of the field,

then take down the tent and move to the other side of the field

for the second fortnight.

The area that we perform on is classified as a 'premises',

and we are only allowed by law to do 15 days on that area before moving.

People are going to think that we are mad."

It's not the circus that is mad, but Nanny!

Ms Jackson said that the venue was belatedly added to their tour schedule, after two other venues dropped out. Therefore they did not have time to apply for a full licence.

Nanny's chum Tony Gent, licensing team leader at North Norfolk District Council, said the problem had arisen because Circus Mondao had failed to apply for a premises licence.

"If they had paid for a premises licence,

they could've stayed put for the whole month.

Instead, we've done our best to accommodate them with a temporary licence.

Because there's a road down the middle of the field,

which effectively makes it two fields,

we've given them permission to move from one side to the other

this was the best result I could come up with at short notice."

Er wouldn't the "best result" have been for the council to use some common sense and recognise that as they were happy for the circus to stay, then there was no need for the circus to move a few yards across the field.

After all, it is up to the council as to whether they would prosecute the circus.

Unfortunately, Nanny doesn't possess any common sense and uses her petty rules and regulations to justify her existence.

Those of you who want to see Circus Mondao can visit Cookie's field from now until August 29. The shows are at 3pm and 7pm, there is no show on the 25th and only one on the 29th.

A Maritime Nation

Around 1906 or so, my grandfather ran away to sea and joined the Royal Navy at the grand old age of 8.

In 1914 he was serving onboard HMS Pegasus off Zanzibar, in the early months of the war, and found himself on the wrong side of some shrapnel from the Koenisberg; which wounded him, and eventually sank the Pegasus. Note, he still had the shrapnel in him when he died in 1972.

Honourably discharged he joined the Merchant Navy, and spent the rest of that war in the convoys. He was once spotted in civvies one day by a particularly daft female, who gave him a white feather (the symbol of cowardice); he wore it in his hat for the rest of the war.

You can imagine how "pleased" he was to find, in 1939, that he would have to go through the whole nonsense again. He was still in the Merchant Navy and ended up in the convoys again, this time my father was also drafted into the convoys (he had just turned 16 when the war broke out).

You see folks Britain, being an island nation, has strong connections with the sea.

Now why am I boring you with this mini potted history of my family?

Let me see, oh yes I remember.

Earlier this week it was reported that the crew of the Golden Vanity, a restored Brixham trawler, had to quit the Tall Ships Race.

For why?

Sailing north through the Bay of Biscay from La Coruna to Antwerp, the crew of 16 to 25 year old volunteers became seasick and gave up!

Pathetic!

My grandfather would be turning in his grave, and my father (who is still alive) will regale me with his views on the matter tomorrow when we go out for my mum's birthday.

Nanny has turned our young men and women into spineless selfcentered wimps.

Nanny's Airport Security

Following on from the recent alleged terrorist plot, Nanny has ratcheted up the security measures at the airports and in doing so has engendered a mild sense of hysteria in some people.

A couple of days ago a woman was handcuffed on a plane, as she suffered a panic attack and was found to be carrying some hand cream. Today it was reported that a man was given a sound kicking, when he was suspected of trying to light his own farts.

Luckily a sky marshall was on board the plane, and saved the day by inserting a large rubber bung up the fart lighter's arse.

As a result of this incident Nanny will be upgrading her security advice to airlines and insisting that all passengers have a rubber bung inserted up their arses.

Additionally, she is insisting that these new custom designed security seats be installed as soon as possible.



To see a detailed picture of the Electric Commode, please click this lick The Electric Commode.

Postcards of the above design can be purchased here Electric Commode Postcards.

OK folks, maybe part of the above was a slight exaggeration!

However, I would contend that the security measures and ensuing hysteria have done little to improve the long term (read that bit carefully) security of the UK or of passengers departing from UK airports.

• The current level of security checks are unsustainable.



• BA has had to cancel 13000 flights since last Thursday, this is economically unsustainable.



• Over 20000 bags have been "lost/misplaced" since last Thursday. Fortunately the baggage handlers at Heathrow are a very honest bunch of people, and as such passengers can rest assured that their "lost" bags will not be interfered with in any way.



• Despite the security checks a 12 year old boy managed to get on board a plane, and a man returned to an empty plane to look for a lost wallet.



• Aside from the increased security at British airports, European airports are as they were before. As such, were you part of the "crescent of evil" you could simply pop over on the channel tunnel (which has no extra security) to France, board a flight there back to London and as a transfer passenger board a long haul flight with your tube of toothpaste still on your person.



• As for the rest of us travelling by train or tube, tough luck, the security remains as before.

Nanny is good at raising bogeymen and imposing draconian rules, but she is not good at managing the consequences. Clearly the current security measures will have to be relaxed, otherwise the airline industry will grind to a halt.

Here are a few simple ideas that I have for improving the situation:

1 Allow only one small clear bag onto a plane, containing "safe" items. The previous situation, whereby people were bringing all manner of crap on board was a ridiculous nonsense anyway.

2 Ensure that people only book into the hold of a plane 1 item of baggage per person, with a maximum weight. The vast array of ski equipment, boxes and bits and bobs that some people carry severely delays the check in process. Should you wish to transport your kitchen sink, then place the extra load on board a separate plane specially designated for delivery of such items.

3 Do away with 100% hand searches of people and their carry on luggage, instead use profiling to identify the high risk traveller. Therein lies the problem with Nanny, she seeks to zeroise risk, rather than manage it.

None of the above are radical or new ideas. However, at the moment, it seems that the relevant authorities are behaving in some senses like headless chickens and not sitting down calmly and working through what really needs to be done.

In the meantime, the alleged terrorists much be rubbing their hands with glee as they see the chaos that they have caused.

What A Ranker

Following on from my earlier article today, on the subject of A level results, the results are now out and this year has seen yet another rise in pass rates and scores.

A stonking 24% of examinees scored an A grade, up from 22% last year.

Congratulations to the successful candidates.

Now all you have to do is find a job, earn a living and not rely on the state to wipe your bottoms!

On the subject of ranking, I too can lay claim to being a bit of a ranker.

Not only has this blog achieved 13th place in the MSN list of top blogs, but type Ken Frost into Google and you will see that I rank number one on the serach list.

Yes folks, number one out of 5,120,000 entries.

It is fair to say that I am indeed an enormous ranker!

Time for a pint.

Educashun

Today we see another batch of A level results delivered into sweaty eager hands. As ever we can expect the pass rate to have soared to ever more dizzying heights, as Nanny proudly tells us that her educashun policies are the best since sliced bread (which of course is very bad for you, as it contains too much salt!).

However, there is a small fly in her oinkment. The trouble is no one believes Nanny when she says that she is turning out well educated citizens.

Last month Sir John Rose, CEO of Rolls Royce, admitted that it is being forced to look overseas for talented graduates; he warned of the skills crisis in the UK.

Rolls Royce is now getting around 25% of its annual intake of graduates from overseas, mainly America and Germany. However, Sir John warned that this will rise as British graduates favour poncy subjects, such as media studies and hospitality.

Last year, for example, more people did A levels in media studies than physics. Since 1990, the Institute of Physics said that the number of people taking physics A level has fallen nearly 40% from 45,334 to 28,119.

Director General David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce echoed Sir John's views, seemingly bosses have been telling him that Polish workers and other Eastern Europeans are their number one choice for many jobs.

These workers have "higher-level skills and a far better attitude to work than local people." Most of them are "enthusiastic" and "committed", compared to their British equivalents who are low-skilled and lazy.

It is predicted that China and India will soon be producing 5 million graduates every year, including 600,000 in science and engineering.

A survey, from the Association of Graduate Recruiters, said that bosses complain that some graduates have difficulty holding a proper conversation, struggle to make decisions and are not motivated.

Qualifications are of little use if you do not have the skills, abilities, and drive to make your way in the world. The Nanny state takes away these skill sets, as it destroys people's self reliance and discourages people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Nanny Bans Shoulders

You know how these days when having your passport photo taken, you are meant to look face on into the camera and not smile?

These rules are all part of Nanny's extra security measures to guard us from the "crescent of evil", that she believes threatens us. Smiling, side ways pictures are apparently a security threat.

Anyhoo, Nanny has come up with another issue with regard to passport photos; that of bare shoulders.

She has banned them.

What?!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say that word on a website?)

Yes, bare shoulders; apparently they are offensive to Muslim countries.

Specifically, bare shoulders of five year old girls.

That at least is what the Sheffield Post Office clerk told Jane Edwards (mother of five year old Hannah) as she presented Hannah's bare shouldered photo for a passport renewal.

The photo was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

The family were told by the jobsworth clerk that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

Seemingly, if the clerk was to be believed, she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered.

Mrs Edwards said:

"I was incensed.

I went back home and checked the form.

Nowhere did it say anything about covering up shoulders.

If it had, I would have done so, but it all seems so unnecessary.

This is quite ridiculous,

I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected.

It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness.

It is a total over-reaction.

How can the shoulders of a five-year-old girl offend anyone?

It's not as if anything else was showing,

the dress she wore was sleeveless,

but it has a high neck."

Seemingly though the Post Office has it wrong, a spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said that it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

Quote:

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it,

this picture should have been absolutely fine.

If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

The Post Office obviously has its rules and we can't comment on that.

We are aware of a case in the past where an error was made involving similar circumstances,

although I don't know the exact details.

Staff should be aware of the rules."

We shouldn't be so hard on the Post Office, it is used by Nanny as a sort of day care centre these days for the elderly, insane, drunk and unemployed. The staff there have enough to worry about.

Nanny Bans Photos

Nanny has something of an obsession with paedophiles at the moment, don't know why; maybe they just make an easy target, much like "witches" did in the 16th century.

Paedo stories certainly give the tabloids something to scream about, when the stories of alleged terrorist plots are thin on the ground.

Anyhoo, Nanny's obsession hit home to Suzanne Hansford the other week. Mrs Hansford was banned from taking photos of a four year old child in a paddling pool on Southampton Common.

You might, at this point, say fair enough. However, I should point out that Mrs Hansford was the girl's grandmother on a day out with her grandchild Amber.

Amber was taking her first dip in a pool.

Mrs Hansford was just about to take the photo, when one of Nanny's park attendants told her that she couldn't because of council regulations.

Seemingly the "good old boys" of Southampton City Council have issued an edict that no photos can be taken at its pools and leisure facilities, due to the current hysteria that paedophiles might obtain illicit snaps of young children.

Mrs Hansford said:

"Are we now to be denied having photographic memories of our children and grandchildren?

I was so annoyed.

There are thousands of law-abiding people out there,

just trying to enjoy the summer and take happy family pictures.

Why should we be penalised for the degenerates in our society?"

Southampton City Council ignored her argument, and note that exceptions could only be made for groups, such as Brownies or Cubs.

Er what makes the Brownies and Cubs so special then?

Oh in case you think that the Brownies and Cubs are getting extra special treatment, I should point out that they have to make an application in writing to the council and get parental permission from each child to be photographed.

Ludicrous isn't it?

Paul Shearman, Southampton City Council's outdoor sports manager, rolled out the tired old mantra used by jobsworths around the country:

"Health and safety is paramount in making each customer experience a positive one when visiting our pool.

As a preventative safety and comfort measure we do run a policy of restricting the use of cameras, including camera phones.

We would ask for understanding of this policy but do appreciate and accept that this may disappoint a minority of customers."

Does he really believe that pile of shit?

I wonder, does the council actually have the right to do this?

Supposing that Mrs Hansford had actually taken the photo, could they have sued her?

On what grounds?

Would they have to allege, and prove, that she was a paedophile?

I suspect they would have done the usual cowardly Nanny trick and pressed a lesser charge, totally unconnected with the alleged offence that they are claiming to protect children from.

Nanny has a very sick mind, she needs to be relieved of her position.

Nanny Makes You Sick

It seems that what I have been saying for some time now, has at last been officially recognised. Namely that Nanny makes people sick.

A report from Bupa has shown that local government workers have the most days off sick annually. They take an average of 11 days off sick a year, more than twice as many as hotel and leisure trade staff who have the best UK illness record.

Nice to know that our taxes are being used so effectively!

Proof, if ever it were needed, that Nanny poses a clear and present to danger to the health and wellbeing of the citizens of this country.

Why do you think that the sickness rates are so high?

Let me take a stab at this:

1 Working for Nanny is mindnumbingly boring and unsatisfying

2 Nanny and her staff are not respected by the people who pay for them, ie us

3 There is no genuine pride or sense of achievement in working for Nanny

4 The tasks set by Nanny for her staff are pointless and irrelevant

5 There is a culture of bullying and discrimination endemic in Nanny's public sector, eg Prescott's old orifice

6 The public sector is overmanned, and there is simply too little to do that is of any worth

7 Nanny's public sector is overburdened with bureaucracy and petty rules

8 The staff working for the public sector are not fit for the job

Just a few thoughts, feel free to add your own.

Paddling Pool Ban

Here is some more water related Nanny nonsense for you!

Last month Nanny's chums in New Forest District Council ordered Richard Cole from Pennington to remove an inflated paddling pool from a communal courtyard in a block of flats, on health and safety grounds.

Mr Cole was told by the council that someone walking through the courtyard in front of the flats could trip over the pool and fall into the water.

New Forest District Council said:

"Inflatable swimming pools are not suitable for any council-owned communal areas on health and safety grounds."

Petty aren't they?

Nanny Bans Armbands

Oh dear, Nanny has got her bloomers in a right old twist again over swimming.

Funny, she does really seem to have a downer on that particular activity. Given that it is good exercise, and indeed may one day save your life, you would have thought that she would support it.

Hey ho!

But no, she doesn't.

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums who run swimming pools in East Herts have stopped giving out armbands to children, seemingly Nanny believes that the arm bands aren't 'armless...'armless get it? (come on folks, doing my best here!)

Please yourselves!

Nanny thinks that armbands present a clear and present danger to the health and safety of those who wear them.

East Herts Leisure Trust, which runs the East Herts Council owned pools, has decided it is not safe to give out armbands.

Nanny's spokesman said:

"Customers can understand that not every buoyancy aid can be checked on a regular basis.

We have looked at the recommendations given by

Government bodies.

We take health and safety very seriously."

It is reassuring to know that Nanny takes health and safety so seriously. However, rather oddly, the trust is happy to sell new armbands to parents for £4.99.

Julia Whitting, a risk management expert who takes her son swimming, summed up the nonsense of Nanny rather well:

"It's aggravating for parents.

It's the responsibility of service providers to manage risk,

not to eliminate it.

I say that as a risk management professional.

You wouldn't say that the pool should be closed

in case people drown,

but that's the logical conclusion."

Seemingly the leisure trust needs to save £500K a year to stay liquid.

A cynic might conclude that the "health and safety" measure is about making a nice little earner of £4.99.

However, we are not cynical are we ladies and gentlemen?

Nanny's Special Friend II

Blairy Poppins claims that she and her best friend W seek to make the world a safer place.

We are told that we are now engaged in a war against terror, and that there is now a "crescent of evil" threatening us.

Blairy states that his policies are designed to improve our security and safety. In fact he is so convinced that his and W's policies are working, that he is on holiday in Bermuda and his Foreign Secretary is in her caravan.

This being the case, why has the well respected International Crisis Group just issued this then?

"July 2006 was the grimmest month

for conflict prevention around the world in three years.

In 36 months of publishing CrisisWatch,

the International Crisis Group has not recorded such severe deteriorations in so many conflict situations as in the past month,

and several have significant regional and global implications."

Does it not occur to Blairy and W that they may actually be wrong, and that in fact their policies may well be making some things worse?

As said, condition: CRITICAL

Nanny's Special Friend

By your friends and associates so shall you be judged.

Bliar's legacy will be sleepwalking us into a war with the Middle East, and the imposition of highly restrictive "counter terrorism" laws in the UK that severely curtail our freedoms.

Bliar, and his Scottish acolytes, must be removed from office now.

Today's threat level - Critcal

Nanny Bans Caps

As we all know, Nanny has something of a bee in her bonnet (if you will pardon the pun) about hoodies.

In her view they are the devil's spawn, and should be banned. That being said should you be worried that Nanny has become a sad single issue obsessive, fear not.

Nanny has also got a bee in her bonnet (again with the lousy pun Ken!) about caps. That is at least what Liz White found to her cost, a few weeks ago, when she went to her local pub.

Liz went to the Woodman Pub in Old Catton with her husband for a drink.

Unfortunately she was wearing a baseball cap. Nanny's special chums at the bar told her to remove it as they have had trouble with yobs before, and operate a "no caps" policy.

Fair enough you might say. However, think on, Liz is in fact 55 and wears the cap to hide her hair loss from the cancer treatment that she is receiving.

Landlord Darren Reilly, who was not working that night, said:

"Staff follow procedures

and have not been trained to deal with a situation like this".

Take a moment and read what he said again, then think about it.

"Not been trained.."!

How much training does it require to recognise that a 55 year old lady with cancer is not a 16 year thug?

Here you see a fine example of the damage to society caused by the Nanny state, rules and procedures are put in place that encourage people to stop thinking.

Nanny is turning us into a nation of mindless, moronic jobsworths.

Reilly said:

"It's a shame this has happened.

I wish I had been on the bar that night.

Rules are there to be broken at the end of the day."

Exactly!

Rules are there to be broken!

Nanny Knows Best In MSN's Top 30 Blogs

Dear All

Press release issued today from the KenFrost.com HQ

Please tell the world!

Best regards

Ken

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

"Nanny Knows Best" Featured In MSN's List of The Top 30 Blogs

London, 8th August 2006

KenFrost.com "The Living Brand" is proud to announce that Nanny Knows Best www.nannyknowsbest.com, the site dedicated to exposing and resisting the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and freedom of the people of Britain, is featured in the MSN List of The Top 30 Blogs.

MSN have placed www.nannyknowsbest.com at number 13 in their list of the Top 30 Blogs. Quote:

"Daily tales from the frontline of middle England as contributors rally against the 'nanny state'.

It's reactionary rhetoric at its finest -

how dare they ban Lennon's Imagine for its anti-religious sentiment."

Source http://www.msn.co.uk/msnhotlist/features/30topblogs/Default.asp

www.nannyknowsbest.com, launched on 18th September 2004, will soon be celebrating its second birthday. In keeping with its mission to resist the nanny state, the team at www.nannyknowsbest.com will be celebrating the award by smoking, drinking and eating in excess; ie doing things that Nanny heartily disapproves of.

www.nannyknowsbest.com will continue to resist the nanny state.

For additional information, contact: Ken Frost at www.kenfrost.com “The Living Brand”

About KenFrost.com "The Living Brand"

KenFrost.com is a living interactive website that, in conjunction with forthcoming books, aims to stimulate the intellectual and gastric juices; as well as entertain.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Ken Frost

kenfrost@kenfrost.com

www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

#013

The Bastards Have Won

Today is not a good day for freedom, following on from yesterday's article about Mel Smith smoking a cigar on stage in the People's Republic of Scotland, it seems that Nanny's Scottish anti smoking Gestapo have won.

Mel appeared in the play with a cigar. However, it remained unlit.

Nanny had threatened to close the Assembly Rooms if he lit up.

The bastards have won!

We shall Fight Them on the Beaches and in The Assembly Rooms

Congratulations to Mel Smith for sticking two fingers up at Nanny's extremist government in Scotland, and refusing to put out his cigar on stage.

Mel is playing Winston Churchill during the Edinburgh Fringe, as such he is required to smoke a cigar on stage.

There is one small problem with this, Nanny's chums in the People's Republic of Scotland have banned smoking on stage.

As such the Assembly Rooms, where the play "Allegiance" is being performed, risk being fined £5K and losing their licence.

In the true spirit of Churchill, Smith and his fellow thespians (can I say thespian on a public site?) have stuck two fingers up at Nanny and have vowed to carry on regardless.

As Smith wry quipped:

"Hitler would have been proud of the smoking ban."

Indeed it should not be forgotten that Hitler didn't smoke, or drink and was a vegetarian.

'Nuff said!

Those of you wishing to join Mel's protest against Nanny, should pop along to watch the play; Allegiance: Winston Churchill and Michael Collins, Assembly Rooms (0131-226 2428), until August 13, 11am.

Nanny's Threat Levels II

It seems that Nanny reads this site.

Following on from yesterday's article about The Bar Steward running the country, Bliary Poppins has decided to postpone her holiday until the Middle East is sorted out.

That may take more than a day or two I suspect!

Nanny's Threat Levels

In keeping with the "joining the dots" approach postulated by Blairy Poppins, in her war against the so called crescent of evil threatening the West, Nanny has redesigned her threat level warning system and decided to make it public. Thus ensuring as many people as possible are scared shitless.

With regard Nanny's current foreign policy "intiatives", some wiser heads amongst us might suggest that "democratising" people down the barrel of a gun is not necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people. However, we are fortunate to be ruled by Blairy and W who are clearly far wiser than others when it comes to joined up foreign policy initiatives.

It is certainly clear that the current foreign policy being exercised in the Middle East is having a unifying effect, and as such can be considered to be "joining the dots".

It is also reassuring to know that when W and Blairy leave office, the consequences of their actions/inactions now will have to be borne by the rest of us for decades to come.

By the way, the current threat level is severe.

The other good news is that The Bar Steward is now "in charge".

It's going to be a long summer!

Prats of The Week

This week's prestigious Prat of The Week Award goes to the good people of Camden Council, or rather their parking control department (or whatever they choose to call it).

I am sure that the hapless driver of a Meyers of Stratford lorry will agree with this award, as he encountered a jobsworth prat from the council in Belsize Park the other week.

The driver was travelling along a road, weakened by water from a burst main below. Then the front wheel of his truck had got stuck, axle deep, in a hole after the road collapsed beneath the vehicle.

Needless to say, the responsibility for maintaining the roads lies with the council...so you might suggest that it was their fault.

Anyhoo, the driver the tried to shift his trapped truck. At this point a jobsworth traffic warden turned up. The good lady from the legion of wardens did what she does best, instead of helping, she provided the hapless driver with a ticket.

Rather like an old Laurel and Hardy film, a small crowd of astonished onlookers gathered to watch the "comedy" show. The driver tried in vain to explain his predicament. However, the jobsworth warden just shrugged and told him he could appeal against the fine.

Sue Melkman, a resident, said:

"It's crazy.

There was water everywhere.

It was obvious what had happened but she still wrote the ticket.

She wouldn't engage in conversation.

All she would say was, 'You can appeal'.

It's the daftest decision.

How can you give a ticket to someone who's stuck in a hole?

The woman must live in a parallel universe.

It's so ridiculous.

Everyone was laughing at her

and a few were taking pictures on their phones.

I told her she'd be a laughing stock

and it would be in the local paper but she didn't reply.

She just wrote the ticket and off she went.

The poor driver tried to reason with her,

but what can you do?

If they're going to write a ticket they just do it.

He took it very philosophically."

The incident was sparked by decision from the ever respected and useful Thames Water (who leak a gazillion gallons of water every day). Dear old Thames Water had decided not to put cones around the bulging, cracked patch of road after inspecting it the previous day.

By the way, the German owners of Thames Water have decided to sell it; any takers?

One resident of the street said:

"It was really the water board's fault.

A water main burst outside my house at about 7.30pm on Thursday evening,

and at about 10 o'clock Thames Water came along to see what was happening.

I saw them with some cones in their hands,

but then they put them back in their van.

The road was bulging and cracks were appearing.

There's a fire station nearby

and I was worried the road might collapse if a fire engine went over it

but the engineers said it was fine

and they would be back to fix it the next day.

Then at 7.30 next morning a lorry came to collect a skip from my neighbour

and he just sank down into the road to his axle.

They came to fix the water main in the middle of it all

but couldn't because the lorry was on top of it."

Sounds like Thames Water also deserve the Prat of The Week award.

Meyers of Stratford said:

"Camden Council said we can appeal

but what a waste of everyone's time.

Now we've got to write the letters and send off the forms.

It was absolutely obvious why the truck was there

but she still fined us.

It makes you sick."

Nanny makes us all sick.

Her rules, red tape and indifference are designed to beat us into submission.

Anyhoo, congratulations to Camden Council for winning this prestigious award.

Feel free to email them via this link Camden Council, to tell them that they have won.

Nanny Bans Standing

My thanks to the multitudes of you (well two actually), who wrote to me this morning telling me about this particularly daft scheme of Nanny and her acolytes in the police.

As we all know, Nanny has something of a problem with regard to drinking; on the one hand she is happy for 24 hour drinking, but on the other hand she believes that this should only be for those of us who indulge in a small glass of Chianti.

Drinking amongst the working classes is absolutely frowned upon; as we all the working classes can't handle their drink.

Anyhoo, as part of Nanny's ongoing scheme to turn us into middle class Chianti drinkers her chums in Preston police have decided that it is illegal to stand at the bar drinking.

Nanny wants us all to sit down at the table, and sip our drinks in a leisurely fashion.

Now a couple of points here...the British pub is specifically designed for drinking at the bar; the barmaids are selected for their cleavages (to encourage men to gather round the bar), the bar is long enough to allow many to stand there and only the "continentals" sit at tables drinking wine.

As such the scheme is utter BOLLOCKS!

Notwithstanding that, Nanny's police in Preston have renamed standing at the bar "Vertical Drinking".

Prats!

They argue that drinking while standing in a like-minded group is a contributor to booze-fuelled violence.

Nanny's NHS primary care trust also got in on the act, and the police want a "no standing" drinking rule imposed on the city by the autumn; they want customers to be served only if they have a seat.

Police in Preston already have an alcohol harm reduction and prevention team. Sergeant Andy Hobson, the team's alcohol project manager, said:

"If people are sat down there is less potential for flashpoints than with vertical drinking.

This is not designed so much to affect the amount they drink;

it is the proximity of other people when you are stood up, which is where the problems can start.

People go into these places and crowd round the bars,

then the next you know somebody gets a push,

the pint goes over and that's it."

We pay them for this shite?

-How do you get served if you are sitting down?

-How do you enforce a no standing rule in a pub?

Publicans have dismissed the scheme as bollocks.

Ryan Wood, manager of Yates's pub, said:

"They have completely missed the point.

If anything it is going to cause more friction because people are not going to like being told to sit down every five minutes.

It's almost impossible to enforce."

I would also remind Nanny that many years ago, I was sitting at a table in a bar and had imbibed quite a few. When I stood up, I fell over. Now, if I had been standing that would never have happened!

The Dangers of Trees! II

Oh my word!

Yesterday's article on Nanny arresting three 12 year olds, for climbing and damaging a tree, seems to have caused quite a stir.

Many have, quite rightly, pointed out that I do not know the specific circumstances. I have not met the kids or seen the actual incident. It has, again quite rightly, been pointed out that the three kids may in fact be absolute hooligans who were intent on destroying the tree; in other words, they needed to be given a short sharp shock.

I fully agree, a short sharp shock may well have been needed. In pre Nanny days, this would have been a sound thump around the ear by the policeman and being taken to see the parents in full view of the street.

Unfortunately Nanny has banned that more common sense, and effective, approach to policework. Instead the police are either powerless to intervene, or do so with disproportionate heavy handedness.

I take note of your concerns about "siding with the forces of evil". However, I still feel that the police action was excessive; why precisely do they need to take DNA swabs of 12 year olds?

I would also suggest that maybe the police force in the West Midlands has its priorities a tad muddled. Another story has been brought to my attention about them banning Hopscotch in the street.

Two of Nanny's pseudo police in the West Midlands, ie Community Support officers, noticed four or five chalked grids on a pavement.

They then went to work and traced the culprits; Kayleigh Mangan, 14, and Georgina Smallwood, also 14. They told them they had drawn too many chalk marks, and made them fetch a bucket of water and scrub all but one off.

Kayleigh Mangan said:

"They said it made the street a mess and told us to clean it up.

They said they didn't mind one but four or five was too many."

Nanny has already issued a warning letter to parents in the area about not playing ball games in the street. The letter did say that old-fashioned games such as spinning tops, jacks and hopscotch were permissible.

West Midlands police said they responded to a complaint

"By targeting what may seem relatively low-level crime we aim to prevent it developing into more serious matters."

Read the above very carefully, and think about what they are saying.

Hopscotch and ball games are not criminal activities.

PERIOD!

I repeat my question that I raised yesterday; are the levels of gun crime, knife crime, assaults and drug related offences all so much lower in the West Midlands than anywhere else?

If not, should not the police be concentrating on these issues instead?

Am I so out of touch, or just plain wrong, that I am mistakenly siding with the forces of evil (tree climbers, and hopscotch players)?