Too Much Too Young

The trouble with living in Nanny's "paradise" is that not only does Nanny lack any common sense whatsoever, but her "charges" also show alarming signs of following her down the path to dimwittedness.

Take for example the case of Jack Archer who went to his local Morrisons in Acomb York, to buy a bottle of sherry.

The 18 year old checkout girl asked him for proof that he was over 18.

Fair enough, Nanny can't have under age drinking on the streets of Britain...can she?

The only problem being, is that Jack is a sprightly 87!

Seemingly the good people of Morrisons have been caught out selling booze to under 18's. Therefore, as with all Nanny nonsense, instead of applying a little common sense and extra vigilance for "high risk" cases; Nanny is applying her "one size fits all" rigid rule for all customers.

Needless to say, it makes Nanny look rather stupid...but then again she is!

Mr Archer, a former Lord Mayor of York, said:

"I don't think I look my age,

but they must have known I'm not under 18 it's just silly.

The girl said she had to ask how old I was.

I was totally stumped and just said, I'm over 80 - will that do?

I don't blame the individual staff

because they are just obeying instructions.

I should think they get a few complaints, though."

The same thing happened to Don Parlabean, who is chairman of York Older People's Assembly. However, he is only 70 so Morrisons may be forgiven for thinking that he was under 18.

A spokeswoman for Morrisons gave a long winded scripted statement, which demonstrates that we are becoming a nation of unthinking jobsworths.

Quote:

"Store staff are trained to be highly vigilant in the sale of alcohol

and the detection of potential under-age purchases.

The question is not being asked to cause offence

and no disrespect is intended.

We simply wish to make sure that we satisfy

our moral and legal obligations with regard to the sale of alcohol.

As a member of the Retail Alcohol Standards Group,

we take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol

very seriously and have procedures in place designed

to ensure that we meet all legal requirements."

You may wonder why your food bills are so high, well, the supermarkets have to employ people to write shit like that!

Prat of The Week

It has been a while since I have awarded my prestigious "Prat of The Week Award", and therefore high time that I did.

Therefore, with a shrill blast on the trumpet, this week's Prat of The Week Award goes to...

The Chief Constable of Derbyshire, David Coleman.

Why?

He refused, earlier this month, to publish photos of two wanted murderers Jason Croft and Michael Nixon. Coleman claimed that the killers posed 'no risk' to locals, and the the force said that it had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish 'wanted' photographs of the two men.

As the media were quick to note, this caring attitude to people is in contrast to Coleman's attitude towards speeding drivers. One hapless victim of Coleman's anti speeding clampdown was a 62 year old, who was jailed after being caught doing 38mph in a 30mph zone.

Jimmy Leckey, the father of 19 year old bludgeoned to death by Nixon in 1995, said that Coleman and his force needed to 'sort their priorities out'. He also noted that the police had not bothered to contact him to say his son's killer was on the run, even though he might be the victim of a revenge attack.

Mr Leckey said:

"This is madness, totally ridiculous.

The police should be out there catching

dangerous criminals rather than chasing motorists.

And to suggest they had to consider Nixon's

human rights is unbelievable.

He is a convicted murderer.

What about my human rights and my son's human rights?"

Nixon and Croft had absconded from Sudbury open prison in Derbyshire two months ago, and the police were asked to provide photos. However, Derbyshire police force said that there was 'no proper policing purpose' in releasing pictures and claimed the men posed no risk to Derbyshire residents because they were thought to have left the county.

So that's alright then?

Even Lord Forkbender, Lord Chancellor, stated that Coleman's refusal was 'absolute nonsense'.

Happily, some police forces are not so daft.

Greater Manchester Police instead released the photos of the two men together, with an appeal for information.

My congratulations to them.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, also thought that Coleman's decision was bollocks.

Quote:

"Nothing in the Human Rights Act prevents publishing pictures

to capture a fugitive on the contrary,

the rights of potential victims may create an obligation to do so."

A well deserved award this week, methinks!

Educashun

It is commendable that ever since winning orifice, Bliary Poppins has placed educashun at the very heart of the Nanny state.

Indeed his children, and the children of his ministers, have always been well catered for when it comes to their schooling.

As for the rest of the population, well Nanny has thought of them too. She decided that £50M should be spent on removing the ordinary whiteboards from schools, and replacing them with interactive ones.

These things, so it was claimed, would enhance the educashunal experience and enable pupils to learn at their own pace.

Tut tut, Nanny doesn't get it does she?

Pupils learn best in a competitive environment, where the effort is forced out of them to keep up with the best and brightest.

Anyhoo, needless to say it turns out that these interactive boards have been a waste of money. Research indicates that educashunal standards may in fact have fallen, as pupils struggle to keep pace with the fancy graphics and video images.

As with all things Nu Labour, this idea has been very much "form over substance". One of the marked failings, there are so many, of Nu labour has been their reliance on gimmicks and "presentation".

Much like a third rate management presentation, where facts are reduced to bullet points and coloured charts, educashun has followed suit. However, just like a third rate management presentation the pupils have learned nothing new.

A report from London's Institute of Education said:

"Although the newness of the technology was initially

welcomed by pupils any boost in motivation seems short-lived.

Statistical analysis showed no impact on pupil performance

in the first year departments were fully equipped."

The report also noted:

"The focus on interactivity as a technical process

can lead to some relatively mundane activities being over-valued.

Such an emphasis on interactivity was particularly prevalent

in classes with lower-ability students

In lower-ability groups it could actually slow the pace

of whole class learning as individual pupils took turns at the board."

Another failed Nanny "initiative"!

Thank You

Dear Friends

Firstly thank you for the many messages of sympathy and support that you have posted on this site, and sent me privately.

Please be assured that Mum and I are alright.

Mum and Dad were brought up in an era where (contrary to what the state and Oprah would have you believe) you got on with your lives, and didn't need to have an emotional breakdown on TV.

My parents brought me up to hold the same principles.

FYI we are in fact, at Dad's insistence, still going to hold Mum and Dad's 50th Wedding Anniversary dinner on the 11th of February.

I would also note that, contrary to what the media would have you believe, the local "social support network" (as provided by the neighbours of my parents) has been exceptional.

The neighbours in Mum's road have all rallied round, and have been highly supportive. Society, at least in my Mum's road, has not been fragmented or destroyed by Nanny.

Nanny will also be displeased to learn that I met up with a good chum on Friday night in my club (the East India), where we had an excellent meal and a "few" drinks.

In fact we consumed an heroic quantity of booze, finishing off with a bottle of port in the small hours.

I "awoke" on Saturday feeling that I had consumed an "elegant sufficiency".

Exactly how Dad would have wanted it.

Ken

Personal News

Dear Friends

Just to let you know that my Dad died peacefully at home during the night.

He was 83, and had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. The prognosis had been that, as it worsened, he would have had to go to a hospice etc.

Quite clearly, for him and Mum, it is far better that he died at home peacefully and not in pain or connected to a machine.

The media often likes to report on the inadequacies, and alleged failures, of our overburdened NHS.

I would like to say, for the record, that the people who we (my parents and I) have worked with over the past few months have been first class; the doctors, nurses, health care workers etc have been professional, caring and competent.

I would like to say thank you to them for all that they have done.

Ken

Money Wasted

Nanny loves to spend money, especially when she knows that it is not hers to spend.

Here's a little list of stuff that she has spent our money on recently.

The Home Orifice has spent around £0.9M on logos, and brand advice, for failing policy initiatives and quangos over the last 5 years.

Within this sum is £56K, spent on a circle with the word Respect in the middle, and £200K on a design for the Criminal Records Bureau.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said:

"This is typical of the Government's obsession

with spin over substance and delivery.

When it comes to respect the Government should start

respecting the public's intelligence.

The public realise that only money invested

in neighbourhood policing and tackling the causes of crime,

not jazzy logos, will cut anti-social behaviour."

James Frayne, campaign director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, thinks it's all bollocks.

Quote:

"There's clearly something deeply wrong with any department

that spends the best part of a million pounds of taxpayers' money

on logos that could have been designed by someone

on work experience in their lunch break.

No doubt 2007 will see the same sort of

comical incompetence from the department

that is supposed to be keeping us all safe."

Meanwhile Nanny is now mulling splitting the Home Orifice into two...if this happens, the "new improved" Home Orifices will of course need rebranding and new logos.

Marvellous!

Nanny Bans Junk Food Ads...Or Does She?

Nanny really does have a bee in her proverbial bonnet, when it comes to what we eat. She is obsessed by the quantity and quality of foods that we stuff into our gobs.

One might almost think that she had some unfortunate experience as a child, that has turned her into this rather unpleasant and interfering analy retentive individual.

Anyhoo, Nanny's latest assault on what we eat and on what we are allowed to choose to eat comes in the form of her recently announced plans to restrict junk food TV ads, by banning junk food ads during children's TV schedules.

Nanny is trying to stop children from seeing the evil products spewed out by those most hated (in Nanny's world) institutions McDonald's, KFC etc etc.

You know, it's a funny old world, less than two centuries ago many people in the West were starving; they were on nutrition levels that resemble today's third world countries. In the modern West, we have access to cheap, high calorie food; undreamed of by our ancestors. The fact that some of us may overindulge is a matter of personal taste and personal common sense (or rather lack of common sense).

However, for Nanny to repeat the mantra that high calorie, cheap, readily available food is evil; is just plain wrong. Mankind has suffered and struggled for millennia to find cheap readily available foodstuffs, Nanny is flying in the face to logic and human history to try to "pooh pooh" what is in effect one of mankind's most worthy achievements.

Anyhoo, I digress, it seems that Nanny's plans to block children from seeing the products of these evil companies, during children's TV schedules, will come to now't.

Why?

Children don't just watch children's programmes, they also watch adult programmes such as Coronation Street. "Junk food"...let us call it what it really is cheap, affordable, high calorie foodstuffs will still be advertised ruing adult shows.

Which? says that the plans, drawn up by Nanny's chums in Ofcom, are "fundamentally flawed".

Ofcom will try to ban ads for McDonald's et al during Spongebob Squarepants, but will not ban them during eg Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Take-Away; the latter has over one million child viewers.

Additionally, the Ofcom formula for deciding where advertisements will be banned is very complex and based on the programme type plus the make-up and mix of the audience, rather than the number of children watching. A ban will only apply if the proportion of the audience under 16 is more than 20% higher than the proportion of under-16s in the UK population as a whole.

There is also some question mark over what foods are evil; after all butter, cheese and milk are high in fat. Should they be banned from children's hour?

When I was at primary school, I had a free bottle of milk everyday as part of the state's policy of encouraging milk drinking.

Now I learn that it is high in fat, should I sue the state for force feeding me milk as child?

Hoodies R Us

Nanny's relentless campaign against the evil, and socially threatening, hoodie continues a pace.

I would remind Nanny that over the past few decades we have had; teddy boys, mods, rockers, hippies, punks, sloanes and new romantics.

None of these, despite being viewed at the time as threat to civilisation, ever caused Armageddon. Therefore, I have a sneaking suspicion that hoodies do not pose a significant threat either.

Anyhoo, Nanny is not in listening mode...is she ever?

Nanny's chums in Monkton Road Stores York, have a clear "no hoodie" policy. Therefore it should have come as no surprise to Jay Cooper that when he entered the store as "bold as brass" wearing a hoodie, that he was banned.

Three small flies in Nanny's oinkment though:

-Jay is only two years old
-He was muffled up against the cold
-He came to the store with his grandfather

Nanny, of course, doesn't deal in common sense; only rigid, stupid, inflexible rules.

Both Jay and his grandfather were of course asked to leave. This is the same store that recently banned a middle-aged nurse for wearing a hooded top, when she went to collect her morning newspaper.

Nanny is destroying common sense, and is turning our minds to slush.

Nanny's Elderly Database

Ah the joys of living in Nu Labour Britain, where Nanny ceaselessly works for the good of the people; even if they don't like what she does, or how she does it.

You may recall the ongoing hoo haa over Nanny's ID card scheme. In Nanny's world, so she says, ID cards will protect us from nasty people who have evil intentions etc etc.

The arguments against the scheme are pretty clear cut, and can be re-read here Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks.

Anyhoo, Nanny is not really in a listening mode; she is ignoring those arguments, and is pressing ahead anyway with her plan to have us all registered on her massive database.

Now, her cunning plan to get us all registered was really rather simple; as from 2009 everyone who applies for a passport will have a compulsory ID card issued to them. This means that fingerprints etc will have to be taken.

Subtle compulsion like that is so brilliant isn't it?

However, there is a minor flaw in Nanny's scheme.

Can anyone tell me what that is?

Yes, that's right, not everyone in the country will be applying for a passport. In fact there is one very large section of the population, who are not expected to be applying en masse for passport.

The elderly.

So, what is Nanny to do?

Simple, she will order all pensioners to attend special centres where they will be forced to give their fingerprints, biometric scans of their face and iris and personal details to the authorities.

Those of you are over 80, may well recall fighting against such oppression a few decades ago...funny how we have allowed this to happen here.

Those who refuse will face fines of up to £2500.

Even better news for the elderly is that, on top of their already prohibitively expensive council tax, they will be expected to pay for the privilege of being registered in Nanny's database (about £93).

Brilliant!

A whole new form of poll tax will be imposed on us, on top of council tax, without anyone actually noticing or protesting!

Don't you just love Nu labour?

Hugh, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub

Ah the good old days, when Trumpton had a fire service that the world looked up to. No problem was too big or small for the lad's from the fire service to attend to.

Sadly, that was but a fantasy!

Nanny's health and safety Gestapo in Humberside has stuck its interfering nose into the work of the real fire service, and is considering the banning of ladders.

Yes, you did read that correctly...ladders!

Funny that, I thought that it was kind of an occupational hazard for firemen to shin up and down ladders.

Not in Nanny's' world!

You see folks, one of the services that firemen perform is that of installing smoke alarms in people's houses.

I did not know that before this...even I learn new things each day...and I'm a genius (so my Mum says!).

Anyhoo, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo are worried that the firemen might fall off the step ladder when they are installing the fire alarm. Therefore they wish a moveable platform to be used instead.

Now the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is having to review its policy on step ladders, after Nanny's chums from the Fire Brigades Union pointed out that a 6ft stepladder may contravene the Health and Safety Executive Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Needless to say, the health and safety Gestapo are only too willing to validate their existence, and have agreed to review this.

As one fireman said:

"Where will this end?

Will we still be able to carry a rescued person down a ladder,

or enter a burning building, without the HSA on our back?"

Don't worry, it would be a breach of the health and safety regulations for you to carry the HSE on your back!

Nanny's Child Catchers

Give me a child, and he/she will be mine for life...not my philosophy, but Nanny's.

In Nanny's world, the way to ensure that she leaves a permanent legacy on Britain's psyche is to ensure that she gets her message across to the children.

Nanny's increasingly politicised police force are only too willing, these days, to help her achieve her goal.

In the dying days of 2006 it seems that Nanny once more struck a blow against common sense, and scared the hell out of some poor kid, as Guya Persaud's son found to his cost.

Persaud junior is 14 years old, and committed a terrible crime in Nanny's eyes.

What was his crime?

Did he deal drugs?

No!

Did he steal?

No!

Did he wear a hoodie?

No!

He pushed a boy over, who he suspected of bullying his younger brother.

Guess what Nanny did?

She sent her chums from Hertfordshire Police around to sort him out.

Persaud junior is a prefect, and was described as a "model pupil" by his school. That didn't stop Nanny's police from using the full powers of the law to scare the sh*t out of him, officers gave him a formal reprimand after an investigation. His name and offence have now been placed on the Police National Computer.

His reprimand for a "violent crime" will also remain on the separate Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) database, jeopardising his hopes of following in his parents' footsteps and becoming a teacher.

Question...do they do this for all the youths who steal cars, mug people, deal drugs or who are just scum?

Er no...

Why?

Simple, Persaud junior is a soft target and easy to use to improve the police "clean up rate". The others are just too much hard work.

Grant Shapps, the local MP, thinks that the police action was bollocks.

Quote:

"Parents will be concerned to hear police

are invading the classroom

rather than solving violent street crime.

I fear this is the Government's target culture gone mad.

Officers are meeting their targets for

solving violent crime by busying themselves

in the playground

and undermining the authority of schools in the process."

This roots of this sorry little example of lousy police work go back seven months or so. Persaud junior's 11 year old brother had seemingly been enduring racist bullying at secondary school in Welwyn Garden City, Herts.

Persaud junior confronted one of the alleged tormentors in May, and pushed him three times and on the third occasion, the alleged bully fell over, though he did not report any injuries.

Persaud junior then told a teacher that he had pushed over another pupil. He was suspended from school for two days and had to write a letter of apology.

Problem solved!

Not so, the "victim's" parents needless to say felt obliged to report the incident to the police. Goodness me, if every incident of some child being pushed over in the playground were reported to the police they would really have some work on their hands!

Guya Persaud said:

"When the police first came to see us,

they were slightly embarrassed

and said the whole thing seemed ludicrous.

But the next we heard they had decided to issue a formal reprimand

which means he is now on the Police National Computer.

It will show up on criminal record bureau checks

for the rest of his life.

As a deputy head, I know that if a school gets a positive CRB check

on an application from someone to be a teacher,

it goes straight to the bottom of the pile."

Hertfordshire Police, seemingly, are more than proud of their contribution to law and order.

Quote:

"As in this instance,

if someone makes a complaint or reports an alleged criminal offence

to the police we are obliged by the Government's crime recording standards

to record the offence and investigate it.

The individual concerned admitted the alleged offence

and accepted a reprimand."

So many words, yet so little understanding as to what the role of the police is really meant to be.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the police's actions and attitude in this case scare the hell out of me.

Oh, one more thing...do you think that Nanny's police pressed charges against the racist bully?

I bet they didn't.

Dummies

It is reassuring to know, that as Babylon burns (so to speak), Nanny focuses her gimlet eye on the things that really matter.

To this end she has banned Sid and Alma from standing outside a Sidmouth lifeboat station.

Now, I hear you ask, who are Sid and Alma Ken?

I will tell you.

Sid and Alma are two life sized mannequins, who have been used to collect donations for a lifeboat charity. They have been dressed in full lifeboat uniform of life jacket and helmet, and each have a bucket for people to donate cash.

Sid and Alma have been very popular, and have managed to bring in around £15K each year.

The money funds the local lifeboat, the Pride of Plymouth.

Can you guess what the problem is here?

Yes, that's right...they don't have a licence to collect the money!

Some interfering busy body in December, with too much time on their hands (the sort of person who would have found gainful employment in the Gestapo) complained that they are collecting money illegally.

You see folks, anyone who uses a tin to accept money for charity in public needs a collector's permit from the local authority.

The busy body...let us hope that this person is never in need of a lifeboat..lodged their complaint with East Devon District Council.

Nanny's chums in the council, never ones to let common sense get in the way of the law, state that under licensing laws the mannequins may have to be removed.

Sidmouth Lifeboat secretary, Philip Churchill, thinks that this is a load of bollocks.

Quote:

"The dummies are incredibly important to us

and provide a significant part of our income.

If they went, we would have extreme difficulties replacing that income.

We rely on these collections.

"Visitors have their photographs taken with them

they are a good tourist attraction."

Seemingly East Devon District Council have nothing better to do than act as jobsworths, and are now using taxpayers' money to investigate whether the dummies are operating illegally.

Sid and Alma can apply for a licence. However, they would need to be over 16 and fill out a form with their name, address, phone number and date of birth.

They would also need a letter from their charity, confirming they are an authorised collector 28 days before they begin.

A petition to save Sid and Alma has been set up by the lifeboat station, you can sign it here Save Sid and Alma.

Feel free to tell Nanny's chums in East Devon District Council what you think of them, via this link: Dummies.

The list of councillors, and their email addresses, can be accessed via this link Dummy List.

Give them my love:)

VOO Halloo II

Yesterday I wrote about Nanny's great new "initiative", VOO's.

Violent Offender Orders (VOO's) are designed to stop criminality and violence, before the criminal has even thought of committing the crime. All the police have to do is identify someone with a dodgy background, or extremist views, then the court slaps a VOO on them; hey presto problem solved!

Ho hum, all a bit of a fantasy really in my view.

However, if Nanny really is serious about identifying people who have yet to commit a violent crime but are nonetheless at risk of doing so; may I suggest that she directs her gimlet eye to the people identified in yesterday's Channel 4 Dispatches documentary "Undercover in The Mosque"

(Note Channel 4 have some sort of gizmo that you can download to enable you to watch their stuff, so in theory you can watch it on line)

The documentary identified a veritable hotbed of extremism and unpleasantness being pumped into people's minds in some mosques in Britain, by certain highly unpleasant individuals.

In brief, if you are:

-A woman
-A Christian
-A moderate Muslim
-A Muslim who helps non Muslims
-A Jew
-An atheist
-A homosexual
-A believer in democracy etc etc

Then tough luck, these guys think that you will go to hell and have every intention of speeding you on your way.

Quote:

"'An army of Muslims will arise' announces one preacher.

Another preacher said British Muslims must 'dismantle' British democracy

- they must 'live like a state within a state'

until they are 'strong enough to take over.'"

I would say that these characters are well deserving of a VOO or two. The trouble is that I doubt very much that Nanny will be handing out many VOO's to them.

Why is that then Ken? I hear you ejaculate...please stop this constant ejaculation at the keyboard, semen is such a persistent stain and clogs up the keys.

I digress...the reasons that Nanny won't impose VOO's on these people are two fold:

• Labour politicians are desperate to ingratiate themselves into the Muslim community. They need their votes, and can't be bothered to differentiate between mainstream Muslims and extremists (in fact they don't even take time to understand the difference). A such, any hint of a VOO which might upset their voters won't be popular with Labour.



• The extremists are followers of Wahabism, an extreme version of Islam practiced by Saudi Arabia. Much of the finance and support for the extremist preachers is in fact coming from Saudi Arabia. BTW, you may recall that the perpetrators of 9/11 had Saudi connections.

What is the significance of the Saudi connection?

Saudi is our ally in the forthcoming attack on Iran, and as such we trust them implicitly.

Bliary Poppins in fact recently blocked an investigation into bribery charges relating to Saudi Arabia and BAE, on the grounds of "national security".

Why was this?

1 There is a multi billion pound defence contract with Saudi Arabia in the offing.

2 Bliary Poppins recently spoke of an "alliance of moderation" to take on Iran as part of battle against extremism.

Guess who forms part of this alliance of moderation?

Yes, that's right, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (a country riddled with extremist madrass's exporting extremist preachers to Britain, also not a democracy).

Why do we need an "alliance of moderation"?

Ah, simple, because we are going to attack Iran this year.

Don't believe me?

• The US is deploying another strike group in the Gulf



• Israel is practicing (and of course has denied this) attacking nuclear facilities with low yield nuclear weapons



• The US detained six Iranians inside Iraq last week. The Iraqis claim that they are diplomats, the US says they are not



• The US has appointed an experienced admiral to be head of Central Command (this you see will be mainly a sea borne air assault, rather thand a land assault)

Saudi Arabia is cosying up to Britain and the US, as they being Sunnis do not want to see the Shias take control of key areas of the Middle East (the Shias in Iran are now very chummy with the Shias who now are in charge of Iraq, thanks to the "regime change" enforced on Iraq by Blair and Bush).

Taking the above into account, there is no way on earth that VOO's will be used on the extremists identified in the documentary (as they are supported and financed by our "allies of moderation").

Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council summed it up well:

"We are losing our children to extremists".

Note and understand very clearly, that mainstream Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding. The rise of the extremists, if not checked, poses as much of a threat to the average Muslim living in Britain as it does to the non Muslims living here.

Something in this country really stinks.

Voo Halloo

Nanny really loves her ASBO's, in her view they have really improved the quality of life in the UK. Yet, she knows that they are not the total solution to social and criminal problems.

Nanny has been working hard to find the final solution. She feels that she needs something that will not just punish a criminal, and keep him away from decent people, but something that will stop a crime being committed even before the criminal (or potential criminal) has thought of committing that crime.

Ah, if only Nanny had the gift of second sight; she could lock all those nasty people away, who have yet to commit a crime, and at the stroke of a pen zeroise the crime statistics.

An impossible dream?

No, for now we have VOO's!

What the fark is a VOO then Ken?

Well, dear reader, a VOO is a Violent Offender Order designed to be served on people who might commit a violent offence.

Bliary Poppins wants to introduce VOO's, which will be targeted at those whom police believe are likely to commit violence.

They will be aimed not only at people who have a history of violent behaviour, or who have just left prison, but also at those who may not yet have committed an offence.

Brilliant isn't it?

The Home Orifice will publish a plan next month which proposes that potential trouble makers will be banned from certain areas, or mixing with certain people. Police will be alerted when the potential criminal moves house and possibly force him to live in a named hostel, the potential trouble makers' vehicle details will be given to police and curfews imposed on them.

The orders will last for at least two years, with no upper limit. Any breach could lead to up to five years in jail. Ministers believe police will apply for 300 to 450 Voos each year.

Oh this is so brilliant, why has no one ever thought of doing this before?

Well you see folks, there is one small fly in Nanny's oinkment.

Can you see that fly?

Yes, that's right, Nanny doesn't have the gift of second sight!

In order for the police to identify future criminals they will be using rather unscientific, and error prone, key performance indicators (KPI's), viz:

-The person's formative years and upbringing

-"cognitive deficiencies"

-"entrenched pro-criminal or antisocial attitudes"

-"a history of substance abuse or mental health issues"

-The person's domestic situation

-The person's relationship with their partner or family

-"possession of paraphernalia related to violent offending (eg balaclava)"

-"possession of extremist material"

Even better, just like ASBO's, when the police apply for a VOO all they have to do is apply via a magistrate's court, where the threshold for burden of proof is lower than a criminal court.

Brilliant!

I see no flaws whatsoever in this master plan of Nanny's; for if I did, I might be classed as a potential VOO recipient, as this site could be classified as "extremist".

Nanny Town

A pleasant little ditty about Nanny, by King Kool.

The Dangers of Inflation

On Thursday the Bank of England raised the interest rates to 5.25%, as part of their anti inflationary measures.

If only the Bank of England was in charge of Nanny's educashun system, then we might see similar efforts to control the widespread "grade inflation" that has become endemic.

Since Labour (a contradiction in terms don't you think?) came to power in 1997, the number of A grades at A level and top honours degrees has risen by over 50%.

Cynics argue that these extraordinary figures are not down to rising standards, but in fact due to dumbing down of exams.

The Daily Mail claims that at GCSE, top grade passes have risen from 14% in Labour's first year of office to over 19% in 2006.

However, give a teenager an exam in a core subject such as English or maths, and see the rates tumble. Fewer than half of teenagers are achieving decent grades in the two subjects.

First class honours degrees have also inflated by 55%.

Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckingham University, said:

"The figures hammer home that degree classifications

as currently applied no longer distinguish sufficiently.

Employers now tend to do it on the basis

of which university a graduate attended, which,

in effect, is using A-levels to distinguish between students.

This does not leave room for students or universities to develop."

Whilst having a first class degree in a soft subject may be satisfying to the ego, it does not help the hapless recipient earn a living.

However, have no fear, Nanny has a cunning plan to reduce the number of out of work school leavers; she is raising the school leaving age to 18.

Brilliant!

Nanny Bans Prayers

Nanny is a strange old bird, on the one hand Bliary and some of his leading ministers unwisely bring their Christian/Catholic religious beliefs into the political arena (politics and religion do not mix), yet on the other hand Nanny tries to expunge Christianity from British society.

One such instance of "expungement" occurred recently in one of Britain's oldest boroughs, Totnes. Totnes Town Council, for the last 600 years, has opened proceedings with a prayer to God asking for help.

Nanny has now decided to ban this, as it may offend others.

Mayor Pruw Boswell has now ordered that the prayers be replaced with a "quiet moment of reflection", so the council could be "sensitive to others' needs".

The Reverend Gordon Davies, of Totnes Methodist Church, thinks that this idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"I know many non-believers who found the prayers of great comfort

because they are for the good of others.

If people felt it was offensive they didn't have to join in."

The irony being that the one councillor who voted against the ban was in fact an atheist.

Funny old world isn't it?

Nanny Fiddles The Figures

As we all know, Nanny believes that everyone in Britain should be given a fair chance in life...er so long as they comply with her views on how they live their lives, and so long as they fit her ethnic/social ideal.

Nanny is proud to remind us daily that we live in a utopia, which could only be possible under her benign rule.

The trouble is, life doesn't always work out in the way that Nanny would like it. Sometimes the facts do not always fit Nanny's propaganda.

Have no fear, when reality does not match expectations, Nanny has a simple fix.

What's that then Ken?

Nanny fiddles the figures!

Today we see such a case in point. Nanny has fiddled the education figures, to favour those who come from what she would describes "deprived" backgrounds.

Nanny has done a wee bit of "jiggery pokery" (can I say "jiggery pokery"?) on the school tables.

Now Nanny has "engineered" the figures to show the new paradigm, the worst schools in the country for GCSE results are now near the top of the new list, whilst some of the best grammars are near the bottom.

It's Orwellian reality revision at its very best!

Needless to say, this "jiggery pokery" (are you sure that I can say this?) does the pupils no good. Teachers will of course use poverty and other social issues as an excuse for under-achievement.

The "jiggery pokery" comes in the form of the "contextual value added" table (CVA), who thinks these BOLLOX phrases up?, which has been introduced alongside standard tables this year.

The CVA judges schools less harshly if they have large numbers of pupils who claim free school meals, due to family poverty, or live in deprived postcodes.

What the fark is a deprived postcode?

Other factors are also taken into account, eg ethnicity of pupils and sex.

Before we get some racial bigot saying something unpleasant, let me point out that the CVA tables are skewed in favour of white males; Nanny deems white maels to be thick and the most deprived.

Nanny has even imposed a maximum limit on the number of GCSEs that schools can count towards their results. No more than eight GCSEs per pupil are allowed.

Nanny's Schools Minister, Jim Knight, said:

"I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from these figures.

If I were to be fair to grammar schools,

it could be quite difficult for them to show improvement

because they are already doing so well thanks to their selection."

Which translated means, the figures are bollocks and grammar schools are the best.

The CVA system does the pupils no favours, no matter how much you try to explain away under achievement and make them feel good about themselves, these kids will one day become adults and enter world that is unforgiving and does not accept excuses.

Life is hard!

In truth Nanny is abusing these children, by shielding them from life's hard realities.

As regards which schools are better, state, private or grammar...well I think Ruth Kelly (Nanny's favourite little minister) has demonstrated the stark reality there...hasn't she?

Labour

Do as we say

Not as we do!

The Dangers of Fruit

Nanny really does have some strange ideas underneath her bonnet and petticoats. On the one hand she is urging us to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day, yet on the other hand she has warned her own staff not to eat fruit.

Let me be less disingenuous...a long word for a gloomy morning!

Nanny's chums in Middlesbrough Council's legal department got rather hot and bothered the other week when they heard that Joan McTigue, a planning councillor, was given four apples and a pear on three site visits.

Nanny sprang into action and sent Ms McTigue a written warning, seemingly such largesse could have affected Ms McTigue's impartiality!

Ms McTigue was given the "gifts" during three planning committee site visits, including one where she admired a pear tree.

Needless to say, Ms McTigue thinks that this is bollocks.

Quote:

"Do they think I can be bought for one pear and four apples?"

Because of the potential for bias, Nanny told Ms McTigue that she should have left the room while the remainder of the planning committee determined the application.

In future she said that if she is offered fruit or cuttings in future, while on a site visit, she will ask the chairman of the committee to decide whether she might accept the gift.

Now, as an experienced fraud investigator and auditor, I can see where Nanny is coming from on this. However, a little common sense would surely indicate that a few apples and pears are unlikely to influence anyone.

I would also note that Nanny is being a tad hypocritical here, after all has our own "beloved" Prime Minister not just returned from holiday in a mansion lent to him by a Bee Gee?

Do not our "beloved" Prime Minister and his "frugal" wife often accept the hospitality of others?

Has not John Prescott been royally entertained by a certain US millionaire, whilst negotiating a casino deal?

Has not the Prime Minister's "frugal" wife enjoyed "free" financial advice from the ex boyfriend of one of her chums?

No one has ever questioned these people's integrity have they?

Ooops...wait a minute...they have.

Mea culpa!

Throwing Money at a Problem

Nanny believes that if she throws enough money at all of life's problems, then they will simply go away.

In theory that might work, sometimes. However, she ignores three fundamental problems with her theory:

1 The money she is using is not hers, it's ours.

2 Money spent, without proper oversight and control is very often wasted.

3 Throwing money at issues more often than not causes inflation and corruption, look at the damage done to Africa by UN and international "aid" programmes.

As it is in Africa, so it is in the North of England. Nanny was informed a few weeks ago that the enormous amount of public money (I love the euphemism "public money"...it's not "public" it's our money!) on northern cities has only made them poorer.

Nanny's 263 page report, the Competitive Economic Performance of English Cities, noted that not one city north of Derby has an economy that is performing better than the national average.

The report went on to note that state efforts to improve business, productivity and earnings in northern regions have only managed to make things worse!

The conclusion of the report is that Nanny's spending, at levels equivalent to the now defunct Soviet bloc, have in fact done more harm than good.

Quote:

"The overt policies followed so far and the unintended consequences

of others have either failed to close this gap or actually made it worse.

This is a major, persistent and long-term problem

for the English economy as a whole."

An initial study for the programme, which was published in the spring, was hailed by the Smooth Talking Bar Steward, John Prescott, as showing "remarkable progress" and an "urban renaissance".

Seems to me Prescott has been telling porkies, or didn't read the initial study too well.

The main author of the report, Professor James Simmie of Oxford Brookes University, summed it up rather well:

"There is not enough private sector expenditure.

The north is far too dependent on public services expenditure."

In other words, a culture of dependency has set in; which in turn erodes and debilitates the region and the people.

Public spending in London is 33% of the economy, compared to over 50% in much of the north. In fact London contributes around £11BN a year to other regions.

State domination of the economy has throttled private business, and increased dependence on the taxpayer and on benefits.

The Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Economic and Business Research showed that 65% of the economy in the North East depends on the state, and 57% in the North West.

The lesson here is simple; the state is destroying the country and its people.

The enemy of the people is the state.

Nanny Hates Smacking

Funny how Nanny, at times, can be a tad hypocritical isn't it?

Last month Nanny's Children's Commissioner for England, Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green, announced that he had begun preparing a dossier for the United Nations, to back his case that parents who smack their children are abusing their human rights.

Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green says that parents must be banned outright from smacking. In his view existing laws fail to protect children from harm, and he intends to submit a report to the UN by this autumn.

Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green wants to ban parents completely from smacking.

Quite how this will be enforced, is beyond me. Child's word against parents perhaps?

All rather embarassing for Bliary Poppins, who admitted in an interview in 2006 that he had smacked both his elder sons.

As Bliary rightly said:

"I think everybody knows the difference

between smacking a kid and abusing a child."

In other words, exercise common sense and trust the judgement of the parent.

Bin Brother

Nanny's obsession with spying on us, and using CCTV to aid her spying, knows no bounds.

It was revealed in late November of 2006 that CCTV spy cameras are being installed at household rubbish dumps to check what residents are throwing away, and to fine those breaking recycling rules.

Nanny's CCTV systems are capable of reading and storing car number plates to identify who is using the dump, how often, and what they are disposing.

The cameras are being installed at waste sites across the country. Nanny states that they are to improve security!

Yes indeed, there are many people who come to waste sites to steal rubbish!

However, the cameras are in reality being installed in order to aid councils screw their hapless residents for even more money.

Nanny is a very expensive beast to keep, she needs more and more money.

It seems that cameras have been installed in Buckinghamshire, Croydon, Somerset, Dundee and Hertfordshire.

Buckinghamshire council documents state:

"This may lead to investigation and possibly prosecution".

Why are we allowing Nanny to do this to us?

Frost Selected For Honour

I have been nominated for an honour.

My thanks to my fellow ICAEW membesr who put my name forward.

Ken

Lampposts Have Ears

Those of you worried by the number of CCTV appliances that Nanny has erected (can I say erected?) throughout the length and breadth of the country, may now have cause for further concern.

Nanny's chums in the police and much respected local councils are considering attaching microphones to cameras, so that Nanny can eavesdrop on conversations in the street.

Seemingly, the microphones can detect conversations 100 yards away and record aggressive exchanges before they become violent.

Police, councils and transport officials in London have shown an interest in installing them before the 2012 Olympics.

There are more than 4.2m CCTV cameras in the UK, with the average person being filmed more than 300 times a day.

Don't worry though, the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that a full public debate over the microphones' impact on privacy will be needed before they can be introduced.

So that's alright then!

Nanny Bans Emigration

Like all third rate dictatorships, Nanny does not like it when people emigrate. Emigration sends a clear signal to the world that all is not quite as it should be in Nanny's Britain.

As such Nanny was especially displeased when one of her own Home Orifice staff tried to emigrate in November 2006.

Nicholas Faulkner, a Home Orifice security consultant, made the rather bold move of sending an email to Bliary Poppins herself.

Unfortunately he has now been sacked, for having the temerity to write to Nanny.

Mr Faulkner said in the mail that he had waited years for a visa to the US, so that he could leave Britain. Seemingly Mr F was not happy with high house prices, taxes and mass immigration.

He said that he felt disenfranchised.

Surely not in Nanny's Britain!

In the mail he noted that given the close relationship Mr Blair enjoyed with President Bush, could he help?

Mr Faulkner didn't think he was putting his job at risk, because he shared his office with Abid Javaid. Abid was the immigration official who kept his job, despite being exposed earlier as a leading member of an extremist Islamic group which Nanny wanted to ban.

Unfortunately Mr Faulkner was wrong.

A few days later he was fired for gross misconduct. Mr Faulkner had his contract terminated at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon, where he had been aiding the national identity cards project.

Quote:

"I am flabbergasted.

My treatment compared to that of Abid

says an awful lot about what is wrong with this country

and what is happening to democracy."

Rather oddly though, after being fired, he then received a note from No 10 thanking him for his letter and saying that it was being referred to the Foreign Office.

Don't you just love this country?

The Times Supports Frost

My thanks to The Times, which has come out in support of my candidacy for the forthcoming ICAEW Council elections.

Fat Myths

Now that we are firmly in 2007, and being bombarded by both the media and Nanny into detoxing and taking diets, it is worth sitting back and considering exactly what constitutes being fat actually means.

Indeed Nanny is so keen on fat issues that she wants to set up a database to monitor every child in the country, including their diet.

Yet some health researchers argue that being overweight is actually beneficial: it's the dieting that kills.

In Septicland, the land that gave us WMD in Iraq, no less a person that the US surgeon general has claimed that obesity is "a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction".

Errmmm...is anyone buying that hyperbole?

Nanny needless to say, as she follows all things American, is eager to jump on the bandwagon. Nanny wants to introduce a £224M "Children's Index".

What the fark is a "Children's Index" then Ken?

I will tell you...

A "Children's Index" is a database of every child in the country, that will chart progress from birth to adulthood and will flag up "concerns" about each child's development.

Two "flags" on a child's record will trigger an official investigation into his or her family.

Interestingly Nanny's Information Commissioner, in a report issued in November, is very critical of the scheme.

Quote:

"Government policy proposes treating all parents

as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children."

Seemingly, one of the proposed danger signs on the Children's Index would be if the child were not eating the Nanny approved amount of fruit and vegetables each day.

Yet there is no scientific evidence to support the fat myths propgated by the media, Nanny and the diet food industry.

• The recently published Health Survey for England, 2004 shows no significant increase in the weight of children in recent years. The Department of Health report found that from 1995 to 2003 there was only a one-pound increase in children's average weight.



• The Thousand Families Study found little connection between overweight children and adult obesity. In the study, four out of five obese people became obese as adults, not as children.



• In the US it is estimated that 10% of high school pupils suffer from eating disorders, brought about by the incessant media message that slim is good and fat is bad.



• In 2004, a World Health Organisation study of British pupils found that overweight children ate sweets less frequently than normal weight children did. Children who ate larger amounts of junk food actually had less chance of being overweight.



• In America there was a rapid increase in the number of overweight people in the early years of this decade. However, that is because the goal posts were moved! The classification of what was "overweight" was reduced from those with a body mass index of 27, to those of 25.



• In 2005 a US Centres for Disease Control study found the lowest death rates among overweight people.



• A 2004 Harvard University study examined 14,000 children, and found that junk food did not lead to obesity.



• 95% of dieters are fatter five years after their diet then when they started to trim.



• The Iowa Women's Health Study and the American Cancer Society study found that weight loss was associated with higher rates of mortality.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is obvious; have it large in 2007, and get well stuffed!

The State of The Union

The daily effluent of Nanny's propaganda, from the Number 10 Bunker, informs Nanny's subjects of all manner of things that she is proud to lay claim to.

Many of which are trivial, inconsequential or downright stupid.

However, rather surprisingly, there is one event that Nanny has not tried to lay claim to or indeed muscle in on.

Namely the foundation of Great Britain, and the Act of Union which merged the parliaments of England and Scotland on January 16th 1707. Those of you who have suffered Nanny's education system may have a little trouble here, that is the 300th anniversary of one of the most important events in the Nation's history.

What is Nanny doing to celebrate and to commemorate this historical event?

Aside from minting a crappy £2 coin, bugger all!

Before you get too hot under the collar about this, you must remember a couple of things:

• Nanny is celebrating the abolition of slavery by spending £20m on commemorative events.



• Nanny, by her obsession with devolution and regional parliaments etc, is actively trying to destroy the Union. She could hardly therefore hold events supporting it, could she?

Pretty pathetic isn't it?