Nanny Knows Best

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

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Dig For Victory

Dig For VictoryBritain is a tiny island, with a very large/excessive population (people per square mile) of around 60 million.

Feeding this population requires a well developed set of trade routes with the rest of the world, and the maximisation of agricultural output on British soil.

When crisis hits, such as in the last war (when our population was only 40 million), we have serious trouble feeding ourselves. During these times of crisis every available piece of land is turned over to producing food. Thus it was that allotments, a modest piece of land allocated to local town dwellers for vegetable and flower growing, really came into their own.

Dig For Victory!

Needless to say Nanny, because she is into organic "cafe latte" couscous ethically sourced at twice the price type shit, doesn't give a stuff about the humble allotment with its spuds and caulis.

Therefore local councils, such as the Parish Council of West Monkton Somerset, are free to "bugger up" yet another aspect of British life.

The council has demanded that local allotment holders take out millions of pounds of public liability insurance, thus forcing them to abandon their allotments.

The hapless allotment holders in West Monkton have been told to pay for protection in case someone trips over a turnip, or slips on a slug, and sues for compensation.

West Monkton is not alone in demanding money with menaces, other local authorities have been advised to follow suit.

The cost to local allotment holders, who rent their plots at £10 per annum, is an additional £400 per annum!

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens, thinks that the demand for money with menaces is a load of old bollocks:

"It's ridiculous.

It makes it not worth having an allotment.

The average plot holder can produce about £500 worth of food.

If they have to pay up to £400 in insurance,

plus the £50 cost of seeds and tools on top

there is no point in having an allotment.

A lot of people, particularly the retired

or those on low incomes, could not afford to pay

the extra cost of insurance.

A lot people would just give up.

It could mean the end of the Great British allotment.

We are at a time when demand for allotments is

at its highest since the Second World War
."

Britain has an estimated 330,000 allotments which, if each charged £400, would rake in £132M per annum for the money grabbing councils/insurance companies.

As David Hampsey, of the National Vegetable Society, rightly observes:

"It's ridiculous to ask plot holders

to pay up to £400 in insurance.

It's just another way of making money

out of law-abiding citizens
."

He has hit the nail on the head, it's another piss take from our ineffective and redundant local councils; who are using it as an excuse to raise more money so that they can afford to pay for their salaries, expense accounts and defined benefit pension funds.

The crisis came to a head the other week when 11 plot holders in West Monkton received letters telling them they must insure themselves against personal injury claims of up to £5M. The parish council clerk, Trish Cavill, said that the town hall was following advice from their insurer Allianz Cornhill.

The letter said each allotment owner must have public liability insurance "with a limited indemnity of no less than five million pounds."

Grower David Almond, allotment holder aged 70, said:

"This is utter nonsense.

The purpose of allotments was to

help poor families grow vegetables.

But it looks like the council wants

to push people out of them
."

Needless to say West Monkton Parish Council are quick to blame the compensation culture for the need to insure allotments.

Mrs Cavill said:

"We live in a health and safety conscious age,

and we wanted to clarify the position for allotments.

The parish council's insurance covers the public walkways

and paths on the site but not the allotments themselves.

If someone trips on a bucket on a path,

the council is liable.

But if they trip over a bucket on an allotment,

the allotment holder is liable
."

Errmmm...if I have read that correctly she has just said that it is the allotment holder that is liable?

Therefore is it not up to the allotment holder as to whether they take out £5M insurance cover?

Why does the council need to get itself involved in this?

Why does the council seem to think that it is responsible for everything that happens? (answer: because if people stopped to ask what does a local council really need to do, they would see that their council needs to do far less than it claims. We are being conned by our local councils into paying for services we don't want or need).

Reading her response it is clear that this has nothing to do with the council.

Allianz said that the company would advise all councils to urge allotment plot holders to have public liability insurance.

Well of course they would, they stand to earn £132M a year out of it!

Does not anyone in our "respected" local councils ever bother to challenge these money grabbing insurance companies?

Why does the cover need to be £5M? This amount is quoted now for all events and issues connected with local councils.

Why not £1M or £500K?

How accurate are the premiums of £400, taking into account the risks and likelihood of a £5M payout?

An Allianz spokesperson said:

"This type of cover is needed in case

someone gets injured at the allotment

and wants to sue the plot holder
."

I refer her to my point above, about it being up to the allotment holder not the council or insurance company to dictate terms.

Seriously, does anyone really trust their council or insurance companies?

It is high time that people stood up to these parasites.

DIG FOR VICTORY!

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:21 PM

    Allotments- surely if anyone skidding on a slug in an allotment, they would be trespassing anyway- so tough luck- they deserve all they get

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:45 PM

    I´m sorry to swear here but this country is going to fucking hell in a handcart, oops mind you don´t trip over it. I agree with above comment, if somebody gets injured on an allotment that they shouldnt be on then tough fucking titty. If everybody stops suing everybody else for every little thing and takes responsibility for their own actions then all this crap and those who sit on committees somewhere making up all the fucking stupid rules could eff off into oblivion. Then maybe Britain will start to hold her head up again.
    We are the laughing stock of the developed world for all the PC and H&S crap going on here.
    Sorry again for the profanities but I have had enough.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All car parks seem to have 'Park at your own risk' signs these days.

    Why cannot allotments simply have 'Visit at your own risk' signs alongside the 'No-Smoking' signs I expect they now have to display.

    Will those of us with gardens soon be forced to take out specific liability insurance to cover any visitors?

    The creep of compulsory insurance is odious and a total travesty when one considers that the original idea was to share risk voluntarily.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:44 AM

    Leaving aside the inanity of this directive.... the price seems rather inflated. My home insurance costs less than half the amount quoted and includes public liability insurance - and a lot of other things besides

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:46 AM

    Some wriggling on the part of the council here I think. I live in a leasehold flat - public liability cover is the landlord's responsibility. Allotments are also leasehold. And the landlord for them would be.....?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:40 PM

    I have been part of a group of families meeting for support and social reasons in council buildings on public parks for ten years. Last year the council started to charge rent at rates similar to some commercial places. This year we have had to cease our meetings because the council insist we must have public liability insurance. They have their own insurance but will not hire rooms to us unless we take out our own.

    I phoned lots of insurance companies and none had policies for this, but one told me they have had a rash of people who are part of small groups and clubs asking about it and who are no longer able to have their meetings in public venues run by the council.

    We are the council tax payers who have funded these public buildings and pay a rent to use them which likely as not funds the council's own public liability insurance. But members of the public are no longer able to use public facilities like this because of unreasonable demands about public liability insurance which the insurance companies don't provide (yet).

    Has Nanny made a new law about this this year?

    B.

    ReplyDelete