Educashun

Question:

"Many people observe the stars using:

A a telescope
B a microscope
C an X-ray tube
D a synthesiser?"

Congratulations, if you can answer the above correctly you are well on your way to achieving a grade in Nanny's new dumbed down science exams.

The only trouble is you will be qualified to do fark all!

Nanny has told examiners to set easier questions in some GCSE science papers. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), says that exam papers should consist of 70% "low-demand questions".

A nation of thickos is born!

In the past five years, the proportion of students gaining a grade D or better in one of the combined science papers has leapt from 39.6% to 46.7%.

Nanny says that the two tier method will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to show what they are capable of, without being thrown off course by questions that are too hard or too easy.

But what's the farking point of awarding a qualification to everyone?

You still need to stream people in some way, so that the best are put into the best universities and the best jobs.

A convoy moves at the speed of the slowest ship, by catering to the dim instead of challenging them Nanny is depriving the more able of their chance to push their boundaries.

Jim Sinclair, the JCQ director, said:

"Part of the desire is that the student

can come out of the exam with a feeling of

success that they have actually tackled

a significant proportion of the questions,

and achieved the best grade expected.

The vast majority of candidates taking this

exam are going to achieve grades D to G,

and they deserve a positive experience of science.

They can only have that by being allowed to

attempt questions which are at their level.

It is making exams accessible to candidates."

What a load of bollocks!

Exams are not the Oprah Winfrey show, designed to make students feel good about themselves. Exams are there to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to stop morons being put into positions that far exceed their abilities.

PERIOD!

Regrettably the current morons in government seem to have bypassed the streaming system.

Fag Off

Nothing brings a lump (or something like that) to my throat more than when I read of ever alert council employees doing their bit to protect the environment.

As such my cockles (can I say cockles?) were thoroughly warmed when I read this story (a month old...sorry about that), about a council employee from Grimsby handing out a £50 fine to couple for littering.

Quite right too!

The only trouble being that they hadn't littered at all...they looked as though they might litter.

Donna Jackson and boyfriend Mark Hewitt were having a fag outside a shop, when they were given a fine for £50 on the basis that they looked as though they would litter.

Donna said:

"We were gobsmacked because it was so ridiculous,

so in protest we both then threw our cigarette ends

on the floor.

We thought if we are going to be fined,

we might as well get our money's worth."

A warden said in theory smokers could be fined for flicking ash.

You have been warned!

Nanny will now get you for intent to commit a crime, even if Nanny can't prove it.

ASBO's 'R Us

Between 1999 and 2005 7,356 ASBO's were issued.

The figure now runs at over 4,000 per year.

Are we feeling any safer?

Have the yobs been banished from our streets?

Errrmmm...no!

ASBO's are just another example of Nanny's eye catching "solutions", that don't work, to complex problems.

Booze on The Box

Nanny's chums in Alcohol Concern are getting themselves rather worked up about booze adverts on TV. Specifically they are concerned about the thousands of children who are exposed to alcohol commercials during popular television shows, such as the Simpsons, Home and Away and "Corrie".

Needless to say, Alcohol Concern want all booze adverts banned before 9pm.

Alcohol Concern chief executive Srabani Sen said:

"A watershed ban is the only way to give parents

the peace of mind of knowing that their children

can be kept safe from the influence of advertising."

The above point fails to address the realities of life in the real world:

• Children watch TV after 9PM



• Booze is featured in many TV programmes eg Corrie, the Simpsons etc. No doubt they will then call for booze to be banned from the Simpsons.



• The teenagers who are "running amok" on booze don't need TV to encourage them to drink



• The parents of the teenagers who are running amok, know full well that they are running amok but have abrogated their responsibility as parents



• To hide something away as "adult" makes it even more appealing to children. I well remember as a teenager whenever BBC2 showed an "adult" foreign film, viewing figures amongst my peer group (not normally interested in French/Swedish culture) would rocket



• Kids drink because they are given the money to buy the stuff, cut back on their allowances and they won't be able to afford it.

Seems to me the recommendation by Nanny's chums is naive in the extreme.

Patronising Bastards!

Our old "friends" in the Health and Safety Gestapo are up to their old tricks again.

This time they have put their interfering size 10's into the positioning of a bench for a bus stop.

Helen Greenough and Vera Clews had been badgering Stoke-on-Trent City Council for two years to install a bench, so that they could rest their legs as they waited at their nearest bus stop.

Two years on, and it finally arrived.

One small problem, the dimwits in the council (local councils, what are they good for?) installed it back to front; so that it faces a hedge, rather than the road.

The elderly passengers who use the bust stop are getting stiff necks from having to look over their shoulders all the time, to see if the bus is coming. When they do spot the bus, they often can't get round the bench quickly enough in order to catch it.

Now why did Stoke-on-Trent City Council put the bench back to front?

Health and Farking Safety!

Quote:

"The bench was put in this position

because it would be dangerous to have it facing the road.

Some elderly people are unsteady on their feet

and would risk falling into the road or getting

splashed if it was facing the road."

For fark's sake!

How many elderly people are falling over in front of buses in this country?

Mrs Greenough and Mrs Clews said the position of the bench on the Leek Road was "ridiculous". Mrs Greenough, 84, said it had become a "laughing stock".

Quote:

"We are nearly all pensioners on this road

and the bus only comes every 85 minutes

so you can be waiting a long time.

I've been on at the council for almost

two years trying to get this bench put in,

but if they can't do it right then they might

as well take it away.

There is nothing wrong with me,

I'm perfectly capable of getting on a bus without

falling into the road.

We are not all doddery old dears".

Nanny and her minions really are a bunch of patronising bastards!

By the way, it cost £50 to fix the bench in place. However, in order for it to be turned around it will cost £1000.

What a great country we live in!

Fat is Good

Nanny has been shrilly telling the nation of the dangers of fat in our diet. She has been going on about this for so long, that a large percentage of the population has become somewhat obsessive over what they eat.

Fair enough, so long as they keep their obsessions to themselves. Unfortunately they don't, these obsessives are inflicting their beliefs on their children.

Here comes the rub....

Dr John Kostyak, and a team from the Pennsylvania State University, warned in the online magazine Nutrition Journal that "muesli mothers" who are inflicting their low fat obsessions on their children are in fact damaging their childrens' health.

The study noted that children burn considerably more body fat than adults, relative to the amount of energy that they use. The obsessive parents who eliminate good fats, such as olive oil and sunflower oil, are putting their child's natural development in jeopardy.

Quote:

"Sufficient fat must be included in the diet for children to support normal growth and development."

Rachel Cooke, a spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, says that a healthy diet should consist of about 30% fats, mainly unsaturated from plant sources, and that getting less "might mean that children miss out on vital nutrients, essential fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins A, D and E that are vital for good health".

Hah!

Told you!

Remember folks, the body is like a car engine. Engines need oil to lubricate the working parts, so does the body; fat is a great lubricant, it ensures that the blood flows freely through the veins.

Happy eating!

Gang Culture

As Nanny and her lackeys in the media work themselves up into a frenzy over the "gang culture", that we are told is sweeping Britain; it is time for a little pause for thought as to why we have groups of teenage lads huddling together on the streets in gangs, and what might be done.

• It's not a new phenomena, look to Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet was basically a love story set amongst gang violence. Less hysteria from the media and politicians is needed.



• Teenage males need strong male role models. When they have no strong male at home (be it biological father or father figure), they will seek role models elsewhere. This of course flies against the face of Nanny's love affair with single parents.



• Parents who allow their teenage children to roam the streets at night, need to be "reminded" that this is a sure fire way for teenagers to find themselves in trouble.
  
  Where the parents continue to allow their kids to roam at will at night (and those kids are found to be getting into trouble with the law), appropriate action against the parents needs to be taken. That which is most of value to the parents should be seized, ie pc's, TV's, CD collection, mobile phones etc.
  
  After that, target their benefits.



• Those that would seek to mentor and act as strong male role models for these youths (eg scout masters, youth centre workers etc) are put off by Nanny's myriad rules and regulations re interaction with children.
  
  Nanny and the media now assume that all males who wish to interact with under 18's are potential paedophiles, the rules set up by Nanny to weed out the small minority of people who are paedophiles are putting off the majority of those who aren't. The rules need to be changed.



• Nanny's middle class abhorrence of boxing has led to the closure of boxing rings, both in gyms and above pubs. These were ideal places for teenage males to be trained to handle their aggression and to take some pride in themselves, under the guidance of a male mentor. Bring back the boxing gym.



• Nanny's dislike of competitive team sports has led to a decline in group after school sports clubs; eg football etc. These team games are an ideal way for teenage males to bond and to learn to handle their aggression, plus let off steam. Competitive team sports need to be assertively encouraged.



• The feminisation of schooling, whereby male teachers are on the decline, again leads to trouble. Teenage males need a strong hand, that is best delivered and administered by a strong male teacher. More male teachers are required.

Like it or not teenage males, if left to their own devices, are a bloody nuisance and a danger to themselves and others.

On the assumption that we as a society do not intend to start sterilising people, or sealing off deprived areas with watch towers and fences, then the only option we have is to take the time and trouble to address the issues above and reverse the damage that Nanny has done.

We will hear a lot from Nanny, and the media, in the coming weeks over this. Brown will tell us that he will ensure that gun crime is eliminated, and that the gang culture will be eradicated.

However, unless his solutions cover the above issues, there will be no change for the good whatsoever.

The Dangers of Sausages

It is refreshing to see that Nanny's police and justice system are focusing their attention precisely on the issues that matter, namely sausage throwing.

Nanny has brought a 12 year old boy to trial for assault.

Fair enough, I hear you say.

Except that the weapon he used to "assault" his victim with was a cocktail sausage, which he threw at an elderly neighbour and which hit him on the shoulder.

When the boy appeared at a youth court in Manchester, the judge said he could not believe the case had been brought before him.

The boy pleaded not guilty.

District judge Tim Devas said:

"I was brought up in the era of Just William.

You may not remember it, but this incident sounds similar.

If he has done what was suggested, it is very bad behaviour.

But is it in the public interest to prosecute

a 12-year-old boy who threw a sausage?"

The alleged incident is said to have taken place on Aug 11 in Wythenshawe, Manchester, when the victim was walking home after visiting a pub. He claims that the boy threw the sausage after a disagreement.

Officers from the Greater Manchester police visited the boy's home, where he was arrested, photographed and fingerprinted.

Dianne Oliver, prosecuting, said that the Crown Prosecution Service would review the charge.

Quite!

Whilst the boy should be dealt with by his parents for being disrespectful, and for being a bloody nuisance (he has 3 reprimands apparently, therefore he is no angel); the state has no business bringing him to trial for this (cost so far £2K), when there are herds of scum bags allowed to create merry hell in neighbourhoods without so much as a sniff of a policeman coning into view.

this is precisely why we should bring back the stocks. The boy, if guilty, could then be dealt with to everyone's satisfaction without the need for this absurd overreaction.

The Dangers of Ladders

The Health and Safety Gestapo are at it again, pass the sick bag!

This time they have decreed that anyone on Nanny's payroll who intends to mount (can I say mount?) a ladder, needs approved ladder training.

Fair enough I suppose, if we are talking high ladders. However, the Gestapo have decreed that you need training even when the ladder is a mere 3 feet (or is it foot?) off the ground.

Failure to comply with this edict results in a fine of £5K.

There is a small irony here though, what sort of ladder only goes up 3 feet? The ladder used to install roadside speed indicators....

Lancashire County Council made an attempt to improve road safety, by installing electronic speed indicators which shame drivers into slowing down.

Thirty of the devices lie waiting to be put up on their roadside poles, but the council has found that it does not have enough staff qualified to go up ladders to install them.

Health and Safety Executive’s Working at Height Regulations 2005 (amended 2007) have been used by Nanny to stop Nanny putting up more speed indicators. Last year about 350 road deaths were ascribed to speeding. In the same period 14 people died after falling off ladders.

Lancashire used to have three roadside speed indicators, which were erected (can I say erected?) and maintained by the police. Policemen are qualified to go up ladders, but they are not qualified to teach other people how to do so. Now the police have decided that they are too busy to look after them.

Hah!

Nanny has hoisted herself on her own petard!

Tagged

I have been tagged!

Fear not, I don't mean in a nasty way by Nanny and her minions, but in a friendly way by Anticant:

"For sheer guts, industry, and dedication to a self-imposed task, Ken Frost of NANNY KNOWS BEST gets top marks. An inveterate foe of official and unofficial bossiness, Ken provides ludicrous examples of idiotic rulings and behaviour by tinpot jobsworths who alas abound in NuLab Britain. Some of Nanny’s offerings would make you howl with laughter if they weren’t so infuriating – and indeed, dismaying. Always something to think about there!"

Thanks Anticant

Ken

Prats of The Week

A gloomy, grey Monday morning; what more appropriate time to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award?

This week's award to goes to my "respected" and "admired" local council of Croydon.

Croydon Council are fond of proclaiming how environmentally aware they are. To be fair to them, all government orifices and commercial enterprises seem to have jumped on the environmental bandwagon.

Anyhoo, down in Croydon the council have issued an edict banning residents from walking to one of the borough's main environmental waste disposal centres, in Factory Lane. Instead of walking, the residents of Croydon are expected to turn up in their cars and wait for ages in long queue to get in, to dispose of their waste in an environmentally friendly manner.

Can you see the contradiction here Ladies and Gentlemen?

Even those who live just yards away from Factory Lane are not allowed to walk there, they are forced to drive in.

Paul Langton, a resident of Croydon, recently tried to dump his waste and on seeing that the car queue was a third of a mile long decided to walk. Here is what happened next, in Mr Langton's own words:

"The man who greeted us was quite adamant

that we would not be allowed to recycle anything

unless we drove in.

I tried to make him comprehend the reason we were recycling

in the first place and how driving would defeat the object

but we weren't allowed in."

Croydon Council needless to say, have an excuse.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right...health and farking safety (pass the sick bag someone).

Seemingly people on foot and in cars present a clear and present danger to each other.

Quote:

"This is particularly important at Factory Lane where,

in addition to residents' domestic vehicles,

there is regular traffic of heavy goods vehicles passing

in the area that pedestrians would have to use.

The ruling also helps prevent the dumping by traders

of industrial and commercial waste that should access

the facilities only via the weighbridge."

The astute amongst you will realise that the last part of the does not make any sense, as presumably traders would most definitely arrive by car, as they would have so much waste to dispose of.

Residents think that this is a load of old bollocks.

Why not build an access for pedestrians?

Why can't the recycling bins be positioned away from the main vehicle entrance?

Croydon Council, well deserving Prats of The Week.

Feel free to drop them a note via this link contact.thecouncil@croydon.gov.uk

Booze Woosses

There seems to have been some sort of poll commissioned by Channel 4 (the company that serves up that daily shite known as Big Brother), in which 52% say only over-21s should be allowed to buy alcohol, compared to 45% who insist the limit should remain at 18.

Fine!

Raise the limit then; but also make sure that those who are under 21 are not allowed to vote, and are not sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to die.

Have people in this country totally lost the power of thought and reasoning?

The Yob Epidemic

Off subject folks, but if you want to see how to rid our streets of the yob epidemic that we are told is engulfing us, then read this: The Yob Epidemic

Mixed Messages

As I have often noted, Nanny is very fond to decreeing what is safe/dangerous for us to do. However, her edicts are more often than not based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Scientific research that takes time and trouble to perform is not part of Nanny's modus operandi, as she likes headline grabbing "initiatives". The hallmark of any dictatorship is to make sure that the people see that the regime is "busy". The more "initiatives" foisted upon the hapless population, the busier the regime looks and the more confused and disorientated the population.

Therefore I was more than amused to read recently that Nanny's shrill warnings about the dangers of the sun (not the tit paper, but the orb in the sky) may in fact be bollocks.

It transpires that women who stay out of the sun are increasing their risk of developing breast cancer, according to a recent study.

A team from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, enrolled 1,179 women all 55 or older, who had no history of cancer. The women were divided randomly into groups and given either supplements of calcium alone, calcium plus vitamin D, or a placebo for four years.

The study provides evidence that the lower the levels of vitamin D in a woman's blood-stream, the greater the risk of her developing breast cancer if she has passed the menopause.

The majority of vitamin D comes from exposure of the skin to sunlight but many women, who expose themselves less in winter and reluctant to bare themselves in summer because of the dangers, are deficient.

There has also been anecdotal evidence to suggest that breast cancer is less common among women who live closer to the Equator, where the sunshine is stronger.

Quote:

"Our findings of decreased all-cancer risk

with improved vitamin D status are consistent

with a large and still growing body of epidemiologic

and observational data showing that cancer risk,

cancer mortality, or both are inversely

associated with solar exposure,

vitamin D status, or both."

Poor old Nanny, what is she to do?

Coming soon...

• Smoking will be proven to be good for you, as such it will be made compulsory.



• Brown paper bags use more energy than plastic bags to produce, therefore all paper bags will be destroyed.



• Local councils admit that they are useless, and vote to abolish themselves.

OK, OK, I admit it; the last one was a joke!

The Moral Dilemma

Nanny is only able to survive because people are either passive or pro active in their support of her policies.

The pro active people shrilly spread and enforce Nanny's edicts re smoking, breast feeding, fat consumption, drinking, obesity etc etc.

The passive people meekly shrug their shoulders, and claim that there is nothing that they can do to stop the ongoing encroachment into our liberties and daily lives.

Nanny gets away with it, because we let her. Her rules would be unenforceable, were we to all stand up and say "NO".

I was therefore highly amused yesterday when I saw both the "passives" and "pro actives" united in a moral dilemma, which resulted in two of Nanny's edicts being royally broken in full public view.

In an enclosed shopping centre in my "beloved" Croydon, a man was drinking from a can of lager and having a fag.

For shame!

Two of Nanny's prime edicts broken, and in public too!

Both the pro active (anti smoking, anti drinking Nanny shrillers) and passive shoulder "what can I do about it?" shruggers, walked past tut tutting and sucking their cheeks in as if sucking on a particularly bitter lemon.

Yet they did nothing?

They allowed Nanny's rules to be broken.

Why was this then?

Why didn't anyone tell this bloke that he as breaking Nanny's prime edicts, drinking in a no drink area and smoking in a public enclosed place?

Why didn't they stop him?

I shall tell you...

He was in a wheelchair, and as such Nanny's minions were faced with a moral dilemma that they couldn't handle.

My complements to the gentlemen for exposing the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of Nanny's rules. The rules are unenforceable, if the passive "shruggers" stop allowing themselves to be pushed around by Nanny and the "shrillers". In this case, the "shrillers" were neutered by their moral dilemma.

Whilst we are on the subject of moral dilemmas, here is some advice to the rag bag collection of eco campaigners who are camped out at Heathrow airport.

Were it not for the monumentally crass handling of this by BAA and the police, we would never have heard of this nonsense. Now it has become a major issue; as Nanny, BAA and the police have tried to convince us that these people are terrorists and a threat to society.

Anyhoo, my advice the the eco warriors is this...the greatest source of dangerous emissions that is damaging the atmosphere in the UK and other Western countries comes not from the car or from planes, but from the methane produced by our dairy and beef industries.

Were the eco campaigners really serious about reducing emissions, they would be advocating the extermination of all cattle. The trouble is that would pose a bit of a moral dilemma to these people, and of course airlines are a far easier target!

While I am on the subject, whilst Nanny and the media work themselves up into great apoplexy about the dangers to our sprogs from lead in the paint on imported Chinese toys...what about the dangers to the workers making these things for a pittance?

Rules and causes are great...if you don't have to think the consequences of them through first!

Nanny Bans Balloons

Give me strength!

I have read about some stupid things that Nanny has done over the past few years, but this one ranks pretty high on the knobhead scale; especially as it has been perpetrated by Tesco.

It seems that Nanny's lickspittles in Tesco have got a phobia over balloons, or rather the latex that the balloons are made from.

In Tesco's view, the balloons present a clear and present danger to the health and safety (pass the sick bag) of children.

As such, Tesco have banned Barney Baloney (a clown) from using balloons in his in store act.

Barney Baloney twists them into animal shapes and then hands them to children. Tesco Crossgagtes Centre will have none of that, and have told him to stick to his; magic, puppets, juggling and an emu costume to keep the children amused.

Barney has not had much luck recently, as he has also had to abandon his bubble-making machine.

For why?

Seemingly there is a health and safety risk of children slipping on the floor, and our good old blood sucking chums in the insurance industry have refused him public liability insurance.

There you have it again, public liability insurance being used as the weapon of choice by Nanny as she stamps out every little pleasure that we have.

Back to the balloon issue, a Tesco spokesman said:

"This is a health and safety issue

(the sound that you hear is me retching!)

We have banned balloons because latex

is used in the manufacture of them and this

can trigger an allergic reaction in some children.

We always have the welfare of children at heart."

What a load of old bollocks, if they really had the welfare of children at heart they wouldn't sell half the sugar laden shit that is so temptingly placed at child's eye level near the checkout.

This is just another example of corporate cowardice, whereby instead of using common sense the easiest option has been chosen; namely banning something.

Precisely how many children have died in the last year or so from touching balloons?

Are we now breeding such a feeble bunch of sprogs that they really cannot touch or eat anything?

Exposing these weaklings to the things that they claim harm them will do them a power of good.

On the subject of Tesco, well I suggest that you boycott them and shop elsewhere.

Feel free to drop them a note via these links:

-investor.relations@uk.tesco.com
-customer.service@tesco.co.uk
-Competition Commission

The Dangers of Peppers

Ladies and Gentlemen, I must report a very serious omission by Nanny in respect of her ongoing mission to warn us of the dangers of the minutiae of our daily lives.

She has singularly failed to warn us adequately about the dangers of fresh peppers, specifically the variety known as Scotch Bonnet (Capsicum chinense Jacq.).

There I was yesterday innocently preparing my infamous Spicy Chicken, and chopping a couple of Scotch Bonnets for the sauce; blissfully unaware of the horror that I was to face later.

Having prepared the food, I then washed my hands and had a brief "rest room break" before popping down to our gym/sauna.

Half an hour later, when in the sauna, the bits of me that had been in direct contact with the Bonnet....and those bits that had been touched my my hands...were burning like merry hell! (Do I make myself clear?)

Farking hell...various things had to be dipped/splashed with water in order to lessen the burn.

The lesson here is simple, don't just wash your hands after touching these things...but avoid saunas for at least 24 hours after touching them.

Where was Nanny's warning label to that effect on the Bonnet?

She has failed!

Those of you who would like to prepare my Spicy Chicken for yourselves, here is the recipe:

Ingredients (per person)

-1 or 2 fresh chicken quarters

-4 cloves of garlic, chopped

-2 Scotch Bonnets, chopped

-2 long sweet peppers, sliced in half

-A very generous portion of tomato puree

-A good dollop of Tabasco

-A good dollop of Peri Peri

-A good spoonful of cayenne pepper

-A good spoonful of paprika pepper

-A drizzle of olive oil

-Black pepper

Method

-Mix all the ingredients (except for the chicken and the sweet peppers) together

-Smear the chicken on all sides with the mixture, massage your bird well with the mixture

-Place the chicken into an oven dish and cover the chicken with the sweet peppers

-Drizzle with olive oil

-Allow to rest for an hour or so

-Roast in an oven at 180 for around 45 minutes, until cooked.

Serve with rice or saute spuds.

Prats of The Week

Tis a Monday morning, time for that perennial favourite my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week the award goes to our old friends in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who commissioned a study into "The Role of Towels As a Control to Reduce Slip Potential".

Eh?

Yes you did read that correctly!

The HSE have spent £12K of our money, on a study to try to find out whether a towel on a bathroom floor makes one less likely to slip.

Seemingly researchers, at the Health and Safety Laboratory in Buxton, squeezed varying amounts of water on a variety of different floor surfaces. They bought a set of identical towels from a local supermarket.

They splashed rough tiles and smooth tiles, and worn vinyl and new vinyl with varying amounts of water.

Then, using a machine-operated pendulum, they measured the friction produced from a towel rubbing against the surfaces.

Guess what the results were?

Sorry, you will have to wait a bit.

Having spent £12K, and a month conducting these tests, they came up with no results whatsoever.

Kevin Hallas said that the research had been "complicated":

"Unfortunately the testing carried out here

is insufficient to draw significant conclusions.

We expected the investigation to be more

straightforward than it was.

We need to do more work."

The good news is, that they indeed to spend another year, and a further £12K, on continuing research into this weighty matter.

Well done lads, money well spent!

Until they have completed their research, make sure that you are extra careful in your bathrooms.

HSE well deserving Prats of The Week!

Nanny Bans Flowers

In another fine example of the topsy turvy world we now live in, Nanny in the guise of one our "beloved" and "respected" local councils has decided to ban June Turnbull (79) from tending the village flowerbed in Urchfont, near Devizes, in Wiltshire.

Her crime?

She does not wear a yellow jacket, does not have a warning sign and does not employ a lookout.

Yes folks, Nanny has used her favourite excuse again...INSURANCE!

This tired old mantra is trotted out every time someone tries to do something that Nanny doesn't approve of.

How easy it is to for Nanny to latch on to this as a means of stopping people using their initiative, or just having bit of fun.

Mrs Turnbull has been tending the flowerbeds for eight years now, and paid for the flowers with her own money; needless to say there have never been any accidents.

However, Nanny now wants her to erect (can I say erect?) three large 'men at work' signs while she gardens for three hours each week.

Mrs Turnbull is defiant, she says that she will go to jail rather than stop tending the flowerbeds.

Wiltshire County Council says June must abide by the rules, because the flowerbed is on a highway and because of that they need a licence for her to work there.

-Why does she need a licence?

-Who says so?

-So what if she carries on?

-Will they really arrest her?

-Do councils really have this much power over us?

-Or is this amount of "power" merely in their own imaginations?

In order too qualify for a licence from the Highways Authority she must wear a fluorescent jacket, have three metal warning signs surrounding her and have a man on guard.

With a licence, Urchfont Parish Council can put June on their insurance policy.

So what if she is not insured?

Are they saying that if she is injured, then she won't be treated in hospital?

Why would the council be to blame if she is not a council employee, and working against the advice of the council?

Councils take far too much upon themselves these days; they need to be reminded of their place in the evolutionary scheme of things.

Drop Wiltshire County Council a note here customercare@wiltshire.gov.uk

Madness

We have come to a pretty poor state of affairs when Nanny starts using the mental health laws to arrest people for doing things she doesn't approve of.

Isn't that what they used to do in Soviet Russia?

Think I am exaggerating?

Well, the other day Mark Davies was taking a casual swim in the river Severn, near Sabrina Bridge Worcester, as one does! Then, before you can say:

"Right mate you're farking nicked!"

Errrr...he was!

Seemingly some passers by assumed he was in difficulties, and they alerted the rescue services.

A total of 25 firefighters, three fire engines and two rescue boats were involved in trying to rescue him, while about 200 people watched.

He eventually came out of the water at Cathedral Steps, and was propmtly arrested under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act.

Quote:

"I was examined by a doctor

who said there was nothing wrong with me

and I was let out after two hours at the police station.

There is no law that says you cannot swim in the river.

The river Severn is a lovely river.

I generally have a little dip around the

Cathedral and Diglis.

For me a swim down the river is not a problem.

I have swum in rivers across Europe."

Whilist it may have been more sensible for Mr D to warn the authorities that he was going to take a dip, and whilst swimming in the Severn may not be advisable for all and sundry.

Why did Nanny use the mental health act to arrest him?

Why not simply arrest him, if that was her desire, for wasting police time?

I cannot say that using mental health laws to arrest people for doing "eccentric" things, that Nanny disapproves of, exactly fills me with confidence.

Suffice to say, Mr D will be telling the "authorities" before he takes his next dip!

The Nipple Nazis Strike Again

The Nipple Nazis have launched a nasty personal attack on Jordan, this week.

Her crime?

Having the temerity to be photographed feeding her baby with a bottle...then for good measure happily noting that she has crate loads of bottles and teats, which she throws away when used.

The sanctimonious outpourings from the Nipple Nazis, about Jordan's bottle, positively made me retch.

They even stomped off to the advertising standards agency with a copy of the magazine in which Jordan was photographed, to complain.

Nothing is more nauseating than a group of people who, so convinced of their own moral superiority, castigate all others who do not subscribe 100% to their view.

Nanny Bans Donkey Derby

Oh dear, another summer treat for the kids has been kybosched (spelling???) by Nanny.

That ancient seaside/rural summer ritual of the donkey derby has been banned by Nanny's minions in Llandudno.

The donkeys were due to be ridden by around 40 children the other week at a series of races organised by Llandudno Rugby Club, a regular event in Llandudno.

Well, it was regular until Nanny stuck her size tens into the matter. The donkeys were replaced by blow-up sheep and a toy monkey...yes, you did read that correctly!

For why?

Our good old chums related to the health and safety Gestapo felt that the event was just too dangerous.

I would observe that it is the same type of people from the health and safety Gestapo that accredited a certain animal vaccine lab in the South of England with a safety certificate...this would be the same lab that is now suspected of leaking the foot and mouth disease...oh, and it is the same lab that is now being paid by Nanny to produce the vaccine to cure the disease...lucky it has a certificate then, otherwise we would all be in a right old pickle!

Anyhoo, I digress.

The harmless 30 second races, organised by Llandudno Rugby Club, have taken place in North Wales for the last 39 years without nay serious incident. Unfortunately, Nanny's ultra caution now means that the event has to be covered by public liability insurance.

Have you noticed how, when a local authority wants to ban something, it simply trots out the tired old mantra of "public liability insurance"?

This has become the catch all excuse for banning all manner of events and activities.

Funny that isn't it?

Anyone suspect that this excuse is in fact a load of old bollocks, dreamt up by our useless and interfering local councils to stop us living our lives in the way that we want to?

Has anyone actually bothered to take the insurance companies to task, and get them to explain clearly how they come up with their often ludicrous quotes for insurance relating to public events...it usually revolves around the sum of £5M.

The councils, had they a mind too, have the time and the "skills" (I never thought that I would use that word in relation to a council) to do just that. Yet they don't...why is that then?

Robin Holden, the rugby club chairman, said:

"We asked insurers if they could give us cover

for kids racing on donkeys – but they wouldn't touch it."

Tossers!

Seemingly the insurance company excuse is that if a kid falls off the donkey, his/her parents would sue.

Brian Bertola, who helps organise the donkey derby, said:

"The donkeys are used to having children on them,

the speed is negligible,

the kids wear helmets and it's over a short distance.

It's crazy."

We as a society do have ourselves to blame here:

1 We allow insurance companies to screw us royally

2 We sue for the slightest little thing at the drop of a hat

3 We allow local councils to lord it over us.

Although it seems, on the face of it, the local council were not directly involved with this; I can't but help feel had they been a bit more "helpful" (eg ask the insurance companies some pointed questions) a solution could have been found.

Nanny Bans Formula

Once Nanny had succeeded in banning smoking, I knew that it would not be very long before she turned her attention to banning something else (eg fat, booze). Sure enough, she has fixated on something else that she feels should be banned.

However, I never thought that it would be baby milk formula.

A coalition of Nanny type charities is demanding (note; "demanding" was the word used by the BBC, so it must be true) baby milk be treated like tobacco and subjected to a total advertising ban.

Whenever I hear the word "demand" in a statement from Nanny or her acolytes, I instinctively reach for my sick bag.

How farking arrogant and simple minded of these people!

Who do they think they are to "demand" anything???

I have to say, what society or planet do they inhabit?

Does it not occur to them that we actually live in a "democracy" and free market economy. Unless a product/service is actually illegal (eg heroin) it is perfectly within the remit of the law and society's mores for companies to advertise a product/service in order to create a demand for that product/service.

It's called the free farking market, get used to it Nanny!

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums in The National Childbirth Trust (NCT), Save The Children and Unicef are blaming adverts (how convenient) for many mothers abandoning breast feeding before the recommended six months.

These charities, who reside in Lah Lah Land, want Nanny to extend a ban on infant milk adverts to include "follow-on" milks for older babies.

Companies are currently not allowed to advertise formula milk for babies under six months.

Needless to say this little outburst by these people will do nothing for the self esteem of mothers who move on to feeding their sprogs with a bottle. Many mothers already feel an immense sense of guilt and failure when they move on to the bottle. This is standard Nanny tactics, make people feel worthless and guilty about their lives; that way they are easier to manipulate and can be made to depend on Nanny.

The charities are trying to compare milk companies to fag companies; note the subtle Nazi style word association/word dropping that they use, "tobacco companies" "loopholes" "cigarette" "exploit" "aggressively", so that people subconsciously start to feel a sense of revulsion over milk formula companies.

Here is Belinda Phipps, of the NCT, doing her bit for the propaganda machine:

"In similar ways to how tobacco companies found

their way through loopholes in legislation

restricting the advertising of cigarette promotion,

formula milk companies are finding ways to

exploit ambiguity in the law and to continue

aggressively marketing their products to parents."

Dr Ellie Lee of the University of Kent, who has actually bothered to do some research, said the impact of advertising on the decision to switch from breast to bottle was "negligible".

Dr Lee found that the decision to bottle feed was a "pragmatic decision based on personal circumstances".

"Some do it because of the pain

of feeding or so they can feed their

child at more regular intervals,

some so they can share responsibility for

feeding the baby, others because they are

thinking of going back to work.

Many mothers feel an immense sense of guilt

and failure when they move on to the bottle,

and this latest debate about advertising

is likely to make them feel even worse."

In other words, it is a decision that is best left to the individual to make based on her own personal circumstances. The trouble is that "individual decision making", whereby people think and decide for themselves, is an anathema to Nanny.

Wasting Taxpayers' Money

Pssst...want a job that does fuck all?

There's at least six of them going at the Olympics 2012 site.

Apply here.

Monday Morning Wisdom

Words of wisdom for a Monday morning.

The Health and Safety Gestapo Strike Again II

I received this missive from Nanny's chums in Liverpool City (Capital of Culture) Council yesterday, in response to my article about them banning the Mathew Street Festival.

Needless to say, on reading it, it is evident that this is a pro forma "excuse" note sent out to anyone who writes in complaining about the cancellation.

It is clear that the council are not even bothering to read the complaints being sent in.

I reproduce it in full below, and draw your attention to Nanny's favourite phrase "eliminate risk".

For the umpteenth time, you can no more eliminate risk than you can teach a dog to walk permanently erect (can I say erect?).

Nanny is kidding herself and her minions when she spouts this bullshit.

"I am writing with regard to your recent enquiry expressing your concerns regarding the cancellation of this year's Mathew Street Festival.

We are also very frustrated and disappointed that the decision had to be made to cancel this year’s festival but it was taken following extensive consultation with interested parties and advice from one of the country’s leading Events Health and Safety specialists.

The popularity of the festival and increasing crowds in recent years meant that with the loss of the Pier Head as a performance space and the other regeneration activities within the City, the risks posed to Health and Safety by staging the event in the streets were significant and ultimately unavoidable.

Despite the change in the space available for the festival we were determined to find a way to run the festival within the City Centre and had identified locations for seven stages to accommodate the expected crowds. We worked hard to eliminate safety risks associated with the location of these stages but in the end the independent review still recommended that we should not go ahead. In the face of this expert advice there was no other option open to us than to cancel. It would have been irresponsible in the extreme for us to have ignored this advice. The reason for the lateness of the decision was that we remained determined to find a way to run the festival until we received the expert advice.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Green

Operations Director

Liverpool Capital of Culture"

Health and Safety Tip for Barbecues

Here is a useful health and safety tip for those of you holding barbecues this summer.

-Gammon

The Health and Safety Gestapo Strike Again

Oh dear, Nanny's dreaded health and safety Gestapo have struck again. This time they have chosen to put their unwanted and unwelcome noses and boots into the good people of Liverpool's attempt to have a bit of a street party.

The furore surrounds The Mathew Street Festival organised on a regular basis by the Beatles old haunt, the Cavern.

Note, someone seems to have pulled the plug on the main part of the site?

The Mathew Street Festival, by last year, had become "Europe's biggest street party"; and was attracting 100,000 people, with big name acts on outdoor stages.

Needless to say such activities are frowned upon by Nanny's chums in the council, the police and the health and safety Gestapo.

-Crowds
-Live music
-Fresh air etc

are all an anathema to Nanny and her trolls.

Therefore it should some as no surprise to learn that Nanny banned the event, at the eleventh hour, citing that hoary (can I say hoary?) old chestnut "health and safety".

Liverpool City Council are claiming that the decision to pull the plug follows independent advice from health and safety consultants, Capita Symonds, employed by the Liverpool Culture Co.

Seemingly the scale of the current redevelopment work in Liverpool, poses a threat to people's safety at such an event.

Building work, in Liverpool?

Have they never had construction work there before?

Needless to say, Nanny's finest in the shape of Merseyside Police are also in favour of banning it. They claim that the reduction in capacity, huge crowds in an open, licensed environment, means there is a significant safety risk to the public.

It would seem that, according to Nanny, the planning for the event, and discussions between the city council, police and safety officials, cannot fully eliminate the risk.

Errmmmm...can we get this point clear?

You can never eliminate risk, you can only manage/reduce it.

It is time that these prats stopped fantasising about eliminating risk, and got themselves a heavy does of reality.

The council said:

"Staff worked right to the 11th hour to try

and produce a workable plan which could

accommodate the festival in the city centre."

Given that the festival was scheduled for the 26th and 27th of this month, a cynic might ask why the hell have they only just come up with the banning order?

It's not as though the redevelopment work was not known about earlier!

Indeed, it seems that only yesterday a tender document went out for pa and lighting companies to tender for the festival.

It seems to me that the council and police were looking around for an excuse to ban the festival and knew that if they left it ot the last minute, the furore could be "managed away" and would not have a chance to build up.

A spokesman from Liverpool City Council was on the BBC this morning, bleating away that there would be an "internal" inquiry into why the decision to ban it was so late in the day.

The only trouble is, that the internal inquiry will be conducted by the self same council that took the lame decision in the first place.

Any bets as to the value of the findings?

How stupid do they really think people are?

Another fine example of local councils getting above themselves and inflicting their unwanted views and rules on the people that, in theory, they work for.

Abolish local councils, they add no value whatsoever!

Here are a few useful emails addresses, urls etc

-Liverpool City Council
-LCC statement
-Contact Capita Symonds

Prats of The Week

Here we are folks, up with the lark and fresh as a daisy after yesterday's celebrations to mark the 1000th article on Nanny Knows Best.

Maybe we didn't party hard enough???

Anyhoo in honour of this, the 1001th article, I hereby give the prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award to...

A roll on the drums please...

The Professional Association of Teachers (PAT).

For why?

They have come up the ludicrous proposal to shut down websites such as YouTube and MySpace, because in their view they promote bullying.

It is for sure that in recent months, a number of teachers and children have been subject to bullying, and even death threats, online. However, some children are little shits and have always had a liking for bullying.

The use of the web is merely an adaptation of a centuries old nasty habit. It is down to parents and teachers to guide children through the moral maze of growing up, and instill in them basic values of decency and good manners.

Calling for the banning of websites is a cop out, as the use of websites is a symptom not a cause of ill discipline and shitty behaviour.

PAT claim that the only short-term solution to the problem is to close the popular sites down.

The proposal, which was put forward by Kirsti Paterson, was backed by hundreds of delegates attending the association's annual conference in Harrogate this week.

Ms Paterson, of PAT's Highland and Western Isles Federation said:

"Without the ban nowhere will be safe from cyberbullying."

Utter bollocks!

This shows how little the "teachers" understand how the real world works.

Aside from the points I have made above, I would like to acquaint PAT with another rather blindingly obvious point.

YouTube et al are legitimate commercial organisations based in the USA.

Precisely how do you go about (as member of PAT UK) enforcing an unenforceable banning order on a legitimate foreign commercial operation?

Were PAT ever likely to achieve this absurd dream, eg by the creation of British version of the Great Firewall of China (maybe that's what they really want...mass censorship?), other sites emulating YouTUbe would simply pop up...that's the way the internet works.

It is rather alarming that PAT wastes its time and resources on discussing fantasy issues, that cannot be addressed in this manner, that clearly shows it has no grasp on reality.

PAT, well deserving Prats of The Week.

1000 Today

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today is something of a red letter day for the team at Nanny Knows Best.

For why?

I shall tell you, this is the 1000th article on the site!

Cue the dramatic "dun dun dun" music.

Who would have thought that from its humble beginnings in September 2004, Nanny Knows Best would have become the worldwide phenomenon that it is today?

Errrrmmm...OK maybe there was a slight exaggeration there:)

Anyhoo, in keeping with tradition, the team at NKB (who don't need any excuse whatsoever to have a drink or two) will be partying and "having it large" today.

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow...at some stage....errmmm probably.

Thanks for your ongoing support, and highly entertaining comments.

Here's to the next 1000!

Ken