Happy Halloween

Today folks it's another Halloween.

Now, when I was a young lad the emphasis was on Bonfire Night and precious little time and attention was paid to Halloween.

I recall that my mum hollowed out some Swedes (the vegetable I would hasten to add) and put a candle in them, but that as as far as it went. Now of course we have been taken over by the US inspired commercial spend fest, that requires adults and children to spend gazillions on costumes, sweets and assorted shite.

Anyhoo, be that as it may, it is a free country...allegedly..and people should be able to do what they like, and dress up in any manner that they see fit.

Unfortunately this is Nanny Britain. At the first sign that people will be doing things that are not guided or inspired by the state, Nanny reacts in her usual "calm" "restrained" manner.

It should come as no surprise to learn that police forces up and down the country are on red alert today, as they prepare for a night that they are truly scared of. Nanny's police are issuing posters that people can put up on their doors basically telling trick and treaters to F Off!



That's all very well, but does it not occur to Nanny that this kind of thing actually encourages the more odious behaviour that she claims that she wishes to stop?

In Lancashire, for example, four control rooms have been set up by the police to monitor CCTV footage on 31 October. The Lancashire police will issue on-the-spot fines of £80 to anyone under the age of 18 found in possession of a firework, or other potentially dangerous items (eg eggs).

The UK Evangelical Alliance can't resist putting its nose into the pumpkin patch either, and has issued a warning:

"While Halloween [appears] to bring people together in fun,

in reality it is a celebration of the dead and of evil".

Ooohhh!!!

Why is Nanny so hysterical over this?

I agree, that having trick and treaters knocking at the door is a pain in the derriere..but does it require a full scale national police alert?

Nanny hates individuality, she will not be content until everything that we do is under her full control; whereby we will need formal state authorisation before we can do it.

Happy Halloween!

Secrets and Lies

Those of us who live in Nanny Britain are sometimes forbidden from reading the details of certain events and rumours that others, in the rest of world, have free access to.

The latest cover up concerns the name of the minor royal allegedly involved in the cocaine/sex blackmail plot.

In Britain we are forbidden from knowing the name of the minor royal implicated in this plot. However, elsewhere people are free to read about it.

Those of you who are curious may care to visit Ninemsn Australia, where the royal is named.

Nanny's secrecy rules really do look absurd in the modern internet age.

However, this is nothing new.

During the abdication crisis the media in the US published Mrs Simpson's name and details of the affair, whilst the British media were forbidden from doing so.

Wealthy British citizens simply went to New York and read about it there.

The law has been an ass for at least 60 years!

Nanny's Right of Entry

Following on from that most excellent article, wot I wrote, about the man who was found "In Flagrante Delicto" with a bike. I would note that aside from the issue about whether he should be on a sex offenders' register for that, there is also the issue about the right of entry into someone's home (in this case a master key was used to gain access to his room).

It seems that all manner of people can come barging into your home, using a variety of rather dubious pretexts and excuses.

In fact there are 266 powers under which Nanny can come into you home.

Our good old chums in HMRC can of course enter homes with a writ to seize suspected smuggled goods, no surprises there. However, it seems that others too can enter your home.

Did you know that Nanny's chums in the Environment Department can pay a call, using the Bees Act 1980?

Harry Snook has written a pamphlet called "Crossing the Threshold: 266 Ways the State Can Enter Your Home". This shows that the majority of these powers of entry were created by Nanny over the last 20 years.

These "entry powers" include the right of Ofcom to search your home for an unlicensed television set, to those of social services to check whether it is being used for unlicensed "early years child-minding".

Heard of the Weeds Act?

No I hadn't either.

The Weeds Act allows Nanny to enter your home to look for...errmmm...virulent weeds.

Try to obstruct Nanny when she enters, and she will slap a £5K fine on you.

Read the full document here Crossing The Threshold

We are a nation of pussies, for allowing ourselves to be pushed around by the state like this.

ASBO's 'R Us

As I have long suspected, and warned about, ASBO's are being used by people to settle personal petty vendettas.

Take for instance a case recently reported concerning Oliver Morris and Hazel Ross, graduates of the Royal Northern College of Music. They are two of Britain's most promising young classical violinists.

However, they are in trouble with Nanny's minions; and have been threatened with a visit by the ASBO officers, who may seize their instruments.

Their crime?

They play Mozart and practice their scales at home.

They insist that they rarely practise at home for more than two hours, and not every day, or in the evenings. However, one of their neighbours has decided to bring in the state; he has complained to Manchester City Council.

The council have issued a formal warning that their behaviour is unacceptable, and must stop. Further breaches will lead to a noise abatement order, and forcible entry to their flat to seize their violins.

Mr Morris said:

"Everyone has a right to live their lives

as they wish but we only ever practise after 9am,

never after 7pm,

not every day and very often we are away during the day."

Oddly enough the building where they live, Woodlawn Court, is home to other budding young musicians who also practice.

One neighbour has found the violins not to his taste, and has banged on their front door and launched into an aggressive rant.

The council have accused them of missing a meeting to discuss the issue. However, they said that they have never received an invitation.

Mr Morris said:

"How can they say our behaviour is unacceptable

when all the evidence they have is based

entirely on somebody else's assessment?"

That's the joy of ASBO's, they don't need an onerous burden of proof. Hence they can be used by vindictive people to settle scores.

By the way, there is also one other rather worrying issue here.

Did you spot it?

Yes, that's right..we now have new body of Nanny's enforcers on the streets...ASBO Officers.

Are they trained?

Are they an amateur version of the police?

Are the linked to the "plastic police"?

I find this to be rather worrying.

On Yer Bike

Errrmmm...normally I don't reproduce articles verbatim. However, in this case I would like to present you with the exact story as it appeared in the Telegraph; it's so absurd that I know you wouldn't believe it, unless I reprinted it in full.

Here is the text:

A man has been placed on the sex offenders' register after being caught trying to have sex with a bicycle.

On Wednesday Mr Stewart admitted to sexual breach of the peace in Ayr Sheriff Court, where depute fiscal Gail Davidson described how he had been found by the hostel workers.

She said: "They knocked on the door several times and there was no reply.

"They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white T-shirt, naked from the waist down.

"The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex."

Both witnesses, who were extremely shocked, notified the hotel manager, who in turn alerted the police.

Mr Stewart was placed on the sex offenders' register but his sentence was deferred until next month.

He is not the first man to be convicted of a sexual offence involving an inanimate object, however.

Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs, in 1993.

End of article.

This now leaves me to raise the following questions:

1 How do you have sex with a bicycle?

2 Why has Nanny prosecuted this man? He was in a room, doing it in private and not frightening the horses.

3 Has it come to this that Nanny will regulate what type of sex that we may have?

Licenced To Smoke

Good grief, Nanny comes up with some stooopid ideas at times but this one really takes the proverbial biscuit!

One of Nanny's special chums, Prof Julian le Grand a former advisor to Tony Blair, has come up with the really potty idea that smokers should be forced to apply for an annual £200 licence in order to purchase cigarettes.

For fark's sake!

He also proposed banning food manufacturers from adding salt to products, an exercise hour for all employees during the working day and free fruit in offices.

Clearly this man doesn't get out and about very much.

Anyhoo, Prof le Grand is of the view that his idea would make healthy choices the norm and force those who object to make a conscious effort to opt out.

Force???

Has it come to this?

Is Nanny really going to force people to do things???

Now we see Nanny in her true colours.

Once this guy's scheme was up and running, it could be extended so smokers had to get a doctor's signature that their health was not at "massive risk" by smoking in order to get a licence.

The prof wants people to fill in forms and have photographs taken in order to apply for his permit.

What a total knobhead this man is.

Here's why the idea is bollocks (aside from the very obvious point that it is not Nanny's place to do this):

1 Enforcing it would be almost impossible.

2 People with a permit would simply buy fags for their mates who don't have a permit.

3 It would require a special force of smoking permit inspectors to check on people who were seen smoking in the street.

4 In order for each smoker to see their GP every year, to have their permit renewed, it would take up 25 million appointments annually and rob millions of sick people of the chance of seeing their doctor.

What a total "pr*ck" this man is.

Big Brother

Why is Nanny actively encouraging to spend £20,000 or more on fingerprinting systems?

Over 6,000 pupils have had their prints taken throughout the country.

Every week another 20 schools join the list.

How safe is this data?

What will Nanny do with it?

Nanny Bans English Party

You know how Nanny has something of thing against the English?

Part of this problem possibly is due to the fact that a large swathe of the government is in fact Scottish. Nothing wrong with that, were it not for the fact that Scotland is pushing for independence and that English MP's don't have a say in the running of the Scottish parliament.

By the way, has anyone ever heard Smiler Brown use the word "English"?

I haven't!

Anyhoo, Nanny's little trainee minions in the School for Oriental African Studies (SOAS) did Nanny's work for her the other week, by banning one of their students from holding a party.

Tim McLellan, university rugby captain, was accused of racism because he had the temerity to put up posters advertising an "English party" (in the sense of a social event, not a political party).

The thought police were down upon Tim like a ton of bricks, he was forced to send an email the entire student body, saying he had not intended to upset or alienate anyone.

The idea behind the event was to poke fun at the many SOAS events based on multicultural themes.

Quote:

"The aim of the poster was not to alienate or discriminate,

but rather to express that this party was,

unlike most SOAS events,

going to have a mainstream vibe."

Unfortunately for Tim, Nanny and her student lackeys don't posses a sense of humour and hate it when others make fun of them.

Clare Solomon, SOAS students' union co-president, said the rugby club had apologised after a number of students complained they felt the poster alienated certain groups from the party.

Quote:

"Offensive terms are used so frequently

that they become internalised and,

therefore, people who use them are

often unaware of the implications behind the word."

Could someone please remind this young lady (ooh..she won't like that phrase!) that the word "English" is not racist or offensive.

Nanny Bans Ladders

Oh dear, it seems that the health and safety Gestapo have struck again. This time they have forbidden firemen in the Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service to climb ladders.

Now I know and you know, and indeed the firemen know, that they are trained to climb ladders. However, the health and safety Gestapo have ruled that whilst it is an acceptable risk for them to climb ladders when dealing with a dangerous fire; they are not allowed to climb ladders to help clear Ampthill's bunting from a Gala day in July, or indeed help put up the Christmas lights.

In earlier years the local fire brigade has helped with the removal of the bunting. However, following one of Nanny's very "helpful" risk assessments (pass the sick bag someone) the health and safety Gestapo have said no to Gala bunting removal and Christmas lights erection.

The deputy chief fire officer, Graeme Smith, admitted it looked as if the world had "gone mad".

He said:

"One is a 999 job,

where in order to save lives

we will take calculated risks.

The other is a property maintenance job,

which is covered by standard health

and safety rules, which we would have to abide by."

Funny, I would have thought that is was far more risky to climb a ladder into a burning building than to climb a ladder to remove bunting.

I dare say that Nanny will soon ban firemen from rescuing people from fires, as the risk will be deemed to be to great!

Is anyone in this country ever going to stand up to the health and safety Gestapo and tell them to fark off?

Oh, and if you really have nothing better to do, here is a complete episode of Trumpton:

Plastic Policemen

Good morning everyone, a nice bright and cheerful start to the week!

I see that one of our "respected" and "far sighted" neolithic union movements (Unison - the public sector union) is getting its knickers in a twist over Nanny's plastic policemen....sorry I mean "Police Community Support Officers" (PCSOs).

These are Nanny's answer to crime and the shortage of properly trained policemen on the beat, and are used by local councils to enforce all manner of help "initiatives" and petty rules.

Seemingly Unison believes that the PCSO's would do their jobs much better, if they wore the same uniforms as police officers. Unison has the view that people simply don't respect PCSO's as much as they should...well, what can I say?

Three things on this point of "respect", it's not so much "disrespect" but a lack of trust that is the issue here:

1 PCSO's are not the police, they are paid volunteers who are given some basic training and a uniform (similar to the police) to wear.

2 They are used by local councils for the enforcement of the council's rules on littering, anti social behaviour and whatever else the council has a bee in its bonnet over.

3 They are Nanny's response to the shortage of real policemen on the beat, and as such are a fudge.

The reality is that the British people do not like to see non professionals wandering around in a uniform, telling them what to do.

Anyhoo, such matters do not concern Unison; they have very helpfully suggested designs for a new uniform for PCSO's.

The police are none too happy about this idea, as the Police Federation rightly points out the idea is "dangerous and ill conceived"; as it would confuse people into thinking the PCSO's have the same powers as police officers, they don't...which is another very good reason why people don't quite trust them.

By the way, there are now 15,000 PCSOs patrolling the streets of England and Wales. That's a lot of "volunteers" in uniform!

The chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry, thinks that the idea is bollocks, noting that it would serve:

"no greater purpose than fooling

the public into thinking there are

more officers on the beat than in reality there are".

That is exactly why Nanny created the PCSO's in the first place!

As Ms Berry said, hitting the nail firmly on the head:

"They're not police officers,

so they should be distinct and

they should be different

otherwise there are expectations placed

on the PCSOs that maybe they don't have the powers,

the equipment or the experience to deal with.

And, likewise, there's confusion for the public,

who are expecting the PCSOs to do something."

The last line is the best point, all we have with PCSO's is nothing more than some more of Nanny's spin in physical form. Once you look very hard at what they actually do, you realise that they can't do very much.

Yet we pay for them!

Something For The Weekend?

This weekend Nanny will be pleased to know that I have been drinking in a "hazardous manner".









Have it large!

Ken

Prats of The Week

A little late in the week, but it is time to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to all those tossers who complained to the BBC about a wee incident on Top Gear.

Jeremy Clarkson and his co-presenter, James May, managed to offend some interfering busybodies with too much time on their hands, by lighting up a couple of pipes on air during Top Gear.

Oh my goodness...the horror...the humanity!!!

The astute amongst you will be quick to point out that, under Nanny's new anti smoking laws, such behaviour is verboten.

Seemingly the mere sight of actors, "personalities" etc smoking would immediately cause the whole country to become addicted to tobacco..yes, we are apparently (in Nanny's eyes at least) really that thick!

Now here's the real laugh though, Clarkson and May weren't smoking "evil" tobacco...they were smoking "good" herbal tobacco. Therefore they were not breaking Nanny's laws.

Needless to say the interfering busybodies in this country, who have nothing better to do with their time than to stick their noses in where they don't belong, have chosen to ignore the facts.

The anti-smoking charity Action for Smoking on Health (Ash), have demanded an apology from the BBC.

Who are they to demand?

What gives them moral prescience over the rest of us?

Why should one single issue group be in a position to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not, do?

Have they really got nothing better to do with their lives?

Amanda Sandford, spokeswoman for the charity, shrilly squawked:

"Smoking in a studio is illegal.

Anything that causes smoke is prohibited.

We would hope that programme-makers make

some form of apology.

It was meant to be a fairly light-hearted

part of the programme, but the law is the law

and it's not appropriate for the BBC,

especially for a programme that's very

popular and seen by a lot of young people,

to be openly flouting the law."

Just to remind you all, they were smoking herbal tobacco...it is not dangerous and not illegal.

Facts of course do not matter to ASH.

The arrogance of ASH is beyond belief, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Please drop them a note, with my love, to this address ASH

Layabouts with too much time on their hands, putting their noses into other people's business are a curse upon this nation; that's exactly how Nazi Germany started!

Don't take my word for it, ask Basil:

Health and Safety?

Am I the only person in this country who thinks that the premise for the current trial being held of the Metropolitan Police, in relation to the shooting in July 2005 of Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station is a bit...errrmmmm...odd?

Before you all rush to say that a trial needs to be held, and that the police screwed up etc, that may well be so.

However, the Met are being prosecuted under Health and Safety legislation.

Errrmm...am I the only one here who thinks that the use of health and safety in this case, as a pretext for prosecution, is a wee bit odd?

A man was shot in the head, in broad daylight, on the tube, by the police, using dumb dumb bullets...is that really a health and safety issue?

To my mind this is an absurd pretext for a trial in this particular case. Are there not other, more relevant, laws that could have been used to prosecute the police?

Are we now to assume that Health and Safety laws are to be used by the state as a catch all "boot to stamp on our heads", as a means to ensure that the state has total control over us and can prosecute anyone at will for anything the state wishes?

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever...that's our future!

A Nation of Fat Bastards

It is official!

Nanny has decreed that, unless something is done, we will become a nation of fat bastards by 2050.

In the largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by Nanny and compiled by 250 "experts", it was concluded that excess weight is now the norm in our "obesogenic" society.

Odd...have these people never read any womens' magazines, or gone to any fashion shows, which feature only skinny waifs?

Anyhoo, since it is a Nanny report we can only assume that it must be 100% factually correct.

The good news is that individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity.

Great, so it's not our fault!

Isn't that marvellous?

Maybe not, for you see if we are not responsible for our actions (such a lame excuse, and so readily used by Nanny) then Nanny must do something to "help" us; ie she will enforce thinness.

The report concludes that "dramatic and comprehensive action" is required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050.

Errrmm...so what precisely will be the nature of this "dramatic and comprehensive" action?

The report doesn't say, in fact it goes on to say that there is "scant proof" that any anti-obesity policy works.

However, let us not worry about facts or failed policies. The report is clear in that "every level of society, from individual to the upper echelons of government, must become involved in the campaign against a condition which carries such great social and economic consequences".

The new age Nazis are on the march, this time it is not the Jews that will be frogmarched off to the camps but those deemed to be "obese".

Pass the sick bag, these zealots make me puke!

Sir David King, the government's chief scientific advisor and head of the Foresight Programme which drew up the report, said:

"There is a danger that the moment to act

radically and dramatically will be missed.

It is a problem that is getting worse every year."

The irony being that the reason, according to the report, that we are all so fat is that we now live in a society that has abundant energy-dense, cheap foods, labour-saving devices, motorised transport and sedentary work.

Now call me stupid, but isn't that something worth celebrating?

Mankind for millennia has struggled with famine, diseases related to malnutrition, and backbreaking work that sent us all to an early grave by the time we hit 35-40.

Now, at least in the West, we live "farking well"; way beyond the dreams of our ancestors.

Would Nanny rather we went back to the days of malnutrition, and working 7 days a week in fields just to harvest a few mouldy spuds???

You know, I think she would.

The reason that we are fat is because we have a genetic inheritance that stores calories in times of plenty. There are really only two ways to keep trim; eat less, exercise more.

People know that, but really dislike being bullied to do so. The more Nanny shrieks at the top of her annoyingly shrill voice that we are fat, the less likely it is that anyone will take notice.

Sir David ignores this truism, and said that "it was clear" that Nanny needs to involve herself.

Ugh!

Nanny's Public Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo, is going to hold further consultations to decide how to proceed.

Be prepared for fat taxes...totally unworkable...but of course Nanny would feel that she was doing something.

I warn you again, we will all end up being frogmarched off to "fat camps".

Booze

I see that Nanny is now targeting "wealthy" (by that she means people who pay their council taxes) drinkers.

The BBC and all other media outlets are bursting today with "information" about the so called "wealthy" members of society, who are drinking far too much in Nanny's view. Seemingly this new "overclass" is guilty of having a glass or two of wine very night, thus placing them on Nanny's hit list.

Congratulations to Runnymeade which scores the highest unit consumption per person per week in England (in Nanny's "hazardous" category: 20-50 units), over 25% of the population of Runnymeade are breaking Nanny's "guidelines" as to what Nanny regards as safe weekly consumption of alcohol.

Manchester comes out top in the "harmful" category (over 50 units per week).

Well done!

Scotland, of course, does not feature as it is now classed as a separate country (despite the fact that it still receives tax revenue from England).

Professor Mark Bellis, Director of the North West Public Health Observatory (which collated the statistics), issued a chilling warning of what we can expect to come:

"In order to stop further increases in

alcohol-related deaths and admission to hospital,

we must also reverse the tolerance that most

communities have built up by simply consuming

too much alcohol on a weekly basis."

Ah, there's an interesting use of the word "tolerance". It would seem that Nanny is allowed to be intolerant, and is now going to try to make us equally intolerant.

I guess she will use the same techniques that she applied to smokers; negative publicity, encouraging busybodies to interfere in people's lifestyles, legislating against alcohol etc...you know the kind of thing.

What an unpleasant little country this is becoming!

Nanny Bans Christmas Lights

In the traditional run up to Christmas, nice to see the stores are already stocking their Christmas items (absurdly early, quite sickeningly early in my view), it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has launched her own traditional" attempt to put the mockers on the event.

In the old days, high streets up and down the country would be festooned with coloured lights and Christmas decorations; adding a little cheer to the gloomy December night sky. Unfortunately, Nanny has a belief that thousands of people have been killed an injured by falling decorations and electrical short circuits. As such she and the health and safety Gestapo have so tied the process of mounting a light display up in red tape, that many councils can simply not afford to put them up.

The Federation of Small Businesses says that the rules and requirements introduced by Nanny and the Gestapo are making insurance premiums too expensive for councils and traders.

Insurers, as is the norm, insist on strict adherence to health and safety guidelines. These guidelines require councils to use expensive specialist equipment to test the safety of light fittings.

Ladders are, of course banned, council workers have to hire hydraulic platforms.

Every light fitting must also undergo a "pull test", using specialist equipment to make sure it is strong enough. Lampposts are also now banned from being used as a hanging point for decorations, they are "unsafe".

Stephen Alambritis, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

"The festive period is looking darker

and bleaker year on year

Britain is facing a Christmas blackout this year.

The sense of pride a good festive display

can instill on a town centre is immeasurable.

Spiralling costs and exhaustive safety

concerns are ruining the festive spirit."


That is because Nanny doesn't give a stuff about Christmas, or about people having fun. Dictatorships throughout history, have been more than happy to ban or highjack a particular festival in order to use it for their own ends (eg Nanny's lickspittles in Birmingham, some years ago renamed Christmas "Winterval").

North Somerset Council have told traders in Clevedon that lights can no longer be attached to lampposts or buildings, therefore there will be no lights this year.

The council, as befitting a local council, have absolved themselves of any responsibility and blame a new code of practice. Its spokesman, Nick Yates, said:

"There is a code of practice which has to be followed

regarding the installation of Christmas lights.

The lighting columns are concrete and it is

not possible to attach lights to them."

A small point, Mr Yates, codes of practice are simply codes of practice; they are not mandatory. The council, if it had the will and the cajones, could simply elect not to follow the code of practice. However, as with all councils, they adopt the zero risk approach because they are weak, untrained and unsuited for their roles.

You cannot zeroise risk, Nanny and her lackeys have yet to grasp that important point!

Bodmin council, in Cornwall, have issued an edict ordering that a pressure gauge be used to test all 150 bolts which hold lights or cables around the town.

This must be carried out by two workmen in a cherry picker, which will cost the authority £1,200 in training fees, plus their wages and the cost of the equipment. To test the bolts the town centre roads have to be closed for a day, and then closed again while the lights are put up.

Kim Roscoe, council spokesman, said:

"Health and safety requirements have

greatly increased the costs.

Bodmin will not be the same without its

Christmas lights, and it is particularly

galling as last year was the best ever."

In Sandwell, Worcestershire, traders have been told that lights cannot be hung across the widths of roads, because of fears that cables may break.

Last year Scarborough Council cancelled the celebrity switch-on, because of police objections on various health and safety issues.

There will be no lights in Northampton, because the council cannot afford them.

The good old boys in the Association of British Insurers are quick to cover their backsides. A spokesman said that, because of an increasingly litigious culture, the cost of the liability cover was increasing.

"Insurance is a risk-based product

and a high proportion of that risk is liability.

If councils are protecting themselves from being

sued by a private party then the policies will be expensive."

Can someone from Nanny's little world please tell me how many people in the UK have been injured, or killed, in the last 50 years by public Christmas decorations?

I am willing to bet the number is but a handful.

As to how we got ourselves into this mess, I am afraid it's a combination of a number of factors:

• Greed of the insurance companies, who now regularly quote a minimum £5M figure for any public event



• Weakness of local councils in not challenging the quotes of the insurance companies



• Greed of individual citizens who sue for the slightest injury or accident



• Greed of the ambulance chasing private injury law firms, who proactively encourage people to sue



• Nanny and her lackeys in the health and safety Gestapo pushing through countless regulations that are ill thought through, and are designed to restrict people's daily lives rather than enhance the quality of their lives



• Laughably poor quality local councils, feeble minded, weak in spirit and ill trained to understand or manage risk issues. They instead choose to adopt the "safe" zero risk approach

We really do need to make a stand against this nonsense, before we are totally swamped by rules and regulations that will destroy the very fabric of our lives.

Nanny Bans Wet T Shirts

Oh dear, the health and safety Gestapo have been at work again. This time they have stomped with their size ten jackboots on plans for a wet T-shirt nights at Yesteryear Pub Company's Maloney cocktail bars.

Seemingly Nanny is worried that people may catch colds from the wetness of the T shirts!

The Managing Director, Tony Callaghan, is quoted:

"There'll be no titillation in Bolton,

Oldham, St Helens or Wigan.

It seems that legislation and the threat

of legal action is proving to be a massive

killjoy in this day and age.

We have been advised that people getting wet

may have grounds to sue if they catch pneumonia,

wet floors may cause staff or customers to slip

and sustain injury, and some of the better endowed

participants may cause blokes to drop their drinks.

There are also electrical issues, privacy issues

relating to the publication of unauthorised

photography and even the possibility

of being cited in divorce actions."

The company's health and safety manager, Sue McCabe, has told management that the nights could only take place under strict conditions and only if every customer signed a disclaimer.

It seems that one key condition of staging a wet T-shirt contest is that people don't get wet. Which is kind of farking stupid, as that's the whole point of a wet T shirt contest.

Are we all going to sit around like sheep (do sheep sit around?), and allow Nanny to stop us doing every little thing that we once took for granted?

Now this is what I am talking about:



Here is the remix version:

Sainsburys The Never Ending Story

You will recall that I am not best pleased with Sainsburys' at the moment; what with them making total arses out of themselves with one of my grocery deliveries, and allowing certain people to excuse themselves from selling booze and morning after pills on the grounds of "religion".

However, it seems that I have to feature them again on this site. Maybe it's some form of bizarre PR campaign that their marketing department has dreamt up? They firstly make themselves look like utter knobheads, then change miraculously overnight into an efficient non pc company again??

Anyhoo, this time Sainsburys' are in the dog house for adopting a very Nanny type touchy feely attitude to their uniforms. It seems that the familiar orange and blue uniforms of Sainsburys' staff will be changed to a dark maroon colour.

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Nothing at all...except for the fact that they claim that it has taken them since March 2006 to implement this change.

For why?

Well, staff have to be told!

In a more sensible company, this communication would take the form of an announcement and some brief discussions with selected members of staff; to ensure that the new uniforms did not make the staff fell like total knobheads.

Sainsburys' have of course bought into the Nanny state big time, and have to do things like uniform changes via a very tortuous process. It seems that in order to change the uniforms, Sainsburys' started a full consultation with staff way back in March 2006. This included, of all things, colleague counsel sessions.

For fark's sake, it's only a uniform!

I should mention one other thing, this story (about the fact that they have been working on it since March 2006) may in fact be utter bollocks, pushed out by the PR men (and women) in Sainsburys'.

Why?

Well you see, Sainsburys' is currently under bid from a Qatari backed firm (Delta Two).

The colour of the Qatari flag?

Oh, that would be white and errrmmmm.......maroon.

What The Fark?

Nanny seems to be losing all sense of proportion these days, when it comes to applying the law in a sensible and proportionate manner.

A 16 year old schoolboy, who was being a tosser/thug and ripped a girl's plastic bag (damage 1p), was hauled through the courts on charges of criminal damage; the cost to the taxpayer being £5K.

The 16 year old pleaded guilty to snatching a carrier bag from a 13 year old girl and breaking its handles.

Magistrates ordered him to complete six hours' community work, after hearing that the incident left the girl too scared to walk to school.

I don't excuse this act of thuggery for one moment, and fully believe that the 16 year old needs to be taught a lesson. However, did that lesson really need to be imparted by police officers, Crown Prosecution Service staff and lawyers, court workers, officials and magistrates over two separate hearings?

This sort of case validates the argument that I have put forward before, namely that we should bring back the stocks and publicly humiliate little shits this.

There is no need for the full apparatus of the state to be employed in a lengthy and expensive criminal prosecution. The teenager admitted that he had done it, and could be placed in the stocks immediately to take his punishment.

Am I right, or am I right?

Nuts!

It is official, Nanny is nuts!

Rather, let me put it this way, she is nuts about nuts.

George Hall-Lambert, aged 11, has been banned from his new school because he has a nut allergy.

George went to the new school (Howden School and Community College in Goole) for a mere 4 days, before Nanny's minions told him to stay away until a "risk assessment" was carried out. Seemingly he has been labelled a "health and safety hazard".

Pass the sick bag someone!

Mrs Hall-Lambert, his mum, is having him taught at home now whilst Nanny frets about the nut issue.

George was diagnosed with the allergy when he was 18 months old. He was pupil at the village primary school, where no problems arose.

However, when he transferred to Howden School and Community College Mrs Hall-Lambert told the school of his allergy, and the junior school forwarded a file with notes on his medical condition.

Mrs Hall-Lambert then said:

"He had only been there four days

when I was called into school to

see the head teacher as a matter of urgency.

He told me he was asking me to take George

home as the school had no policies in

place to deal with George's nut allergy.

He said the school needed to carry out

a risk assessment and an analysis of

George's situation to see what could be done.

In the meantime he is out of school indefinitely.

They won't let him back in school

until everything has been sorted out

and he is classed as safe.

If he went back now they say

he would be a health and safety risk."

To whom for fark's sake????

Surely, a simple solution would be for the school to ask Mrs Hall-Lambert to sign a waiver absolving them of any responsibility for any cock up relating to nut issues?

George carries a special pen-like device which he has been taught to inject adrenalin into his thigh should be suffer a sudden allergic reaction, which he has never had to use.

If he suffered a large anaphylactic shock, however, it could render him unconscious and in need of assistance. He wears a tag around his neck to alert people of his medical condition which also includes a latex allergy.

Andrew Williams, headteacher of Howden School, said:

"We are working with the parents,

health professionals and representatives

of the local authority to reach an acceptable

solution to this situation as soon as possible.

My main concern is to ensure that we meet

the health and welfare needs of all students

in our care to deliver a high quality education."

The East Riding education authority said the school was following local authority and Government guidance "in ensuring that George can access his entitlement to education in a safe environment."

Bureaucratic bullshit!

All that is needed here is some common sense to be exercised by the school, local authority and George's parents.

Sadly, in nanny's Britain, common sense is somewhat lacking these days!

Fag Off!

Nanny's lackeys in Conwy council achieved something of a double whammy the other day. They managed to slap a fine on a guy not just for smoking in his lorry cab, but also for littering.

Result!

Not only that, but the council lackey that reported the hapless driver was in fact a council dog warden.

What an effective and clever use of resources!

Leonard King was the hapless victim of Nanny's spy culture that has now firmly taken root in our unloved and untrusted local councils. Mr King was having a fag in the cab of his lorry (parked I would hasten to add), which carried a no smoking sign, unfortunately one of Nanny's paid spies (a dog warden) was watching him.

Mr King was in breach of Nanny's recent rules about smoking in an enclosed space that others workmates use. Quite how some stale fag fumes in a cab will harm the next driver is somewhat medically suspect, in my humble view. However, Nanny does not worry about medical facts. Having been spotted smoking, Mr King then compounded his offence against the state by flicking some ash and the fag butt out of the window.

The dog warden immediately noted that down as well, as a littering offence.

Mr King was issued with fixed penalties for smoking illegally in his cab and for littering. Llandudno magistrates fined him £75 and imposed additional charges of £30 for investigative costs, £65 for legal costs and a £15 victim (what victim?) surcharge.

The £75 litter penalty, which he had already paid, took the final bill to £260.

A spokesman for the council in Conwy said its three dog wardens were spearheading the enforcement of smoking laws, and had issued four fixed-penalty notices.

I am sure they must feel very proud of themselves!

Errmm...aren't these guys meant to be dealing with dog related issues?

Doesn't this kind of prove what people have long suspected, namely that council employees are being used to spy on the local population?

The good news is that Conwy will soon give police community support officers the job of chasing smokers, so that's alright then.

Be careful what you do and what you say, the person next to you may work for the local council!

Prats of The Week

It is a Monday morning, a tad grey and gloomy, what better time than to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award?

This week it goes to Sainsbury's.

You may recall that a little over a week ago Sainsbury's were featured on this site (somewhat off message) for totally screwing up a delivery of groceries. Needless to say they further screwed the order up by failing to deliver at the agreed time on Friday (the third failed attempt by them), citing some cock and bull story that the driver had changed his route and ignored instructions.

The groceries, after another email was sent to the Justin King the CEO, eventually arrived some 3.5 hours late that day. Needless to say Sainsbury's were not finished digging their own grave, on Monday they then attempted to make another delivery of the same order.

A truly spectacular and stellar performance most certainly worthy of an award, but not this one.
No, Sainsbury's are not being awarded "Prats of The Week" for their failure to deliver groceries, but for something else.

It seems that Sainsbury's has been overcome by a bout of political correctness and spinelessness, as it has decied to allow Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers' alcohol purchases on religious grounds. Other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Not only are Sainsbury's kowtowing to Muslims who object to handling drink, but they are also kowtowing to those Muslims who won't touch the morning after pill. Sainsbury's is allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. Seemingly a Sainsbury's pharmacist, named Ahmed, declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for "ethical reasons".

Here's why this excuse of ethics is bollocks:

• People, when joining Sainsbury's, know full well what it sells



• Employees are expected to sell products without fear or favour to customers, those that refuse to do so are clearly in breach of their terms of employment



• Those that disapprove of the products on sale should seek employment elsewhere



• The salaries paid to the "ethical" objectors are derived from the sales of drink, newspapers containing photos of boobs, pork and other "controversial" items. Why are the "ethical" objectors still happy to make money from the sale of "non ethical" products? Isn't that hypocritical?

Sainsbury's, in theory, should have had the brains and the guts to point that out to their "ethical" objectors; in other words they should have stood up to them.

Instead Sainsbury's has opted for the easy, cowardly route of kowtowing to bullies, religious zealots and bigots.

This country has no room for bigots, bullies or zealots. Those who don't like the system and way of life here have a number of choices:

1 Seek to change it through democratic means, by submitting their views and opinions to rigorous intellectual scrutiny and debate

2 Integrate

3 Leave

Three choices, that's far more than many people get in some religious theocracies!

As for Sainsbury's, by kowtowing in this spineless manner they have left themselves open to more demands and blackmail from zealots and bigots and have further divided society.

I trust they are very proud of themselves?

Sainsbury's, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Feel free to write to the CEO of Sainsbury's, Justin King, at his email address justin.king@sainsburys.co.uk

What The Fark?

I was in my club (The East India) on Thursday, waiting to meet someone for dinner. However, I had a mild headache approaching (not booze related).

Therefore I asked at reception if someone could give me a paracetamol. A simple enough request?

No!

Seemingly Nanny has passed a law forbidding places such as hotels, clubs and restaurants from handing out any form of painkiller (even Alka Seltzer).

The club was most apologetic, but insisted that this is law.

So there you have it, a middle aged businessman at 6:30PM is denied a simple request for one lousy paracetamol for a headache; whilst in another part of town, a 14 year old will be readily scoring drugs of any description/type or quantity without any interference from Nanny.

Am I the only one who thinks that there is something incredibly wrong here?

When the fark did this absurd law get passed?

Where the fark were the opposition parties in opposing such nonsense?

The Dangers of Enemas

I came across this rather odd little tale of woe on the newswires yesterday, and I feel that it may well have implications for us in the UK.

Negligent homicide charges have been dropped against Tammy Jean Warner, of Texas City (in the USA), who had been accused of killing her husband with a sherry enema that led to alcohol poisoning.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

Michael Warner, 58, died on May 21 2004. The autopsy showed that the poor chap had been given an enema with enough sherry to have a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent, almost six times the legal limit of .08 percent in Texas.

Seemingly Mr Warner was addicted to enemas, and often used alcohol in them to get drunk; as one does.

It seems that on the fateful night in question, Mrs Warner gave him at least two large bottles of sherry (each being 1.5 litres...that's a big bottle), which is stronger than wine, in the enema.

You couldn't make this up could you?

Anyhoo, I rushed to check my Harveys Bristol Cream, and was horrified not to find any warning label on the bottle advising me not to use it as an enema or to put it up my bottom.

Nanny has seriously let us down by not issuing an edict forcing sherry makers to put such a warning on bottles. However, I can only assume that we will soon see them on sherry bottles.

In keeping with the spirit of the occasion here is a small video:)

Nanny Bans Bikes

As we all know, the leaders of the police in Britain are 100% focused on the safety and well being of the British citizens...unless that is of course they are drowning, or indeed not fellow police officers.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny's chums in the Greater Manchester Police (where they allow schoolchildren to drown, see yesterday's article on that) have banned its officers from riding bicycles for safety reasons.

Greater Manchester Police have decreed that its officers and PCSOs must not patrol the streets on their mountain bikes. Nanny believes that the officers do not have enough training to handle road conditions across Greater Manchester.

This is rather unfortunate, as the patrols are popular with the public because they allow officers to chase criminals down narrow lanes and through parks and they act as a visible deterrent.

The ruling follows the death of PCSO Christopher Maclure, who suffered head injuries in an accident with a lorry in Wigan.

A GMP spokesman said:

"The safety of officers and staff is our first priority.

Officers should ride a police cycle only

if they have passed a competence test."

No mention of the safety of the public being their first priority!

Here's a radical suggestion, why not train people to ride the bikes?

That, I guess, would take all of one or two days?

Here, totally free of charge, is a short training video that may help the GMP train its men.

Drowning

Those of you who, having gone for a swim or who have fallen into water, find themselves in difficulties in water may find themselves in an even worse predicament in the future.

Nanny has decided that a policy of "you're on your own chum" is now to be implemented for water based "risk situations".

As such, Nanny's chums in the Devon and Cornwall Police have decreed that police officers in the region must not to hold out a hand to drowning swimmers in case they are pulled into the water themselves.

Errmmm...isn't that down to the individual police officer to make that judgement call, according to the circumstances and his/her capabilities in the water?

Clearly not!

The decree, quite unsurprisingly, comes in a health and safety policy document which says officers should also think twice before throwing a lifebelt.

You will recall that this policy of "you're on your own chum" has been tested in Greater Manchester, where two police community support officers did not enter a lake to try to save Jordon Lyon a ten-year-old boy from drowning. They were told their training had not equipped them with the skills to go in the water.

The document, Health And Safety - Water Safety - states:

"Devon and Cornwall Constabulary does not

expect or require any member of staff

to enter water in a rescue attempt of any

person or animal under any circumstances.

The task of rescuing members of the public

or animals from water lies primarily with

other emergency services that are equipped

and trained to undertake such tasks."

As if to add insult to injury, the health and safety Gestapo also decree that staff should not throw a lifebelt into the water, until they have completed a "dynamic risk assessment".

What utter BOLLOCKS!

But Graeme Hicks, a member of Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, thinks it's bollocks as well:

"It's quite unbelievable that a police officer

could walk past an incident like that and ignore it.

If a child drowned in Cornwall

in those circumstances

we would come under criticism and it

concerns me that there are

policies like this in place."

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said:

"No organisation can expect staff to risk their lives."

What planet does this guy live on?

Firemen, the armed forces, police officers, traffic wardens, the waiter who served me a tough steak the other week etc etc all risk their lives on a daily basis...that's what these jobs are about!

Big Brother

Nanny drags Britain ever further down the road of total surveillance.

Nanny's Home Orifice has announced that information about all landline and mobile phone calls, made in the UK, must now be logged and stored for a year under new laws. The data collected about calls made and received will be available to a staggering 652 public bodies, including the police and councils.

However, please do not be alarmed, Nanny has promised that the content of calls and texts would not be read.

So that's alright then!

Minister for Security and Counter-terrorism Tony McNulty attempted to turn the new rules into a nice way of helping old ladies fix their gas cookers.

Quote:

"Say some old lady has got difficulties

with someone who's repaired the gas in

her house and has a mobile phone

for somebody who's clearly dodgy.

The local authorities can just get the

subscriber information next to that number.

The second level of data is not simply

the subscriber, but also the calls made by that phone.

And the third level which is purely

for the security forces, police, etc,

is not just the subscriber information

and the calls made, but also the calls

coming in and location data -

where the calls are made from."

McNulty claims that local councils would only have access to data on "a legitimate and proportional basis".

Who the hell trusts local councils with any task, let alone one that gives them snooping rights?

The Home Orifice also promised that local councils will not use the data as a means to collect taxes....errrrmm, anyone believe that?

Prats of The Week

A grey, miserable Monday morning; what an excellent setting for me to award my coveted "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to the police in Balham and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who decided to prosecute a schoolboy for using a rubber band to ping his mate with a piece of paper/cardboard.

Unfortunately for both boys, the paper/cardboard hit the target's eye and caused some temporary damage....Nanny then waded in....you can guess the rest.

Now read on...

The boy (12 years old), from Balham South London, was flicking bits of paper with rubber bands and hit a friend in the eye.

The paper flicking happened in June, and the boy was suspended from school for three days.

A week later Nanny called him to police station, arrested him and questioned for four hours before charging him on 20 July.

The injured boy suffered swelling and bruising to the eye and experienced some bleeding, the CPS said. That of course is highly unfortunate. However, accidents do happen and boys will flick bits of paper at each other...in my day we had "spud guns" which fired pieces of potato using compressed air.

In a statement on the case the CPS said:

"The CPS brought the initial charge

because we were informed that the boy

had lost sight in one eye.

There also appeared to be an

intention to cause harm.

When the medical evidence confirmed that

there was no permanent damage to the eye,

the charge was downgraded to assault.

After further review a decision was taken

to discontinue the case as being not in

the public interest in view of the boys'

ages and the effect of a court case on them."

The boy's solicitor Richard Conley accused the police and CPS of showing a "complete loss of perspective" on the case.

Quote:

"Sadly, this is an increasingly common story

where the pressure to be seen to be taking

action results in a blinkered approach.

As well as the financial costs,

the greater cost is the loss of confidence

in and respect for the police and the

Courts that these cases cause."

The 12 year old who fired the paper, suffers from mild epilepsy, and had three "significant seizures" and required hospital treatment due to stress, his mother said.

She said:

"He was incredibly upset as

he didn't mean to hurt him,

it was a game and they were

flicking paper at each other and laughing."

Like it or not, boys do stupid things like this all the time. On the assumption that genuine remorse was shown, and that the other boy accepted that it was an accident, the actions of the police and CPS are worthy of the "Prats of The Week" Award.

However, if anyone has greater insight into this story, I would be happy to have them posted in the comments box.