Nanny Bans Thick Bread

I understand that the House of Lords is about to debate a very important issue, one that affects all of us.

The issue?

-Terrorism?

No

-The Credit Crunch?

No

-Labour's donations scandal?

No

Give up?

OK then, I will tell you.

The House of Lords is about to debate that most burning of issues, the thickness of slices in a ready cut loaf of bread and the dangers posed to our health by the "thick" sliced loaves.

Seemingly a thick slice contains a zillion calories more that a medium slice. Needless to say Nanny is displeased with this, and as such wants to ban thick sliced loaves.

Errmm here is a radical suggestion, why doesn't she just let the consumer decide which type of loaf that they buy?

Quite why the House of Lords is wasting their time on this most absurd of issues is beyond me.

Get a knife, buy an uncut loaf and cut the thing the way you want it; or just buy a medium/thin sliced loaf.

Problem solved!

Unfortunately Nanny doesn't think that we have the brains or the will power to make such decisions, and feels the need to take away our right to choose.

Here is an excellent way to indulge yourselves with slice of thick white, one that I really enjoyed when I was growing up (it did me no harm).

-Cut a thick slice of white bread

-Toast it

-Spread it with a generous amount of beef dripping

-Add copious quantities of salt and pepper

-Eat

Mmmmmm...scrummmy!

Miserable Bastards

Congratulations to the miserable bastards who run the Victoria Shopping Centre in Ysgol San Sir Llandudno, for displaying some remarkably mean Nanny tendencies and banning some school children from singing Christmas carols because they were too loud.

Whilst the media work themselves up into a frenzy about another country getting uppity over the name of a certain teddy bear, we should look to our own laurels wrt intolerance and bloody minded busybodiness.

Anyhoo, the school kids had been given permission to sing in the shopping centre and indeed were accompanied by their schoolteacher and parents.

That of course did not stop the miserable gits who run some of the shops there from complaining that the singing was too loud.

At this point the shopping centre security staff asked them to stop, after which the police then turned up as well!

How farking ridiculous is that?

The furore that this absurd incident caused has needless to say brought about abject signs of contrition from the centre manager, Sue Nash, who has now admitted/realised that the intervention of security staff was "a mistake" and said the pupils would be allowed to return this weekend.

Ian Jones, headmaster, said:

"They were a small group singing Christmas

carols to raise money,

and they were singing beautifully.

After a bit, a security guard came over

and said we had only meant to be singing

for one hour, and could we please stop.

I just said no, because I knew we were

allowed to sing between 11am and 3pm.

He said he had complaints from tenants

that we were too loud and asked us to stop.

I just asked how he proposed to stop children singing.

In the end, he said we would have to stop

or he would call the police.

A member of the public came over and

said she thought the singing was fantastic."

A Police Support Officer then attended the scene and asked the pupils to turn down the backing music on the CD player, and sing more quietly.

Mr Jones said:

"I couldn't believe what they were saying.

Some of the parents were incredulous."

Whilst, on the face of it, this may seem to be a storm in a teacup it does illustrate a number of issues wrt the Nanny state and the effect that it has on people:

• Intolerance of those who act outwith the norm, in this case kids singing where singing is not normally performed



• Intolerance of individuality and public performance (remember folks, Nanny wants public performers to have licences)



• Lack of common sense being applied by individuals and organisations (couldn't the shopkeepers have put up with it for an hour or so? Couldn't the security guard have kept his nose out of this? etc)



• The use of the state, and organs of the state, to settle personal disputes and pursue private vendettas (why on earth call the police?)

All in all this incident is an excellent example of the worst traits of Nanny Britain.

HMRC Is Shite - Beta Test

Dear friends,

I thought that you might like a sneak preview of a new site that I am developing:

www.hmrcisshite.com

It seems that some members of HMRC list "drugs" as a hobby.

It is currently in Beta test mode, please advise if there are glitches or any changes that I could make to it that will improve it.

Thanks

Ken

PS broken link now fixed, sorry about that.

The Postman Always Rings Twice

Whilst the postman may well ring twice, Nanny's special little team of "advisers" will keep ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing until you jolly well open the door and speak to them.

Next year Nanny will launch upon the entire nation an army of "travel advisers", paid for out of our own pockets of course.

This private army will be doorstepping all of us in an attempt to "educate" and "persuade" us about the benefits of switching from driving to walking, cycling and public transport.

Now, if like me, you tend to avoid opening the door to people such as "religious types", government officials, sales people and other assorted riff raff you may well be thinking that it will be a simple matter to avoid interacting with Nanny's little army.

Not so!

If you are out, they will keep coming back and will call up to ten times, even in the evenings or at weekends.

I call that harassment, were a cold calling company (such as Contact4) to do it they would be getting my boot firmly implanted in their posterior (see what I did to Contact4 here).

It seems that Nanny changes the rules to suit herself.

Anyhoo, Nanny's little army will ask you about your travel habits and will offer advice tailored to your journeys, including maps for walking and bus timetables.

If you appear unconvinced, they will offer incentives such as discounts at local bike shops and outdoor stores and free pedometers to measure how far you are walking.

A study by the Department for Transport found that the biggest challenge faced by the advisers was overcoming initial suspicion on the doorstep. It said:

"Door-to-door contact is often associated

with double-glazing sales and therefore

is not always particularly well received.

A non-accusatory but assertive manner is required."

Hmmmm...I look forward to my encounter with an "assertive" representative of Nanny on my doorstep.

Maybe I should film it?

Aside from the intrusion and busybody nature of this project, there is one very large fly in Nanny's oinkment.

The public transport system in the UK is shite..most especially in London...how the fark are you meant to squeeze more people on the trains, tube and buses at peak times without adding more carriages and services?

As ever, this little idea of Nanny's is badly thought through.

Our money well wasted!

Prats of The Week

Oops, it has been a wee while since I have presented my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to the staff of Mr Cheap, in Havant, who have clearly been living in a Nanny state far too long; and displayed all the petty minded jobsworth attention to "rules" that one has come to expect from Nanny's minions.

Frank Dineen, 75 years old, innocently went to Mr Cheap to buy some Christmas cards. Unfortunately, he was reckoning without the jobsworths working in the store. Mr Dineen was wearing a trilby, and as we all know Nanny (who loves CCTV) hates hats.

Therefore Mr Dineen was told to remove his trilby by staff, as their CCTV system would not be able to id him.

The fact that he was 75 and no doubt could be recognised by staff, in the unlikely event he created some form of loutish behaviour, was of course ignored by the staff. This being Nanny Britain, common sense has long since being consigned to the dustbin of history.

Mr Dineen refused, and of course has now been banned from the shop.

He is quoted as saying:

"I will take my hat off in the presence of royalty,

but never in a shop."

Quite right!

The jobsworth numpties at Mr Cheap, well deserving Prats of The Week.

The Grim Reaper

See what plans Nanny has developed to keep us "safe" during the 2012 Olympics.

See Grim Reaper.

The Unanswered Question III

The long running farce that is HMRC, continues in much the same vein as a slow motion car crash.

Today's unanswered questions:

-Why were 6 other data discs lost?

-Why were data discs being sent to third parties?

-Why did it take so long for HMRC to admit that they were lost?

-Why were the police not informed earlier?

-Why is "apathy" on the part of the employees (the excuse of the unions) an acceptable excuse for incompetence and possible criminal behaviour?

HMRC: A Gordon Brown Production.

The Unanswered Question II

To continue the questioning theme in respect of Nanny's HMRC cock up of the century:

Could Nanny please explain to her subjects why she not only sent the data records of 25 million of her subjects to the National Audit Office, but also to KPMG?

What the fark have they got an interest in this data for?

Is this not also a breach of the data protection act?

Scum

The Nanny state has bred a generation of self centered, selfish, moronic scum.

I reproduce this article in full from Help for Heroes:

Swimmers throw abuse at injured servicemen in pool Nov 21 2007 INJURED soldiers were subjected to a humiliating encounter when they were jeered at a public swimming pool.

Servicemen from Headley Court rehabilitation centre near Leatherhead were about to begin their weekly swim at Leatherhead Leisure Centre, which helps with their therapy, when they were verbally abused by a group of regular swimmers.

One woman, believed to be in her 30s, was so incensed that the soldiers - many of them amputees having returned from conflicts in the Middle East and Asia - were using the pool that she told them that they did not deserve to be there.

It is alleged that she told the men that she pays to swim there and they do not. According to witnesses she was so abusive that the soldiers' instructor pulled the groups out of the water to avoid further embarrassment.

Charles Murrin, of Friars Orchard, Fetcham, who witnessed the incident, said: "I was so cross and I could not believe what she was saying.

"The lane was roped off which they do every week and people can swim in there up until 11am and then the soldiers go in.

"She said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays money to come in the pool and they don't." The partially sighted 79-year-old, who was in the Royal Navy man and served in the Korean war, added: "I just cannot believe it happened and that people are like this.I spoke to the instructor in the changing room afterwards and he was livid.

"I know what these people are going through because I talk to them and I have got quite friendly with them."

Linda Sinclair, of Thossnroft Drive, Leatherhead, also witnessed the incident. She said: "I was coming out of the pool as the people started to complain and I was thinking how dreadful it was.

"It was a few people that were complaining and it made me cross and it was not nice for those soldiers."

There were two groups of soldiers waiting to use the pool but following the tirade of abuse their instructor ordered them to leave.

A spokesman for Mole Valley District Council, which owns the facility in Guildford Road, said: "There appears to have been a rare incident where two members of the public queried the provision of lanes of the swimming pool for Headley Court.

"While we wouldn't condone what happened, staff at the leisure centre did their best to accommodate all concerned and acted professionally in dealing with the situation."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We are disappointed that a small number of people objected to the closure of swimming lanes so that patients of Headley Court could use them."

The incident comes just weeks after a national appeal was launched to raise £5 million for Headley Court to build a new full-size rehabilitation pool with equipment in their gym.

The centre treats 180 injured servicemen who have to make the half-hour trip to Leatherhead to use the pool for vital cardiovascular exercise.

Nanny Bans Santa

Poor old Santa really gets it in the neck at this time of the year from Nanny. Normally she has a go at him over his weight, now she is putting the boot in over the colour of his suit.

Seemingly, in the eyes of Nanny's chums in Steiner School Brighton, red is the colour of modern commercialism and have therefore banned it.

Funny that, I always thought that red was the colour of socialism.

Anyhoo, the numpties in the parents' committee believe that red will remind pupils of Coca Cola (one of the world's most evil corporations, in Nanny's eyes).

Therefore Santa will this year be clad in green.

The school has also decided to hold an Eastern European version of the festive season, which it believes will be more "inclusive". This despite the fact that most of the pupils are British.

What a bunch of twats!

School spokesman Sarah James said:

"The red-suited Santa was created as a

marketing tool by Coca-Cola,

it is a symbol of commercialism."

So farking what!

-Santa is a fantasy creation anyway.

-Commercialism generates income which pays the taxes that pays the wages of the dick heads running the school.

A small point of fact here, Santa wore red long before Coca Cola did its makeover.

The trouble is Nanny isn't interested in facts.

For good measure, at the school's Christmas bazaar, pupils will be told a "moral" tale rather than the traditional Christmas story, and instead of opening presents, they will be given fake "rocks" to break open to reveal crystals.

Happy Winterval!

Happy Thanksgiving

I would like to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to my American friends and readers.

When will the ambassador invite me to annual party in Grosvenor Square by the way?

Cheers.

Ken

The Unanswered Question

What with all the hoo ha over Nanny's HMRC losing the data records of 25 million people, and all the finger pointing etc, there is one question that seems to have been forgotten in all of this.

Why were the data records of 25 million people being sent to the National Audit Office (NAO) in the first place?

Are not these records meant to be confidential?

What possible interest does the NAO have in the data records of 25 million people?

Doesn't this constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act?

Would Gordon Brown (who set up HMRC) care to answer this?

There is no way after this that we should submit ourselves to a National ID Scheme. The time has come to put a stop to this government's plans, and to rid ourselves of a now fatally wounded and dying Prime Minister.

TWATS!!!! II

More about HMRC here: TWATS.

Nanny Bans Dummy

Nanny's strict rules about racial/sexual diversity don't just apply to people, they apply to dummies too.

In Nanny's world we are all equal, even the dummies.

Thus it has come to pass that the police mascot, known as Steve, has been labelled by Nanny's lickspittles as being too male and white.

PSCO Steve was created by the Metropolitan Police to visit primary schools. Unfortunately Steve is male and white. Nanny hates white males, because they represent a part of society that she cannot understand and will not accept.

Therefore the Met has been ordered to spend £15K of our money replacing Steve with non male non white alternatives.

The much "respected" and "popular" head of the Met, Sir Ian Blair said:

"These characters will be more representative

of London's population and the diverse range of police personnel."

FYI, the original PCSO Steve costume was based on a real person (Sutton borough police community support officer Stephen King). Unfortunately Nanny hates reality, and prefers instead to create and live in a fictional world.

Pc Geoff Parker, who works in Islington, thinks that the whole idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"One of the things that is damaging our job

and our relations with the community is this

constant overbearing political correctness.

We seem to be taking the issue to the extreme,

and pandering to every whim and gripe.

We need to take a sensible approach to this

and stop over-reacting."

A foolish waste of money and effort, but when did Nanny ever worry about wasting money?

TWATS!!!!

Who are TWATS?

Click this link HMRC and find out.

Ignorance Is Bliss

One of the main reasons that Nanny is able to get away with a lot of what she does is the sheer blind ignorance and stupidity of people in low level positions of responsibility (eg teachers, local councils, HR departments etc) who, because they choose not to understand the law, opt for the safest course of action and impose a blanket ban on activities citing excuses such as "health and safety", "risk" "insurance" etc.

When these people are pressed to show the precise law which forbids a certain action, more often than not they cannot find it because it doesn't exist.

Such is the case of the nonsense over the banning of photographs by parents of their children in school plays etc. Schools in Greater Manchester have finally been forced to admit that there are no laws banning parents from photographing or filming nativity plays.

What a farking surprise!

In recent years, some headteachers have wrongly claimed that the Data Protection Act prohibits family members from taking pictures of pupils at the annual Christmas performance.

Why?

Simple, they didn't bother to ask a professional to check the law and opted for the safest and easiest course of action; ie they imposed a ban. The fact that the ban made no logical sense was immaterial to Nanny's lickspittles.

However, the Wilmslow-based Information Commissioner's Office (which oversees the 1998 Act) has stepped in and has issued a guidance note in respect of this year's round of nativity plays.

It is of course quite absurd that they should have to waste time and money on this.

Assistant Commissioner Jonathan Bamford said:

"The guidance has been issued to reassure

friends and family members they can take photographs

of their children and friends taking part in

school activities for the family album without

contravening the Data Protection Act.

They can also film events at schools.

The Data Protection Act should not be

wrongly cited to stop people taking

photographs or filming videos."

Four years ago, St James RC Primary School in Hattersley, became one of the first schools in Greater Manchester to introduce such a ban, although it did not specifically cite the Data Protection Act. In other words it couldn't even be bothered to justify the ban.

Then headteacher Barbara Robinson said she was following guidelines set down by the Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury, which governs the school, in response to "child protection" issues.

Complete bollocks of course, yet regrettably the parents simply rolled over and accepted it.

Current head teacher Jackie Walker said:

"Now we send out a permission slip to parents

asking for their consent for their children

to be photographed, at plays and for press and publicity."

What kind of a lesson does that teach children, whereby the state forbids even your own parents from photographing you?

Nanny maintains her power over us because the lower ranks of bureaucrats, teachers and councillors in this country are weak and ignorant.

Nanny's New Book Burners

Are you sitting comfortably children?

Then I'll begin:

"Once upon a time there was a very nasty

bunch of people living in Naziland,

who didn't much care for freedom of speech

or expression.

When they came across 'seditious'

material in a book, magazine or

newspaper they would burn it.

That way all these nasty 'seditious'

thoughts and ideas wouldn't pollute

the pure minds of the citizens of Naziland.

Fortunately the good people of Britain,

and what was left the free world, bombed

the bastards to death.

That, my dears, was the end of book

burning in Western Europe..."

Or was it?

You see there are other forms of "book burning" that don't necessarily require a physical conflagration, and are less obvious.

For example, if Nanny can censor a book before it is even published that removes the need for a public burning.

Nanny's chums in Orchard Books are converts to the 21st Century version of book burning. They were shocked and appalled at the ideas being developed in a book by Lindsey Gardiner, and therefore decided to tell her to remove certain parts from her book before they would publish it.

What were her crimes?

Poetry praising suicide bombers maybe?

No, you go to jail for that in Nanny's Britain (rather odd that Rupert Brooke was praised less than a century ago for his turgid tripe eulogising the glories of war), the book is a children's book.

The crime?

Ms Gardiner featured a fire-breathing dragon, which the book burners at Orchard Books felt to be a health and safety hazard.

What?

I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate?)

I kid you not!

Seemingly, in Britain's new order, the scene showing her dragon toasting marshmallows with his breath was deemed likely to encourage children to do the same.

Errrmm...can anyone spot the rather obvious flaw in this dubious "logic" employed by Orchard?

Yes, that's right, there aren't any farking dragons!

However, those of you who are into dragons may enjoy this episode of "Ivor The Engine" which has escaped the book burners.



Ms Gardiner was also instructed to remove scenes relating to an electric cooker with one element glowing red (it had to be changed to green???), and of a boy on a ladder.

How the fark are children meant to learn about the world, if they are not allowed to read about it?

People have ladders and cookers, you cannot edit them out of real life.

Ms Gardiner noted that her manuscript for "Who Wants A Dragon?" was hardly any more dangerous than Hansel and Gretel, Red Riding Hood etc (all involving death by eating, child molestation scenarios and allegories for the onset of puberty).

Ms Gardiner said:

"It's a sad reflection of modern society."

She is quite right, Nanny and her book burners are destroying society in a way that the people of Naziland could only dream of.

She added:

"I've had books published in Japan,

France, Spain and Holland and

they don't ask for the same changes.

It seems to be in Britain and the U.S.

that there are problems."

We have become what we sought to protect the world from, intolerant book burners.

Orchard Books claim:

"With a wealth of fascinating fiction

and stimulating non-fiction,

we've got everything you'll ever need."

Why not drop them a note and let them know what you think?

Here is the link Orchard Books

The people of Orchard Books should remember this:

"Where first you burn books you next burn people."

Cashback Claims

Those of you who have purchased a mobile phone from Cool New Mobile, Phonebox Direct, Mobile Affiliates or Phones2yourdoor should read this article as a matter of urgency:

-Cool New Mobile

Ken

Break a Leg

I am not the only person who believes that the Health and Safety Gestapo have gone too far in their campaign to wrap us in cotton wool, and thus exert control over us.

No less a person than Tom Mullarkey, head of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has said that health and safety "extremists" are preventing children from leading a healthy and robust lifestyle.

Mullarkey waded into the "small-minded bureaucrats" by saying that they were guilty of undermining genuine health and safety work.

Quote:

"But people have this perception of 'elf and safety'

as something that restricts your life,

rather than helping you to live fully and successfully.

Our argument is that a skinned knee or a twisted ankle

in a challenging and exciting play environment

is not just acceptable, it is a positive necessity.

We need to prepare children for a complex,

dangerous world in which healthy, robust activity

is more a national need than ever before.

We think people should climb mountains,

and sail boats - we are trying to help them in a practical way."

Exactly!

Unfortunately the small minded bureaucrats who run the health and safety Gestapo will not listen. They need to be dealt with with a firm hand, once and for all.

The Bully State

Nanny's health Nazis are on the march. Having won the battle to stop smoking in public places, Nanny is now keen to push on and interfere in all manner of everyday activities.

Nanny gave warning of her intentions in a report by the once well-respected Nuffield Council of Bioethics. The report concludes that Nanny and industry are not doing enough to prevent binge drinking or obesity, and should promote healthy lifestyles through stricter measures and deterrents.

The authors are a group of doctors, lawyers, philosophers and other "experts". They propose that the Nanny state should be replaced by "stewardship", ie government interference.

Lord Krebs, who chaired the report committee, said:

"People often reject the idea of a nanny state

but the Government has a duty to look after

the health of everyone and sometimes

that means guiding or restricting our choices."

Read that again, Krebs wants the state to restrict our choices for our own good!

Krebs went on to say that the central concept of stewardship differed from the Nanny state, by being "more sensitive to the balances between public good and individual freedom".

The report concludes:

"The stewardship model provides justification

for the UK Government to introduce measures

that are more coercive than those which

currently feature in the National Alcohol Strategy."

The report also says that smoking should be banned in people's homes.

Precisely how do they intend to enforce that I wonder?

This comes hot on the heals of Alcohol Concern, a new lobby group being launched. This body claims to be a charity, but is in fact funded by the state and is an organ of the EU.

Given Krebs's German ancestry I am surprised he has put his name to such a report, the aims of which strikingly resemble the policies of Nazi Germany. The Nazis taught that you owe it to the state to look after yourself, as the state owns your body not the individual.

Krebs is not much of a fan of democracy, as he has voted in only 3% of votes in parliament — well below average amongst the Lords.

This report is the precursor to health care being offered and available only to those who comply with Nanny's rules on diet, drinking, smoking and lifestyle.

Bollocks

Oh dear it seems that Nanny's persistent warnings about the dangers of sun tanning are in fact bollocks.

Scientists at King's College London have found that healthy levels of vitamin D may help to slow the ageing process, and protect against age-related diseases.

Guess where we get a good dose of vitamin D from?

Yes, that's right, the sun.

In summer much of the vitamin D we need is created by a reaction in the skin powered by sunlight. In the darker winter months vitamin D comes largely from food such as cod liver oil and mackerel.

Among the most reliable measures of a person's age are telomeres, the lengths of genetic material that cap the free ends of DNA in a cell. With age, the telomeres shorten and the DNA becomes more unstable until eventually the cell dies. The study found that those with the highest vitamin levels had significantly longer telomeres - equivalent to five years of normal ageing - than those showing the lowest vitamin D scores.

Tim Spector, a co-author of the paper, said:

"Although it might sound absurd,

it's possible that the same sunshine

which may increase our risk of skin cancer

may also have a healthy effect on

the ageing process in general."

The day I start to follow the advice of Nanny and her doctors will be my last day on this planet.

I wonder what other advice Nanny has given us is in fact wrong?

Oh, wait a minute, most of it!

Booze

Nanny's legions of busybodies, snoops and "do as I say" advisers are unleashing howls of anguish over the fact that some supermarkets are selling beer and lager at a cheaper price than water.

Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda now offer lager at just 22p a can; that's less per litre than their own-brand-mineral water and cola.

You can get oiled for a mere £1!

There's value for you.

Needless to say, the newly formed Alcohol Health Alliance (doubtless containing the same people who banned fags from our pubs) is up in arms about this.

You know what, for once I agree with Nanny.

Shock horror!

Did you ever think that you would hear me ejaculate (can I say ejaculate?) such an utterance?

I too think that it is an utter, utter disgrace that booze is cheaper than water and cola.

It is high time that these supermarkets lowered the price of water and cola, so that it matches the price of the booze.

Only Following Orders

How appropriate that on Remembrance Day, Nanny's minions fall back on a variation of that well worn phrase "I was merely following orders".

In Nanny's world the concept of there being a reasonable excuse for breaking her rules, and applying a little bit of common sense does not apply. So it was for the car owners, who temporarily parked their cars in Dispensary Walk Halifax this Sunday.

Nanny's ever so keen tax collectors, sorry I mean traffic wardens, were on patrol that morning and took no prisoners.

Drivers said that cars parked in Dispensary Walk were being issued with tickets during a two-minute silence to remember war dead at 1100 GMT on Sunday.

Malcolm Walker told BBC Radio Leeds he challenged a warden about the fines.

Quote:

"I said, do you not realise why

these cars are actually parked here?

They've come to remember the fallen.

I said, could you not just go round

the corner for five minutes and cut them some slack?

And the woman just actually said,

'A, I'm doing my job, and B,

I didn't even know there was a parade on'.

And I said 'could you not hear the bugles playing

and the band marching?'

And she just looked at me totally blank."

A spokesman for Calderdale Council ignored the point about it being a special event.

Quote:

"Residents living there are frequently

unable to park close to their own home

because of other motorists parking illegally

in their residents' parking area,

and this causes them a great deal of difficulty,

particularly if, for example,

they need to load or unload from their cars.

This is a regular ongoing problem for these residents,

not only a once a year event."

Rules are there to be enforced, no matter what the circumstances!

The Dangers of Seats

When is a seat dangerous?

When our old friends from the health and safety Gestapo tell you it is.

It seems that even a well designed, solid seat is dangerous in the eyes of the health and safety Gestapo if it is placed in a setting for which it is not "authorised".

Allow me to elucidate.

My local leisure club recently installed some new benches in the changing rooms. Without a shadow of a doubt these are utter crap.

-They are too small.

-They have no back, and as such are not suitable for chilling out on after exercise.

-They are uncomfortable.

-They are unstable, and wobble alarmingly when you sit on the.

Everyone in the club hates them!

As such I did my bit for humanity, and looked around on the web for something a little more suitable.

I came across a rather nice wooden bench that is solid, comfortable, reasonably priced and would withstand the day to day usage in the club. A picture of said bench is shown above.

I passed it on to the powers that be, confident in the knowledge that they would buy a couple and ditch the other benches.

Stupid, stupid me!

I hadn't bargained on the health and safety Gestapo.

The club will not be buying my suggested benches.

For why?

These are made by a garden furniture company, as such they are for the garden not a changing room.

The fact that a seat is a seat, is a seat does not matter to the health and safety Gestapo. What matters is that the seat must come from a leisure furniture manufacturer, not a garden furniture manufacturer.

The fact that the product is of good quality, ideal for the changing rooms, safe and perfectly serviceable/reliable does not come in to it.

Only products "authorised" by the health and safety Gestapo can be used, even though the current benches are unsafe/unstable and the ones I suggested are perfectly safe.

Another avenue of commonsense and freedom of choice closed off by the health and safety Gestapo.

By the way, this is the same club that banned fresh fruit this time last year on "health and safety" grounds.

I am thoroughly sick to death of the health and safety Gestapo.

Wasting Our Money

Nanny loves to spend money on her pet projects and ill thought out schemes, especially when its our money.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a damning report on Nanny's pathfinder housing market renewal programme, launched in 2002 by our old friend the Smooth Talking Bar Steward.



The "plan" was designed to revive nine areas in the Midlands and the North of England, which had suffered long-standing deprivation.

Unfortunately, as with so many of Nanny's "plans", it was utter bollocks.

The NAO found that despite £2.2BN of OUR money being committed to the scheme, it could find no "causal" link between pathfinder activity and improvements in housing markets.

That's accountant/audit speak for saying that it didn't work.

Although conditions had improved in some neighbourhoods, in others it had led to increased stress in the short term.

Under the programme, 40,000 homes have been refurbished and 1,100 new homes built. About 10,200 properties have also been demolished. In a number of areas there has been opposition to demolition projects and the original plans to demolish 90,000 properties have been reduced to 57,100.

Sir John Bourn departing head of the NAO (who managed to spend a large sum of our money on his and his wife's personal "business" expenses...that's another story folks, which I will cover at a later date) said:

"Housing market renewal is a radical programme

but it is a high-risk approach.

While there have been physical improvements

in some neighbourhoods, it is unclear whether

intervention itself has led to improvement

in the problems of low demand.

And in some cases intervention has

exacerbated problems in the short-term."

Nanny doesn't get it:

• You cannot create demand, where there is none to be created.



• You cannot buck the market.



• You cannot force people to live in areas that they don't want to live in, unless of course you are a dictatorship.



• Throwing money at a problem does not work.

However, it's not Nanny's money and she doesn't give a fark!

The Law is An Arse

Can any please tell me how, in any right minded society, this absurd claim should be allowed to go anywhere near a sensible court?

Graham Hall, a convicted murderer who sexually assaulted his 76 year old victim as she lay dying after receiving over 50 stab wounds, is demanding £50K in compensation because he has had to "slop out" his prison toilet as a result of a breakdown in the plumbing.

In this odious little man's view, this experience is a breach of his human rights.

Hall has been given permission by a judge to sue The Ministry of Justice, and is thought to be receiving legal aid.

A Ministry of Justice source said:

"His case is a test case,

and if successful,

it will allow 40 other prisoners to make similar claims.

All prisoners have toilets which work properly

and there is no slopping out.

But if the night sanitation system fails,

they cannot be let out of their cells

because some of them are too dangerous.

When a toilet breaks down in a home in the UK,

people will use a bucket of water to slop out

until they can get it fixed.

They don't sue."

When people lose all respect for the law, society breaks down.

Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be truly mad!

Cold Calling

Those of you who have to endure the modern day pestilence of cold calling may enjoy this article, that I wrote today, about a particular company called Contact4 (click the link to read the article).

You will be pleased to know that I have forwarded it to the Treasury Select Committee, the Information Commissioner's Office and various financial journals, with the express recommendation that those who claim to regulate our financial markets do something about these companies.

Prats of The Week

It has been a while since I have awarded my prestigious, and much sought after, "Prats of The Week" Award. The time is now right to make another award.

This week it goes to my old friends at Croydon Council (I seem to recall awarding them this a while ago, once in August and once in June, something of a hat trick now).

Anyhoo, what have they been up to this time I hear you ask.

Well they have created an online site that is truly barking mad, and a complete waste of money.

The venerable citizens of my fine borough can now report a barking dog to the council online, yes that's right, online!

Just pop along to the special website (Report a Barking Dog), click on the location of the dog by entering co-ordinates or using the map, and Bob's your uncle!

You then have a number of pages to fill in; where you can attach pictures, log barking times etc etc.

A snoop's paradise!

Needless to say, I can guarantee that nothing of any consequence will happen. After all, will not the annoying mutt simply have moved on by the time the dog barking patrol arrives?

I would also venture to suggest that this is a very nice entree for the council to start other online "report your neighbour" sites eg; noisy neighbours, arguing neighbours, smelly neighbours the list is endless.

Nanny wants to encourage us all to start reporting on each other, a very dangerous road to travel.

Croydon Council, well deserving Prats of The Week

Those of you who would like to learn more about my borough, should visit:

-www.croydoniscrap.com

-www.catarena.org

Nanny Bans Santa

Nanny, as we all know, hates fat people. In her view they are slow witted, lazy, greedy and cost far too much to keep alive.

Far better that everyone looks like Nanny, a shrivelled bitter excuse for a human being with no "joie de vivre".

Anyhoo, Nanny has realised that people are best manipulated by the use of role models. As such she knows that with the coming season of gorging and drinking soon to be upon us (Christmas), she needs to tackle the hero of indulgence and jollity ie Santa.

When Nanny looks at Santa, she does not see a jolly gentleman in a red suit, she sees a fat person who is far too happy for his own good. Therefore she is putting him on an enforced diet.

Santa has been told to lose weight, or be banned from shopping centres at Christmas. Yes I kid you not, Nanny doesn't want children sitting on the laps of fat red faced men anymore; she wants them sitting on the laps of gaunt pasty faced men.

Nanny's lackeys at the Bluewater shopping centre in Greenhithe, have set up a Santa boot camp; where Santa will work out.

Fiona Campbell-Reilly, spokeswoman at the shopping centre, said:

"Santa has been around for years,

but society has changed and our Santa needs to reflect this.

Bluewater's Santa Boot Camp is getting Santa

in shape and setting a good example

to children who idolise him.

He will still be the same lovable jolly man,

but will be fitter and healthier."

Utter bollocks!

Society has not changed, Nanny is trying to change society; that is not the same thing.

Christmas is for wants, not needs!

Grave Concern

The Health and Safety Gestapo strike again, this time not content with interfering with the living they are now interfering with the dead.

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo have been running an ongoing campaign (I first commented on this issue in January 2005) to force families to pay to shore up gravestones deemed "dangerous" by our "old friends" our "respected" local councils.

Needless to say, you can see why Nanny is so keen to interfere here; it's not the safety or otherwise of these gravestones, but the fact Nanny sees the opportunity for a nice little earner for herself and her lackeys.

John Mann has seen through Nanny's scheming and notes, quite rightly, that no-one has been killed by falling headstones in churchyards in the past 10 years.

Yet families are being strong armed into paying local councils money, based on the results of our "old friend" the risk assessment.

Pass the sick bag someone!

The Local Government Association (LGA), needless to say, claim that the money is needed (well they would, wouldn't they?). An LGA spokesman said that most cemeteries are owned by local authorities, and "in the majority of cases" those authorities had covered the cost of making headstones safe.

Where the owners of plots had been charged "these costs are reasonable and it would be unfair to generalise from one authority alone".

Headstones are made safe by "staking" (not something you see in a Hammer film), in which wooden stakes are driven into the ground next to the headstones to prevent them toppling over.

Mr Mann paid for an independent "topple test" at a graveyard in his Bassetlaw constituency, the result indicated that 95% of headstone staking is unnecessary.

The reason that so many "topple tests" are showing up safety problems is that they are contracted out to private companies, who have a financial incentive to deem everything unsafe.

Mr Mann, all credit to him, is now planning on becoming an accredited gravestone "topple tester" so that he can independently check whether head stones need to be shored up.

As he said:

"These things simply don't fall on people.

There is much more chance of people dying

on their way to church."

As ever with "health and safety" rules, an entire industry has sprung up intent on screwing the public for every penny that it has got; aided and abetted by local councils, who take a nice percentage for themselves.

It is time that we rid ourselves of local councils, who add nothing but extra costs and administrative burdens to the daily lives of the people of Britain.

Nanny Bans Bonfires

Remember Remember

The 5th of November

Gun Powder Treason and Plot etc


Tis Guy Fawkes night and, as is tradition, thousands of homes across the country will be preparing bonfires and fireworks parties to celebrate the disemboweling and burning to death of a 17th century terrorist.

Halcyon days!

To be fair, the tradition of bonfire lighting goes back many more centuries than just the 17th. Bonfires were used in the bleak mid winter months to cheer people up, and to celebrate good news.

However, we live in 21st century Nanny Britain now; as such it should come as no surprise that Nanny's minions in her local councils disapprove of such frivolity.

Nanny's chums in Slough Borough Council have banned bonfires and burning Guys from its 5th November celebrations.

What is wrong with burning the effigy of someone who is dead?

There are many countries in the world where effigies of people, who are still alive, are burnt on an almost daily basis.

Anyhoo, Nanny's trolls in Slough Borough Council claim that the polluting effects of smoke would go against its environmental policies, but said rather perversely that it would still display fireworks.

Now tell me I am stupid, but aren't the sulphurous emissions from fireworks equally polluting?

There are some cynics out there who do not believe Slough's rather dodgy explanation, the cynics claim that the change has been ordered so as not to exclude ethnic minorities.

Frankly, if that is true, it sounds a bit half baked to me.

The council have denied the charge, and said the decision was based on environmental concerns alone.

Councillor Dexter Smith, the council's commissioner for planning, said there was a "responsibility to look after our environment and reduce our carbon footprint".

One night, one bonfire!

Seriously, how much of a difference will that make to the world?

It's our farking cultural heritage to set fire to things!

Happy Bonfire Night folks!

Nanny Is Mother Nanny Is Father

It seems that Nanny has few views on what constitutes a "good" parent, as Vincent and Pauline Matherick found this week. They have fostered 28 children, but have had their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

They are practising Christians who are worried that the agreement would force them to promote homosexuality.

The 11 year old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

They became foster parents in 2001, but no longer.

Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Nanny's Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Nanny told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11, and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

Mr Matherick said:

"I simply could not agree to do it

because it is against my central beliefs.

We have never discriminated against anybody

but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality

when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

An extra 8,000 foster parents are needed to fill the gaps in the service.

I am not in the slightest bit religious, I don't care for religions very much and don't believe in God.

I don't like bigotry.

However, the Mathericks don't come across bigoted and it seems that commonsense has been thrown out of the window in the interests of policy.

How does this help the 11 year old?

Nanny will be taking the same line with biological parents next.

Dick Headed Useless Knobheads

Normally I would consider awarding my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award in a case like this. However, having re read it I can only conclude that Broxbourne council has gone way beyond the "prat" stage.

Stan and Jean Chatterton, of Hoddesdon, Herts, have regularly cleaned up fallen crab apples from the grass verge outside their home. They do this in order to prevent them going rotten and becoming a hazard.

Unfortunately, they have reckoned without the interfering jackboot of the local council.

Why do we put up with these useless bodies?

What good do they actually do?

Anyhoo, Broxbourne council have issued an edict to Mr and Mrs Chatterton telling them to stop cleaning up the verge; because if they kept the area tidy themselves, the local authority's cleaning contractors would not know how often to cut the grass.

Eh???

No, I don't understand that either!

Mrs Chatterton said:

"We have been told off for keeping it tidy.

I just don't understand it."

Broxbourne council's edict states:

"Due to the maintenance being carried out by yourself,

we are unable to monitor the frequency

we need to cut the area.

We therefore ask if you would refrain

from maintaining this land from now on."

Total bollocks!

As Mr Chatterton says, the council can simply look at the grass elsewhere to see when they need to cut it.

Clearly the reason stated by the council is utter knobheaded bollocks. The real reason is probably that the Chattertons may now need public liability insurance to carry on maintaining the verge, and the council are too shit scared to admit this.

Useless dick headed knobheads!

Drop the council a note and tell them I said hi: Knobheads.

Duck Off!

Oh dear Nanny has got her knickers in a right old twist over the very harmless habit of feeding the ducks.

Now we all know that to eat, or roll around in duck shit is probably a bad idea. It is fair to say that even the most mentally challenged of us could have worked that out for themselves.

Unfortunately, for the ducks, Nanny doesn't think we are that bright. As such Oakley and Deane Parish Council have banned the feeding of ducks in the local pond.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council chairman Councillor John Strawbridge said:

"The pond has always been popular with locals

and an attractive feature of Oakley.

We don't want to be killjoys and we'd like

to encourage people to carry on enjoying it,

but feeding the ducks puts a strain on its entire eco-system".

He then went on to fret about the bread being bad for the ducks.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council admit that they have little proof to back up their ban. Indeed, common sense would dictate that if ducks didn't like the bread, then they wouldn't eat it.

Hilary Box, 75, who had a contract for 22 years to feed the ducks, thinks the whole idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"The sign says that feeding bread to ducks

can be bad for them but I think we have the

healthiest ducks in the world.

The bread does not appear to have done

them any harm and they haven't suffered over the years.

Feeding ducks is part of the English way of life,

it's part of the heritage to come to the local

pond with some bread. "

For fark's sake, it's a 400 year old village pond with a few ducks!

Doubtless it has been there longer, without causing any harm, than those on the Parish Council.

Another fine example of a useless interfering council, that adds zero value to people's lives.

Someone should ban the feeding of local councillors!