Nanny Bans Orals

Oh dear, Nanny seems to have got herself a little worked up over the practice of "orals".

Yes, I mean oral exams in a foreign language!

Nanny is worried that the orals are way too stressful for little "Timmy" and "Jocasta", and as such they might have to be abolished.

I well remember at the tender age of 15 waiting nervously outside the interview room for my French oral (no sniggering please!). I had run through all the possible permutations re Q&A's wrt ordering a meal in a restaurant, and what I did on holiday.

Needless to say the best laid plans of mice and Ken went awry that day, the examiner chose to discuss what I liked to do in my free time.

Curses!

Suffice to say I made a bold attempt to direct my limited conversational French towards my free time enjoyment of ordering food in restaurants and going on holiday.

I gained a "C" grade in French at O Level, as my Form master often remarked "Lads, don't have an orgasm if you get a 'C' in French O Level, it means you can't speak the language".

Wise words indeed!

Anyhoo, it has been reported that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority might adopt a recommendation to rely on teacher assessments instead of orals in response to a review of language teaching by Lord Dearing.

The review said one-off oral tests were not a reliable guide to ability.

Lord Dearing's report warned that the stress of oral exams might deter young people from signing up to take languages.

Quote:

"It is interesting that when people spoke about the oral test, that however long ago it may have been, it is often remembered as a stressful experience.

We therefore proposed that these parts of the examination should be over a period through moderated teacher assessment."

Yes, of course it's stressful, all interviews are stressful.

That is the reality of life!

We do not serve children well if we constantly seek to shield them from the harsh and unpleasant realities of life, and wrap them in cotton wool.

However, it seems that Nanny has not yet decided as to whether the orals will be banned; coming to a decision, it seems, is too stressful for her.

Poor Old Boris!

Nice to see that Nanny's police have nothing better to do with their time!

Read the Mystery of The Disappearing Cigar Case.

Nanny Bans Running

I understand that a school in my own delightful town of Croydon has banned children from running in the playground.

Why?

Health and Safety!

I do not know which idiotic school has done this, can anyone point me in the right direction please?

Thanks.

Nanny Bans Happy Meals

Oh dear oh dear, Nanny's minions running what they believe to be the people's republic of Liverpool clearly have far too much time on their hands.

Liverpool council have taken umbrage at McDonalds over their "Happy Meals".

Seemingly the children of Liverpool are exceedingly fat, and the council are blaming McDonalds and their Happy Meals for this. According to Nanny the fact that Happy Meals offer a small toy, is the cause of Liverpudlian kids buying all those "nasty" Happy Meals which are making them fat.

As such, Nanny's chums on the council (in the "Scrutiny Group", how very sinister and Orwellian) want to introduce a by-law banning the sale of fast food accompanied by toys.

Lib-Dem councillor Paul Twigger said:

"The Scrutiny Group is recommending that a by-law be enforced to stop the circulation of free toys associated with junk food promotions.

We consider it is high time that McDonald's are challenged over their marketing policies which are directly aimed at promoting unhealthy eating among children.

Childhood obesity is a dire threat to health in this country and it needs to be nipped in the bud.

I am not impressed that McDonald's have introduced so-called healthy options to its menu.

Children are directly targeted with junk food and McDonald's use the Happy Meals to exploit the pester power of children, against which many parents give in.

In most Happy Meals, the toy is sold with a burger along with high-calorie fries and milkshakes.

This kind of junk food is habit-forming and the Happy Meals are cynically aimed at younger children."

Isn't it funny how the "Liberal Democrats" are more often than not anything but "liberal" or "democratic" in their actions and desires?

Maybe they should change their name to something that more accurately reflects their true feelings?

Any suggestions?

OK folks, here's why this idea is bollocks:

1 The fatness or otherwise of the children of Liverpool is the responsibility of their parents, not the state.

2 The fat kids will be eating all sorts of shit, Happy Meals are not the prime cause of their obesity

3 We live in a free market economy, people can buy what the fark they like; and companies can market their products in any way that they see fit (so long as it is not misleading)

4 Free toys and gifts etc have been included with products (eg cornflakes etc) for decades; they have not been the cause of "fatness" before, and are not the cause of "fatness" in this case.

Nanny should keep her nose out, we have the right as consumers to buy what the fark we want!

Physician Heal Thyself II

You know how those in the butcher's profession having been whining at us for a while now about how much we eat, smoke and drink?

Scarcely a day goes by when a doctor isn't haranguing us in the media about our lives, and demanding that Nanny takes some action to curtail our personal freedoms.

Well, it seems that there has been a little bit of hypocrisy going on, the butcher's profession (which has more than its fair share of drunks and drug addicts) in fact has been asking for the licence on one of its own bars to be extended into the wee small hours.

The British Medical Association has applied for an extension to the drinks licence at its headquarters, BMA House Tavistock Square in Camden.

The BMA wants the bar to stay open until 1AM.

Now, the funny thing is, only last week the BMA was berating Nanny for failing to tackle binge drinking and the evils of extended opening hours.

From the horse doctor's mouth:

"There is strong evidence that increased opening hours are associated with increased alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems."

The butcher's profession should remember that its role in life is to heal, not to act as social engineers.

Nanny Bans Mosquito Again

You will recall that way back in April 2006 I wrote about a rather nifty little device that helps dispel annoying anti social groups of teenagers and youths, who hang around in groups around shop doorways etc.

The device is known as the "Mosquito" and works by emitting a high-frequency sound that irritates youths, but not the rest of the population.

A rather nifty and clever idea, given that all other methods that adults once used to move anti social teenagers on (eg a clip around the ear) have been banned.

Unfortunately Nanny still doesn't like it.

Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commissioner for England appointed to represent the views of the country's 11 million children, wants it banned. He has started a campaign, called Buzz Off, asking for the Mosquito to be banned on grounds that it infringes the rights of young people.

Sir Albert says:

"These devices are indiscriminate and target all children and young people, including babies, regardless of whether they are behaving or misbehaving.

The use of measures such as these are simply demonising children and young people, creating a dangerous and widening divide between the young and the old.

This device is a quick fix. It's not tackling the root of the problem and it's indiscriminate."

I agree.

However, until parents are forced to take responsibility for removing their anti social offspring from the streets at night and during the day, and the police start to act as police (instead of telling the public to "have a go" - just like Gary Newlove did) what else are people meant to do?

It is all very well whining about the rights of youths and teens, but what about the rights of the rest of the population when confronted with anti social teens etc?

Make the parents take responsibility for their anti social offspring, and then there will be no need for the Mosquito.

-Curfew the entire family, ie put them under semi house arrest

-Remove the family's TVs, mobile phones, DVD's, iPods etc

-Cut/stop their benefits (or fine them if they are not on benefits)

The Health Giving Properties of Fast Food

You know how Nanny keeps telling us all how dangerous and unhealthy fast food is?

Well, I think she is talking bollocks!

I went out last night with my neighbour, and consumed an "elegant sufficiency" of alcohol in "The Dog and Bull".

Had we not then purchased and consumed a bargain bucket from the good people of Colonel Sanders, I would have felt like shit today.

Having consumed my share of the bucket (which was unctuous by the way), I feel absolutely tiptop this morning!

Nanny clearly doesn't know what she is talking about.

Let's hear it for the Colonel!

Rendition Airways

How nice to see Nanny apologising, for once, over something that she said that she said that was based on "incorrect" information.

Nanny has been very embarrassed, and a tad pissed off with her chums in the Bush administration, over the revelation that previous denials about the US using British airports for rendition flights were in fact bollocks.

Can you guess what the problem was?

Yes, that's right; seemingly the US has been using British airports for rendition flights!

Gosh, what a surprise!

David Millipede, Nanny's foreign secretary, told MPs that contrary to "earlier explicit assurances" two flights landed at Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean territory where the US has a large air base, in 2002. He said the flights had been mistakenly overlooked in previous US internal inquiries carried out at the UK's behest.

Ah, "mistakenly overlooked"; yes that must be the reason for the earlier denials!

Seemingly the US only found out about the renditions when CIA flight crews were interviewed directly. John Bellinger, chief legal adviser in the US state department, said CIA officials were now "as confident as they can be" that no other detainees had been flown through Britain on secret rendition flights over the past six years of America's so called "war on terror".

Great, so that's alright then isn't it?

Errmmm...could Nanny possibly answer one teeny weeny question please?

If this has only just come to light, how come I wrote about rendition way back in July 2006, and took the piss out of it in December 2005?

-Was I in a time warp?

-Am I member of the CIA?

I don't think so!

I wrote about it because the whole farking world knew that rendition was being conducted using British bases, it was only Nanny and her chums in "W's" administration that chose to deny it!

What else is Nanny not telling us?

A lot more is going to come out about this.

Nanny's Secret Child Snatchers

Were I to tell you that there is a country in the world where people can have their children taken away from them by the state, without a public hearing and where the protagonists are instructed by the state not to talk publicly about it to even their MP; what would you think?

You would, I assume, think that I was talking about some far off foreign country.

Unfortunately, if today's piece in The Times is anything to go by, this "foreign country" is in fact Britain.

Here is an extract:

"A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret.

The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates.

A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up."

This is patently wrong, aside from the damage being done to the family and the children, people cannot have confidence in either the state or the law if the state and its lackeys act in secret.

The Lights Are Going Out All Over Britain

Nanny's chums, in her "beloved" local councils, are forever looking for ways to save money.

Nothing wrong with that, except that:

1 Our council tax bills just keep rising, irrespective of "savings"

2 One major cost, defined benefit pensions for all council staff, is never touched

Anyhoo, Nanny's local councils have come up with a jolly wheeze to save some money; they are going to start turning off street lamps.

Needless to say, Nanny is also keen to emphasise the "green" "benefits" of this "initiative".

How funny that "green" is the new mantra of our lords and masters in the councils. Do not fall for that, it is merely a good excuse for them to brow beat us and impose more rules, regulations and taxes.

Councils in certain parts of the country are experimenting with turning off some street lights, the trials are ad hoc - each is doing it differently.

• Buckinghamshire has selected sites that are "low-risk" and has added solar road studs, extra signs and road markings.



• Gloucestershire County Council will be turning off 36% of its lighting part-time, but not on main traffic routes or areas of high crime.



• Essex is carrying out "part-night lighting" trials in Maldon District and in Uttlesford.

Nanny may need to be reminded of a little piece of history; gas street lights were first introduced to the UK in 1807, in response to people's fears about safety and the need to actually see where they were going.

When the blackouts were in place (1914/18 and 1939/45) the level of crime (robberies, rapes, assaults etc) and accidents skyrocketed.

Would Nanny and her chums in the councils care to tell us why, in 2008, things are going to be different if we are put back to blackout conditions?

The Police Superintendents' Association thinks that the idea is bollocks, and says that good street lighting deters crime and reduces accidents.

To paraphrase Sir Edward Gray, on the eve of the First World War:

"The lights are going out all over Britain, they may not be lit again in my lifetime."

Look what happened to the country as a result of that disaster!

Big Brother - HMRC

I suggest that you read this article about HMRC's new bugging powers, if you really want to scare yourselves:

Big Brother - HMRC.

Our freedom is being eroded at an alarming rate.

Licenced To Smoke II

Those of you with reasonably unaddled brains may well recall that, back in October, I warned you all of Nanny's plans to issue licences to people who wished to smoke.

The loon behind those plans was Professor Julian Le Grand.

Well, some five months on, the professor (who, much like syphilis, refuses to go away) is making national headlines.

In a rare departure from NKB policy here is a link to the BBC story.

Here is 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.

Wrt Nanny's use of the phrase "stakeholders".

What a load of mumbo jumbo bureaucratic double speak shite.

Why don't these tossers speak English?

Educashun - Nanny Fails Again

Nanny loves to waste money, especially when it's not hers.

It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has burned her way through more than £1BN, in her pathetic attempt at social engineering and recruiting students from disadvantaged homes to attend university.

Guess how many students this £1BN has bought.

A meagre 5,300!

Universities' intake of students classed as having "working class" backgrounds has crept up only fractionally.

Those of you with hangovers, who cannot do the maths, will be interested to learn that the money spent by Nanny comes to a stonking £211,500 per additional "working class" student sent to university.

Money well spent!

A Nice Little Earner - Bin Brother

Nanny has found another nice way to screw us for money, that's nice!

Nanny has instructed local councils to fine householders for putting out a single bag of rubbish at the wrong time.

Nanny has produced an "enforcement manual" (pass the sick bag someone), which will be distributed to local councils. The manual instructs local councils to implement a "zero tolerance" policy on waste collection.

On-the-spot penalties of around £100 must be levied on those who leave their rubbish out early, or fail to close the lid of their wheelie bin properly.

Oh yes, this is going to go down so well!

So far, Nanny has fined 44,000 people £100 for "crimes" such as leaving their rubbish out on the wrong day or putting out black bags next to their wheelie bins.

The Government manual claims a single bag left out for a few days at the end of the road can attract other litter as well as rats, foxes and seagulls.

The Environment Department document advises bin inspectors (bin inspectors!!!!!!!????) that:

"A single full bin bag upwards would constitute a fly-tip."

Nanny is well aware that people are going to be pissed off, and has given some "helpful" advice to her lackeys in the local councils.

The document tells bin enforcers to be alert for the signs a person is getting angry.

According to the Environment Department, these include "changes in breathing patterns, the throbbing vein in the temple, the opening and closing of their fist, increased tension in the face or body".

The document advises staff:

"Let them know that this behaviour is not acceptable, e.g. 'I am not prepared to carry on this interview whilst you are calling me a w***er and a jobsworth. Are you prepared to stop doing this/I am requesting that you stop this behaviour'."

It adds:

"You will probably meet plenty of barrack room lawyers when you are going about your duties.

As a matter of course, you will technically be interfering with an individual's freedom, but this is not the same as infringing their human rights.

After a confrontation, staff are told that it is "important to offload what has happened".

"You can do this by screaming and shouting (in a safe place)."

If this wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

As Nanny says herself, this is interfering with our freedom.

How are your throbbing veins?

The Wrong Arm of The Law

I have to say that even my cynical, cold calculating mind was somewhat gobsmacked when I read this story.

It shows just how paranoid the Nanny state has become, and the dangers that we now all face from our own government.

Darren Nixon, a 28 year old mechanic from Stoke on Trent, was listening to his MP3 player whilst waiting for a bus.

Nanny has so managed to instill a sense of fear and panic in some of our fellow citizens that a somewhat hysterical female passer-by saw what she thought was a gun, it was of course the MP3 player.

She called the police, who duly tracked Mr Nixon using CCTV. When he got off the bus home from work he was surrounded by a firearms unit, who bundled him into a van.

He was then put in a cell and his fingerprints, DNA and mugshots were taken before he was released.

I would venture to suggest that no more than 30 seconds after arresting him should police have worked out that the "gun" was in fact an MP3 player.

Therefore why did they insist on taking his photo and DNA details?

It should be noted that Mr Nixon's DNA, picture and prints will be forever held on Nanny's nasty little database; leaving him with a "criminal" record.

Nanny's police will also keep on record that he was arrested on suspicion of a firearms offence.

How is that right?

Mr Nixon said:

"It was unreal – I had a completely clean record before this and have always been a law-abiding citizen.

As I got closer, I could see that two of the cops had guns. My heart was racing a mile a minute. One of them was hiding behind a car door, looking down his sight at me, and the other was shouting orders and pointing a gun at me.

I turned the music off and they were telling me to put my hands up in the air."

A spokesman for Nanny said:

"An operation was put in place and a man matching the description was detained."

No hint of an apology, or explanation as to why Nanny will keep his DNA etc on her database.

Yes, the police were right to check out the 999 call. However, as already noted, within 30 seconds of arresting Mr Nixon they could verify he was not in possession of a weapon.

Why did they proceed with taking his prints, photo and DNA?

Something is very seriously wrong in Britain now.

The state should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the state!

Ideas Above His Station

Clearly Ken Leninspart (Mayor of London) has got ideas above his station.

His recent decree that he will impose a "congestion charge" of £25 per "4*4", in order to limit noxious fumes and "save the environment", may all be very well and good were his role in life as London's Mayor to save the planet.

However, it is not.

The aim of the "congestion charge" is to reduce the amount of traffic in London. A "4*4" takes up the same room, more or less, as any other car.

This £25 charge goes beyond the concept of "congestion" control.

Mayor Ken, like all of Nanny's acolytes, has gotten beyond himself.

That of course does not matter to Nanny, £25 is a nice little earner!

McA Levels

There is a delicious irony in the news that McDonald's, purveyor of all things that Nanny hates, will award their own qualifications equal to GCSEs, A levels and degrees, in subjects such as fast-food restaurant management.

Ever keen to be in the limelight, Gordon "Smiler" Brown is even backing the initiative.

How hypocritical and how very typical of this government!

Those with Nannyish tendencies who criticise McDonald's for doing this should remember this; now that we as a country have abandoned any pretence of being involved in manufacturing, this is as close as anyone will get these days to an apprenticeship.

The Dead Hand of Bureacracy - Red Tape

It should come as no surprise to any sensible thinking person that the more red tape and bureaucracy, the less inclined people are to try to wade their way through it.

Needless to say, Nanny and her acolytes don't view the world in this way. They have an inherent love of bureaucracy and form filling; in fact they positively delight in making things as complicated as possible.

Baroness Julia Neuberger, the chairwoman of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, recognises this problem. She recently stated that a fundamental shake-up is needed to make volunteering "part of the DNA of our society".

The commission's report calls for barriers to be removed to help develop volunteering. Seemingly, and this is not surprising, people are being put off from volunteering because of the mass of paperwork that has to be completed in order for them to volunteer.

Baroness Neuberger said:

"Our vision is a society where volunteering is part of our DNA so that – by giving time – we enrich our own lives and those of others. But, at the moment too many people are being put off.

Many people come forward to offer their time and skills, but red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy get in the way.

It is time to rethink the obsession with any risks that might be involved and to remove financial obstacles which many people experience when they try to volunteer. We also need to avoid time-consuming criminal record checks, unless volunteers are working with children or vulnerable adults."

She is right, Nanny has a very unhealthy obsession with risk.

The commission's report, Manifesto for Change, said that the best thing that Nanny could do was to support volunteering by "non-interference" and resisting the temptation to develop new initiatives.

Fat chance!

Nanny's Cabinet Office spokesman said:

"We welcome this final report from the commission. We will consider its recommendations carefully and respond to it comprehensively in February."

Here is a small heads up for you; whenever a bureaucrat, politician or company director uses the phrase:

"We welcome this report..."

be assured that what they mean is they hate the fact that you have pointed something out that they wanted kept quiet, and will now do everything they can to obfuscate and delay.

Of Mice and Men

Jim Knight, Nanny's schools minister, is drawing up plans to require and enable parents to provide their children with high-speed internet access.

Knight is working with a.o. Microsoft, BT, Sky, Virgin and RM to help close the widening achievement gap between pupils from the richest and poorest families.

Seemingly over one million children have no access to a computer at home.

The drive for online access is part of Nanny's plans to have parents of every secondary school student given access to continuous online updates on their child's lessons, performance and behaviour as early as next year.

Knight wants IT firms to bring down the cost of equipment, so that internet connections are in effect made compulsory for nearly six million children.

Quote:

"We need to get to a point where in the same way when they start school the expectation is you've [the parent] got to find a school uniform, provide them with something to write with and probably these days a calculator, and in secondary school some sports gear - well, you add to that some IT.

Obviously you need to make that affordable, you need to make that universal otherwise you just advantage those who can afford it. To some extent that's the case at the moment, where 50% of homes have got IT broadband, but they are hugely powerful educational tools ... we know from the research evidence the difference that information technology can make."

That's all very well, but shouldn't Nanny and the parents be focussing on ensuring that the kids can read and write basic English first, before launching them into cyberspace?

Nanny Bans White Men

Nanny really has something of a bee in her bonnet about social engineering. She can't resist trying to mould society into the shape and form that she thinks it should be.

The trouble is that her meddling is not based on any form of logic or common sense, and does immeasurable harm to society and its cohesiveness.

Seemingly, in Nanny's view, there are just too many white men working as firemen (sorry, "firepersons"). The fact that if your house is burning down, you wouldn't give a stuff as to the sexual/genetic make up of the people trying to save you and your house has escaped Nanny.

To this end, Nanny's chums in Avon Fire Service recently held some "open" days for recruiting more people to the force. The trouble is that these "open" days were not quite so "open".

Why?

Avon Fire Service banned white men from attending them.

Why?

The trolls who run Avon Fire service are worried about their "diversity" targets, and restricted the "open" days to women and ethnic minorities.

Two of the six-hour sessions have been limited to women and ethnic minorities. Another was for women only and a fourth was laid on exclusively for ethnic minorities.

How farking stupid and patronising!

How exactly does this absurd ban help the community, women or ethnic minorities?

Kevin Pearson, the brigade's chief officer, said:

"It is my concern to improve diversity so the service reflects the community it serves and we can provide the best possible service."

No!

Your job is to put fires out!

Avon was aiming for 15% of its staff to be female, and 3% to come from ethnic minorities.

What about targets for reducing the number of fires?

Utter madness!

"I'm the bad guy?"

Happy Lunar New Year

The team at Nanny Knows Best would like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Lunar New Year.

A Rat Year is a time of hard work, activity, and renewal. This is a good year to begin a new job, get married, launch a product or make a fresh start.

The Rat year is a year of plenty, bringing opportunity and good prospects. It will be marked by speculation and fluctuations in the prices of commodities and the stock market; the world economy in general will boom.

Business will be on the upswing, fortunes can be made and it will be an easy time to accumulate wealth.

However, this is also the time to make long-term investment plans as the bonanza the year of the Rat brings will serve to see us through the bleak years that may follow.

All ventures begun at this time will be successful, if one prepares well.

Have it large!

Ken

Be warned, the following video features a cat smoking a cigarette.

The Dangers of Eggs - Update

This just in:

"Dear Mr Frost,

Many thanks for sending me the link to the blog.

It appears that you disagree with the TV advertising code which all TV advertising should comply with. Clearcast is not responsible for its wording, and you therefore may want to raise your concern with those responsible.

Kind regards,

Kristoffer Hammer

Kristoffer Hammer | Editorial Standards Manager
Clearcast Ltd
2nd Floor | 4 Roger Street | London | WC1N 2JX"

The Dangers of Eggs

Those of you with long memories may well recall that fine old series of adverts (featuring Tony Hancock) "Go to Work on an Egg".

However, times change, and since then Nanny in her many guises (the rot set in with Eggwina Currie) has been lecturing us about the evils of eggs (aside from their "binding qualities", they are harmless).

I don't know why she has got such an antipathy towards them, they are:

1 An excellent source of protein

2 Cheap

3 Versatile

4 Tasty

5 Easy to store and cook

Nanny would have us believe that they are a dangerous source of cholesterol.

This is of course bollocks.

Anyhoo, Nanny has got herself into a right old state over a proposed advert for eggs by Noble Foods that uses children's voices.

The advertisers want to use the children's song, "Chick, chick, chick, chick, chicken, lay a little egg for me".

Nothing wrong with that is there?

WRONG!!!!!

Nanny's trolls in the advertising watchdog Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (a little known body, that is only notable for having banned last year's revival of the Hancock egg adverts...can you see a pattern here folks?) are very upset about the whole thing and have banned it.

Their rationale?

Using children's voices was outside the television standards code, even though no children actually appear in the advert.



Kristoffer Hammer, from BACC, said that BACC allowed children under some circumstances to feature in egg adverts, but their voices could not be used to "promote" omega 3 eggs, a concept that most children would not be interested in.

Noble Foods spokesman, Finn Cottle, said:

"We're beginning to suspect that the BACC has a vendetta against eggs."

Indeed she has Mr Cottle!

I can only assume that when she was a child Nanny suffered some form of egg related trauma, which has left her scarred for life. If not, she should have done!

Last year, you will recall, BACC banned the Tony Hancock advert.

Why?

It featured him eating two eggs for breakfast.

BACC said that this promoted an unbalanced diet.

My message to BACC is simple:

FARK OFF!!!

Breeda McBrearty, a nutritionist, quite rightly thinks that BACC is talking out of it own backside. She said that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that children should not enjoy eggs as part of a healthy diet.

Those of you wishing to drop Kristoffer Hammer of BACC a line, with your thoughts on the matter, can email him here kristoffer.hammer@clearcast.co.uk

Take a trip down memory lane and watch BACC's banned Tony Hancock adverts here:

-Housekeeper

-Soul

-Burst Pipe

-Crossword

-Bill

-Englishman

-Star

-Violin

Maybe BACC will try and ban this site too?

Nanny Bans Pancakes Again

Happy Shrove Tuesday everyone!

Traditionally a day when people mix a batter of flour, eggs and milk and toss it frantically in a frying pan.

Well that was the tradition, until Nanny put her nose into things. Three years ago I wrote about Nanny banning pancakes, now she is up to her old tricks again.

The Shrove Tuesday annual pancake race in Ripon has been scrapped this year because of health and safety considerations.

The revived event (originally dating back 600 years) has been carried out for the last 11 years in modern times; with local children, traders, clergy and soldiers taking part.

Unfortunately, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo have put their size ten jackboots into the batter and have caused the event to be cancelled.

For why?

The Dean of Ripon, the Very Rev Keith Jukes, co-organiser of the races, explained:

"We have looked at this and there are a number of reasons it won't take place and a big reason sadly this year is health and safety.

Any organisation which runs an event has to go through a number of risk assessments. The insurance companies demand it and in the end you have to work out whether it's a risk you take.

There is also the whole issue of road closures which can be an expensive business."

Pass the sick bag someone!

A risk assessment for a pancake race?

The insurance companies, and councils that kowtow to them, are destroying the fabric of people's daily lives.

It is time that these two malign influences on our lives were cut out from society, in the manner that one would cut out a scrofulous tumour.

In order to really annoy Nanny, here is a nice recipe for Swedish pancakes; go on, live a little!

Ingredients

- 2 cups milk
- 4 eggs
- 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
- 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
- 3 tablespoons sugar
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- Lingonberries or raspberries
- Seedless raspberry jam or fruit spread, warmed Whipped topping

Preparation

In a blender, combine the first six ingredients. Cover and process until blended. Heat a lightly greased 8-in. nonstick skillet; pour 1/4 cup batter into centre of skillet. Lift and tilt pan to evenly coat bottom.

Cook until top appears dry; turn and cook 15-20 seconds longer. Repeat with remaining batter, adding oil to skillet as needed. Stack pancakes with waxed paper or paper towels in between. Reheat in the microwave if desired.

Fold pancakes into quarters; serve with berries, raspberry jam and whipped topping.

Please note it contains eggs, milk, salt and sugar...all the things that Nanny hates!

Happy Shrove Tuesday everyone!

Get tossing!

Fly Posting

Rules come first, commonsense comes last.

That's Nanny's golden rule, and she is not changing it for anyone.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that a charity bingo event in Misterton, a village in Somerset, recently came a cropper when it tried to advertise its existence by putting up some flyers on lamp posts.

The event, to raise money for children, was to be held down a rather off the beaten track lane; and the organisers wanted to make sure that people could find their way there. Therefore putting up a few flyers on lampposts seemed to be a good idea.

Wrong!

The local council were informed by someone with too much time on their hands about the fliers, and immediately ordered that they be taken down.

Paul Bradly, treasurer of the village hall committee, wrote to South Somerset District Council to complain.

Nanny's trolls on South Somerset District Council responded thus:

"It is not our intention to deprive the village of community events. It is just our duty to enforce legislation in regards to anti-social behaviour."

Ah yes, the old "I'm only obeying orders" response!

Mr Bradly was quite rightly unimpressed:

"The fliers drum up interest in an event. The more people find out about it the more will come and the more money will be raised.

How is that anti-social?

This is all just completely ridiculous. I personally don't understand the problem with it as long as they are taken down afterwards which they are.

It would be different if it was a profit-making business. But a local charity is not the same as a travelling circus putting up large banners.

How else would people find out about fundraising events?"

However, Mr Bradley has made the mistake of assuming that Nanny and her jobsworths in local councils use commonsense...they don't!

Rigid application of the petty rules and regulations is all that matters to these people.

For good measure, the council threatened to fine the village hall £75 for fly-posting.

A spokeswoman for South Somerset District Council said that charities should not consider themselves exempt from the law.

Quote:

"We have recently had a complaint from a resident about signs littering the countryside so we had to act upon it.

Putting signs up like this without gaining permission is illegal.

I'm afraid littering and acting illegally is considered a form of anti-social behaviour."

I can't say that I am particularly impressed with the sad individual who complained about this, but the council should have used some commonsense.

Commonsense, unfortunately, is in rather short supply these days in local councils.

The Lunchbox Inspectors

Oh dear, is there nothing that Nanny and her trolls won't poke their noses into?

Now it seems that dinner ladies could soon be used to monitor school lunchboxes, in order to ensure that children are eating healthy meals.

Under Nanny's "obesity strategy" (give me strength!), there are plans to force all schools to implement a "healthy lunchbox policy".

Good grief!

Seemingly parents may even be asked to sign a form agreeing to ban unhealthy foods from their children's lunches.

Nanny has also called on heads to stop children from leaving schoolgrounds during lunchtimes.

Well, I realise that schools are not places that any child wants to be in, but really....do we have to make them prison camps???

When I was a "nipper" my mum would make me a nice lunchbox containing a myriad of delights, eg:

-a thermos of soup
-a banana sandwich
-homemade crisps (with added salt and grated cheese)
-a chocolate cup cake, or Jaffa cakes

Nanny wouldn't have approved of much of that.

Even the soup was risky, one day I dropped the thermos and the vacuum glass interior broke. Being a thickheaded child I happily drank the contents anyway, wondering why there were silver bits in the soup.

When I came back home I told my mum about this, and she promptly rushed me off to the doctor.

"Don't worry Mrs Frost, they don't use mercury now and whatever he swallowed will come out later."

Look at me now...perfectly healthy, and fully functional!

As Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said:

"We don't need politicians to tell us what to put in our lunchboxes."

Quite!

Once Nanny has implemented this policy it will dawn on her that the kids' diet is dictated, in the main, by what they eat at home.

Next step, Nanny will be inspecting people's dining tables (yes, I know people don't use tables anymore!).

Nanny Bans Salt Again and Again

It's a funny old thing, but yonks ago (18th September 2004 to be precise) when I first started this website, my very first article was about Nanny's obsession with salt.

How times have changed!

Errrmmmm, well no they haven't.

Three and a half years on, Nanny is still going on about salt. Yesterday I wrote about saltshakers having their holes reduced in number (wouldn't it be easier just to block a few holes with sticky tape?).

Today I would like to advise you that one of Nanny's special little trolls wants to ban salt from the dining tables of people's homes.

Martin Wiseman, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathologists, has said that food should only be seasoned with pepper or herbs in order to reduce salt intakes to recommended levels.

Prof Wiseman said:

"Because salt is added by food manufacturers, there is too much of it in our food before it even reaches our dinner table. By adding extra salt to a meal, you are only making things worse."

Doesn't the "safe" dosage of salt rather depend on:

- how much water you drink?

- whether you are sweating a lot?

- how much ready made food, or fresh food you eat?

- your body mass?

- your age?

I would point out that when I was a wee nipper (about 6 years old) my mum used to buy blocks of crystallised sea salt. They were solid blocks, wrapped in blue paper, around 12 inches high by 4 inches square.

My task was to "shave" them into salt crystals for our salt pots etc.

Mum would give me a knife, and let me get on with the shaving.

Can you see two Nanny dangers here?

1 A child with a knife

2 A child with salt

Call the Nanny police!

I always enjoyed salt shaving, and would take a few chunks to munch on.

It never did me any harm, as you can see.

Blanket bans and blanket advice is meaningless.

As a professor he should know that.

Same old story, same old tune from Nanny!