Happy New Parking Rules Day!

Hip hip hooray it's new parking rules day today!

Under Nanny's overhaul of parking regulations, a new era of "remote enforcement" is being imposed upon her hapless subjects.

As from today, Nanny's "beloved" and "respected" local councils will be allowed to use CCTV cameras to detect parking offences.

Drivers will not even know that they have been caught until a letter arrives up to 14 days later, by which time they may be unable to gather evidence to defend themselves.

Guilty by default!

How nice that Nanny has been able to overturn centuries of British jurisprudence at the stroke of a pen, without the slightest whimper from anyone.

Have we all gone to sleep?

Cameras can be used only in areas where it is too "difficult or sensitive" for an attendant to operate, ie a fast-flowing road (are there any?) or a busy junction.

Nanny is even renaming the "Parking Attendants".

Can you guess what her new, "non sinister" "non Orwellian" name for them will be?

Civil Enforcement Officers!

I don't like that at all...give a little man a big title (and uniform) and he will act like a right git.

The Civil Enforcement Officers will be given powers to post tickets that they do not have time to finish writing before motorists drive off.

The AA quite rightly has noted that thousands of innocent drivers will receive penalties from attendants seeking an easy way to meet performance targets.

Nanny's councils make over £1BN out of this little scam (a surrogate council tax).

Some councils are planning to require simply that the attendant record the number plate and tax disc number, no evidence whatsoever will be required for a fine to be issued.

Rosie Winterton, the Transport Minister, said:

"Parking enforcement must be fair, clear, consistent and based on robust evidence. We want to increase public confidence in parking. Parking rules exist to help beat congestion and improve road safety.

With more than 30 million vehicles on Britain's roads, just one vehicle parked in the wrong place can cause traffic jams. It can also put other road users in danger."

I agree, unfortunately Nanny's local councils use parking fines to supplement their council tax take. Fines should not be issued by the same organ of the state that then utilises the revenue.

That principle was was worked out, and agreed upon, back in the 17th century; it would appear that Nanny is now seeking to abandon it.

Why not eliminate the need for officers and simply fine us all up front, given that in Nanny's Britain we are guilty until proven innocent?

Happy New Parking Rules Day!

Swedish Lessons

In keeping with the Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow) Terminal 5 theme, I would like to draw your attention to this little article from a Swedish site E24:

Pommes-fritt på nya Heathrow-terminalen

Londonflygplatsen Heathrow har öppnat en ny jätteterminal - där man förbjudit förekomsten av pommes frites och annan snabbmat.

Monsterflygplatsen Heathrow, med Europas största flöde av privatpassagerare tillika den flygplats som slussar vidare flest internationella passagerare i världen, har fått ett rejält tilltaget terminaltillskott.

Den nya terminalen är tidsenlig på många sätt. Framförallt är den befriad från transfetter och osund kost. I sann Jamie Oliver-anda har man bestämt sig för att förbjuda snabbmatsrestauranger till förmån för sunda och miljövänliga alternativ, rapporterar norska Aftonposten.

Den etablerade brittiska pubkedjan JD Wetherspoon har därför tvingats radera frityrstekarna och fish-and-chipsen från sitt utbud på Terminal 5.

Bygget av Terminal 5, som den nya terminalen heter, har tagit nästan åtta år. Men terminalen har varit i pipeline längre än så. Redan 1982 inleddes en debatt kring huruvida man skulle bygga ut Londonflygplatsen Stansted eller satsa på att bygga ut Heathrow.

Tio år senare bestämde man sig slutligen för att satsa på en femte terminal för Heathrow. Sammanlagt 80 000 personer har varit involverade i bygget.

Terminal 5 kommer att besökas av uppskattningsvis 30 miljoner passagerare årligen, vilket ökar Heathrows totala kapacitet till 90 miljoner passagerare per år, en ökning med 22 miljoner passagerare eller dryga 30 procent, från dagens 68 miljoner passagerare.

Den totala kostnaden beräknas till 4,3 miljarder pund, motsvarande 52 miljarder kronor i dagens penningvärde.

How very cosmopolitan of me!

The title says:

French fries-free new Heathrow terminal!

It goes on to say that that the established British pub JD Wetherspoon had to remove deep fried steak and fish-and-chips from the menu in Terminal 5.

Most assuredly, we should boycott Terminal 5!

Here endeth today's Swedish lesson.

Knobheads of The Year - BAA II

Hearty congratulations to BAA for thoroughly screwing up the first day of operations of Terminal 5 Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow).

Chaos reigned supreme yesterday as check ins, baggage belts and lifts failed. I understand that today is pretty shambolic too.

How ironic that I gave them the "Knobheads of The Year" Award yesterday!

Now let me see, what have I said on several occasions about BAA's competence...errmmm???

Oh yes, this is what I said:

"BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities."

The words "brewery", "piss up", "couldn't" and "organise" spring to mind...if someone could please arrange them in the correct order for me...

Suffice to say, given the dismal performance of BAA wrt terminal 5 Thiefrow, how on earth can they be trusted with our fingerprint data?

I am absolutely certain that BAA, in it current form, will cease to exist in the not too distant future. Let us hope that whatever rises from the ashes is an improvement.

BAA, well deserving knobheads of the year.

corporateresponsibility@baa.com

Knobheads of The Year - BAA

Today, in hour of the opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow, I was going to award BAA my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award, for their truly appalling scheme to fingerprint everyone (including domestic travellers) at Terminal 5 Thiefrow.

I now have to state publicly, and on the record, that this award would have been a grave mistake.

I formally and unreservedly apologise to BAA for almost besmirching their "fine" name, by thinking of giving them this award, and herewith and immediately withdraw the award.

What?!!!!!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?).

Have you lost your cajones Ken?

Fear not loyal readers and anti Nannyers everywhere, I have not lost my cajones. BAA are in fact to be awarded my ultra prestigious "Knobheads of The Year" Award.

For why?

Well, it seems that their idiotic and badly thought through scheme to fingerprint everyone at Thiefrow Terminal 5, which is being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Orifice (ICO) as it is illegal, has been put on hold.

A spokesman for BAA slimed:

"Following a meeting with all relevant parties, including the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency, the introduction of fingerprinting for domestic passengers and international passengers transferring on to domestic flights at Heathrow will be temporarily delayed."

BAA said that it will hold further talks with both the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency before deciding its next move.

For the time being instead of leaving a fingerprint before passing through security, passengers will be photographed.

BE WARNED

This measure is only "on hold", BAA have spent a lot of money on installing the fingerprint scanners and are as keen as mustard to use them; they will try every trick in the book to implement this.

Here's why thier scheme is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?



• They will photograph everyone anyway, the prints are not needed

Anyhoo, in celebration of today's grand opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow I am proud, nay honoured, to award BAA "Knobheads of The Year"

Feel free to tell them that they have won, via this email address: corporateresponsibility@baa.com

They had better hurry to pick up the award, given their appalling gearing levels BAA are not going to be around for much longer!

BAA well deserving "Knobheads of The Year"!

Prats of The Week - Booze and The Pregnant Woman

Our old chums from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence - often featured on this site - see label at end of this article) have put their jack boots on again.

This time they have waded into the debate over drinking whilst pregnant.

NICE have decreed that pregnant women should drink nothing at all whilst pregnant, most certainly not during the first three months of pregnancy.

Now, here's why this edict is bollocks:

1 Women have been drinking for millennia during pregnancy, in moderation there is no damage or risk to the baby.

2 Given that for the first few weeks of pregnancy many women do not even know that they are pregnant, how the fark are they meant not to drink during the first 3 months?

3 Here is the clincher, NICE admit that their advice is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Hoisted by their own petard, Nanny's chums admit that they now issue edicts without any scientific backing!

Good grief, they'll be telling pregnant women not to smoke next!

NICE, well deserving Prats of The Week!

Nanny's Fag Fetish

Farking hell!

Nanny is still going on about farking fags!

She really ought to get some therapy over this unhealthy obsession with smoking and fag related issues.

Anyhoo, this time Nanny has decided that taxation, banning adverts, banning smoking in public places etc is still not enough to demonise the evil weed. Nanny now wants fags to be sold "under the counter", shops will be banned from displaying tobacco products. Vending machines in pubs and restaurants will also be banned.

Why?

Nanny seems to think that this will reduce the number of children who start smoking.

I didn't know kids regularly wandered into pubs, unchallenged, and bought fags.

Nanny's best chum Dawn Primarolo (once known as "Red Dawn" for extremist left views), the Minister for Public Health, says that this new measure if implemented will save lives:

"It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that."

How very "noble" of her!

The consultation process will begin in late May, once complete Nanny will then ignore the results and push ahead anyway.

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

• This will drive fag selling to the underworld, thus boosting the revenues of criminals and low life scum (just as drugs, gambling and booze bans have all done in the past).



• Children are instinctively drawn to anything deemed to be naughty or illegal, this makes fags even more tempting to them.



• Small/corner shops do not have the space to have an "under the counter" operation. This will effectively destroy the corner shops, and leave the supermarkets in control of what we buy.



• Aside from fags, shops sell a whole myriad of products that Nanny hates (sweets, chocolates, booze, porn, pies, pasties, patties etc); will these be banned too? Another nail in the coffin of the corner shops, which only survive because they sell these products.



• We live in a free market economy, shops have the right to display whatever products they wish in any manner that they wish. Consumers have the right to buy whatever they wish.



• Fag packets have to be least inspiring piece of marketing design on the planet, there is nothing intrinsically attractive about them; ie they are not at all tempting.



• Nanny makes a nice little earner from the tax on fags, what is she going to do without that revenue stream?



• Once Nanny has banned fags, she will ban; booze, meat, fat, milk, eggs, cheese, sweets, chocolate etc. The fanatics who push for these bans "get off" from the power kick it gives them, they like to control the lives of others.



• The argument put forward by Nanny and the butchers' profession that lives and money will be saved, misses a rather essential point. Fags generate tax revenue, which in part goes to pay for the health care of those who become ill from fag related issues. Remove the fags, and you remove the revenue stream and allegedly "grant" people a longer life.
  
  However, those that live to a "ripe old age" are invariably condemned to years of senility, dementia, frailty, pain and misery in one of Nanny's horrific geriatric wards; ie they are condemned to a living death. These wards cost money to maintain, but the costs are not offset by taxes on fags; therefore the costs to society of an ageing population in terms of money and suffering terms are higher.



• Nanny and the butchers' profession ignores the fact that it's not the length of life that counts, but the quality.
  
  We as a society are ignoring the fundamental problem that extending people's life spans, without taking into account the quality of those extended lifespans, is storing up trouble for the future and wrong.
  
  The butchers' profession and Nanny do not have the moral right to force us to live longer than we were physically/mentally designed to do.

All in all the proposal is truly appalling, on so many levels. Unfortunately, Nanny will implement it because she doesn't give a fark about the consequences.

Background on Red Dawn:

Dawn Primarolo spent ten years at the Treasury as a minister under Gordon Brown, a sentence longer than many serious criminals have to serve. In that job, it is fair to say that she was not universally commended for her competence, more often than not being wheeled out to take a Commons beating for some Treasury blunder or other.

Despite campaigning against the first Gulf War in 1991, she voted in favour of invading Iraq in 2003, and against any investigation into the invasion after it had taken place. She has voted in favour of ID cards and increased university tuition fees.

As Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo was responsible for the administration of the Tax Credits system, intended to provide working families with financial support. This system is of course a complete shambles (see www.hmrcisshite.com).

In 2003, a Treasury select committee member accused her of "losing control of her department" after it became known that Inland Revenue buildings under Primarolo's control had been sold to tax-haven companies. This came shortly after she had "insisted ... the Child tax credit scheme was a "success"", despite Inland Revenue staff walking out in protest against the pressure they were being placed under.

In 2005, PM Tony Blair was forced to apologise after a report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that Primarolo had failed to give Parliament accurate information. Primarolo admitted at the same time that she had been fully aware "about the extent of the problems".

She was responsible for introducing the controversial IR35 tax rules.

In July 2007 she was appointed minister of state at the Department of Health.

How many hospitals has she ever visited, during her tenure in orifice?

ZERO!

She doesn't like fat people either.

Here is her email address primarolod@parliament.uk, why not drop her a line?

BAA Truly is Shite II

Hah!

Further to my article about BAA wanting to fingerprint its hapless passengers who have to endure the shopping mall that is Terminal 5 at Heathrow, it seems that even Nanny is worried that this is a step too far.

The Home Office denies ever having told BAA to use fingerprinting as an extra security measure, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says that the plan may be illegal.

The ICO believes that this is another step "on the road to a surveillance society", and has warned BAA that it might breach Data Protection laws.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said:

"Our concern is with the surveillance society. Is this another step on the road towards that kind of society? Why do they need fingerprints, and why four? Why are other airports able to operate with just photographs, and is this a proportionate response?"

Good for the ICO!

The ICO have issued the following advice to passenger, when asked for fingerprints passengers should demand to know why they were being taken, what would be done with them and how long would they be kept.

Make the system inoperable by sheer bloody mindedness.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

Happy Easter

Happy Easter everyone!

Ken

BAA Truly is Shite

Congratulations to BAA (Britsh Airports Authority) for out "Nannying" Nanny.

How has this historic achievement been effectuated? (Can I say effectuated on a public website?)

I shall tell you...

When Terminal 5 at Heathrow opens on 27th March, all passengers passing through its portals (including British citizens flying on domestic flights) will be fingerprinted and photographed.

For why?

BAA claim that it's because the design of the building mixes transit, international and domestic travellers all in one huge shopping mall.

BAA also claim that the photos and prints will be destroyed after 24 hours, and will not be given to the security services.

Well, here's why this is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?

Just to put this truly in perspective, I have travelled to Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang; I have never had to give my fingerprints at these airports.

All in all BAA are taking actions way above their lowly station in life.

I suggest that people bugger up their new system by spraying plastic skin on their fingers, thus making the system inoperable.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

God Bless Heather Mills

God Bless Heather Mills!

Nanny Bans Manners

The Times recently noted that one of their correspondents endured a "Nanny moment" on the underworld railway.

Upon entering the train at Westminster a number of adults were standing.

For why?

The seats, including those marked for the elderly and disabled, were all occupied by children (aged between 8 and 10).

To make matters worse, the children were accompanied by their teacher who should have told them to give up their seats.

Now, when I was a lad, I was told to give up my seat to adults.

Ah, but how wrong I am.

You see, this is Nanny Britain, health and safety is the new doctrine (designed to crunch individuality and freedom). Seemingly the teacher was operating under the mantra of health and safety that dictates children must be seated, even if there are elderly people standing.

What a nice lesson to give to the children!

The People's Republic of Liverpool Bans Smoking

Oh my gosh, another smoking ban!

Nanny really needs to get some therapy, to help her get over her paranoia over smoking.

This time we must journey to the People's Republic of Liverpool for a cautionary tale of mind numbing heavy handed state interference.

As we all know, Nanny's local council in Liverpool regards Liverpool as being the world's most perfect city. Thanks to the "wise" policies of Nanny and generations of local councillors Liverpool now has zero crime, perfect race relations, no drugs, 100% literacy and zero anti social behaviour.

As such it should not surprise us to learn that Nanny's councillors have a lot of free time on their hands, and need something to do.

That at least is the only explanation that I can come up with for their latest daft idea.

SmokeFree Liverpool, there's a group with high aspirations, has decreed that all movies with smoking scenes should be given an 18 certificate. Needless to say, Nanny's chums on Liverpool City Council have backed this absurd and ridiculous idea.

Andy Hull, Liverpool's head of public protection (what the fark is that when it's at home?...another Nanny state militia?) and chair (how can a human be a "chair", ie a piece of furniture, he is chairman) of SmokeFree Liverpool, said that an adult rating on movies that depict smoking will reduce the number of young people lighting up.

"The international evidence...is that one in two children between 11 and 18 who witness smoking in movies actually experiment with - and therefore start - smoking themselves."

Prat!

All this will do is encourage children to regard smoking as an even more naughty adult vice, that they must most definitely try. Additionally, as with all adult films, the under 18's will be queuing up to get in.

When I was a lad, it was just nudie films that one had to sneak in to see (or watch late night on BBC2)...Nanny now wants to create a whole new list of "must sees"; eg smoking, eating, fatty etc.

Violence in under 18 movies is of course OK!

Hull said that Liverpool (what everyone in Liverpool?) wants the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to act.

Needless to say, as with all of Nanny's daft ill thought through ideas, there is a large fly in Nanny's oinkment.

The BBFC is none too impressed with this daft idea, and said:

"To simply classify a film 18 because people smoke in it would not be popular with the public."

Politely put, BBFC told Liverpool council to fark off!

Hull, being a true disciple of Nanny, is not interested in common sense or indeed the advice of experts if that advice contradicts his prejudices. He said that if the BBFC is not prepared to adopt an 18 certificate, then Liverpool will consider using licensing laws to bring in its own stricter ratings for films screened locally.

Thus making Liverpool look completely ridiculous, and dictatorial.

The arrogance of local councils never ceases to amaze me. Their role is not to interfere in the daily lives of people, nor is it to act like mini Hitlers. yet they choose to do so.

Why?

Because we have allowed them to, and we elect useless third rate human beings to become councillors.

Isn't it about time that we put an end to local councils?

We need to rid of these useless appendages once and for all.

Feel free to email Andy Hull andy.hull@liverpool.gov.uk

Nanny Bans Open Air Smoking

Oh dear oh dear, Nanny really is fixated with smoking. Not content with banning it inside public buildings, and trying to prevent firemen from entering the homes of smokers, Nanny is now trying to ban smoking in the open air as well.

Nanny's chums in Sutton council want to introduce a smoking ban in children's open air play areas.

Why do we need local councils?

Needless to say councillor Bruce Glithero, the person leading the hysterical calls for an open air ban, belongs to the party with a name that is a contradiction in terms...Liberal Democrat.

Isn't it funny how the Liberal Democrat party is always at the vanguard of calls for restrictions on people's liberties?

Why don't they change their name to something that actually reflects their true political leanings, eg The League of Interfering Fascists?

Anyhoo, Glithero said:

"As the father of four daughters we often like to go to the park, but recently I was sitting at the side of the sandpit when I turned around to see one of my four-year-old twins spluttering.

At first I thought she had swallowed some sand, but then I realised she was coughing because smoke from a woman sitting nearby was blowing directly into her face. It seemed so unfair.

The main reason people go to the park is to enjoy some fresh air, and this move aims to protect that."

What a prat!

There is ample fresh air for everyone and life, by the way, is unfair; so stop whinging!

The council has approved Glithero's plans, and the scheme will be trialled at Beddington Park.

Needless to say, the sign printing industry will be doing very nicely out of this. Signs will be erected (can I say erected?) informing smokers of the new rules, which will be enforced by Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams?

Has anyone ever heard of these people?

Who are they, what do they do and are taxpayers paying for them?

Now, here is where this scheme of Glithero falls apart.

Can you guess what the fundamental problem is with his scheme?

Yes, that's right, it's not be legally enforceable.

The council clearly is inhabited by a complete bunch of tossers, how do you enforce a non legally enforceable rule?

Seemingly Glithero expects the public to co-operate.

The costs of the signs for this unenforceable rule run to £860. This money could have been spent on improving the playground facilities for the kids.

This not the first time that Sutton council has done something stupid. In 2006 Sutton councillors tried to stop people smoking in their own homes.

Under the proposal, council tenants would not have been allowed to smoke while being visited by health workers and staff such as those delivering meals on wheels. Needless to say the scheme was deemed to be bollocks by people who live in the real world, and had to be withdrawn in the face of fierce opposition.

Funny how the phrase Liberal Democrat is such a contradcition in terms.

The trouble with Liberal Democrats and indeed local councils is that common sense, and practicalities are irrelevant to them.

As I often ask on this site; what is the farking point, use or value of local councils (or for that matter Liberal Democrats)?

With regard to the absurd scheme of Sutton council, I suggest that a bevy of smokers descend upon the park and light up; let's see what happens then.

Happy St Patrick's Day!

Being half Irish, the Pope has given me special dispensation to wish you all a Happy St Patrick's Day.

Ken

Prats of The Week - Nanny Nicks Basil

Another Monday has appeared on the horizon, with all the depressing inevitability of an unloved season. As such it is time for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to Nanny's chums in the Northamptonshire Police.

It seems that they are prepared to spend time, money and effort on investigating Basil Brush (a children's TV puppet, that has been entertaining generations of kids and their parents since the sixties).

Basil's crime?

Racism!

It seems that one of his shows featured a gypsy selling pegs and heather.

Needless to say, this provoked outrage amongst some members of the gypsy community, and at least two of them complained to the Northamptonshire force.

The police, clearly having solved all of the reported crime in Northamptonshire, having nothing better to do are therefore investigating the matter.

The programme features Basil's friend, Mr Stephen, falling under a gypsy spell which makes him attractive to women.

Dame Rosie Fortune, who lives above them, tries to sell Basil pegs and heather – but he turns her down.

She then offers to tell Basil's fortune, but he says:

"I went to a fortune teller once and he said I was going on a long journey."

Mr Stephen then asks him what happened, to which Basil replies:

"He stole my wallet and I had to walk all the way home."

Boom Boom!

The irony is that this episode was first shown on the BBC six years ago, and has been repeated eight times since. It is also available on DVD "Basil Unleashed".

Best rush out and buy it now, before the police ban it.

Seemingly the force are studying the video for evidence of the racism.

Joseph Jones, vice chairman of the Southern England Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller Network, said:

"This sort of thing happens quite regularly and we are fed up with making complaints about stereotypical comments about us in words that we find racist or offensive.

Racist abuse of black people is quite rightly no longer deemed acceptable, but when a comedian makes a joke on TV about pikeys or gippos, there's no comeback.

Travellers have historically sold heather and pegs, but they don't do it anymore for a living. It could be that someone thought this was a kind of stereotyping."

When I was a student at Edinburgh University I was referred to on more than one occasion (in a jocular manner) as an "English bastard", yet I didn't go running to the police.

Why should I?

Had I done so, the police would quite rightly have pointed out that they had better things to do with their time.

Northamptonshire police, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

A Conundrum

Nanny, the media, the butchers' profession, Tesco and other "experts" have been working themselves up into a bit of a frenzy recently over booze and its "alleged" effects on people's behaviour.

In Nanny's view, booze is the root cause of many of society's ills eg; violence, crime, anti social behaviour etc.

Now herein I would like to present a counterpoint, based on my own modest contribution to the "booze debate".

On Friday I dined in Londinium with an old chum of mine from my days in KPMG. An excellent evening was had by all, first in the Red Lion then in Le Boudain Blanc (I will be adding a review about that to my Restaurant Reviews site in due course); an elegant sufficiency of booze was consumed by all.

I personally rounded off the meal with an Irish coffee (in honour of being half Irish, and it being St Patrick's day on Monday) and four double Remy Martins (the singles looked ridiculous in the glass).

After that I wended my way back to Croydonia, using the underworld railway and Network Snail.

Now, despite having consumed an elegant sufficiency of alcohol, I still managed to get home perfectly safely WITHOUT:

1 Assaulting anyone

2 Stamping on anyone's head

3 Vomiting or collapsing in the street

4 Passing myself off to police as Euan Blair, or a minor member of the royal family

5 Pissing against a wall

6 Vandalising the tube or train

7 Inflicting any form of anti social behaviour on my fellow passengers

8 Putting my feet up on the seats

9 Swearing loudly, or talking on my mobile phone

10 Being attacked, mugged, robbed, assaulted or buggered about with in any way

Now the thought occurs to me, if I a shy, retiring, reserved, middle aged accountant (who wouldn't say boo to a goose) can manage to do that, despite having consumed more than Nanny's preferred/recommended quantity of booze, why is that the yoof of this country (who are less than half my age) cannot manage to do the same having consumed a few water based, fizzy, sugar added shitty drinks flavoured with sub standard vodka?

The answer my friends is this...

It's not the booze, its the personalities that causes the trouble.

The badly behaved scumbags that litter the streets of Britain on Friday and Saturday are badly behaved, because they are badly behaved per se. They are ignorant yobs who have not been brought up properly by their parents to respect others, to respect themselves or indeed to be able to drink in a sensible manner.

The root cause of Britain's behavioural ills lies not with booze, but lousy parenting.

Curing that will require a lot more effort than merely farting around with headline grabbing taxes on alcohol flavoured fizzy water.

Beware The Dinosaur

Oh dear, someone seems to have reanimated one of Nanny's chums from the world of the dinosaurs long since thought to have become extinct.

Those of you with long memories will recall the "heady" days of the 1960's and 70's (I am still so young, that I can barely recall that period) when the "brothers" in the TUC held sway over this country, and did a fine job of almost destroying it.

In the 1980's Maggie Thatcher, with the support of general public who were revolted by the excesses of the TUC, more or less killed the unions off.

Unfortunately, there are still some old fossils who haven't quite realised that their day is long since gone. The TUC recently made a bold attempt to capture the headlines by calling for a boycott of Lonely Planet guidebooks.

I am sure that resulted in a downturn of sales of literally one or two.

What was the crime of Lonely Planet, in the eyes of the "brothers" at the TUC bunker?

Seemingly the Lonely Planet have the temerity to publish a guide about Burma. The TUC does not approve of Burma, therefore it wants Lonely Plant to stop writing about it.

Ah the good old Nanny ideal of censorship and dictating what is fit to read!

I wonder what gives the dinosaurs in the TUC the right to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not read?

The "brothers" say that travel to Burma is unethical, and helps prop up the military government.

The TUC, Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist have launched an online petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the book.

New Internationalist co-editor, Chris Brazier, went into full moralising mode:

"Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime.

The Lonely Planet guide to Burma should be immediately withdrawn."

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber also waded in:

"The very existence of a travel guide to Burma encourages people to visit a country they might not otherwise consider."


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

Where do they get these people from?

Needles to say, the TUC by raising Burma as a possible travel destination have doubtless increased the number of bookings there.

I can think of many other places in the world where there are "issues", surely if the TUC is going to try to show moral integrity it must ban travel to all of those places too?

Let me see now..hmmm..some argue the following places are not very nice:

- China has been ticked off for censorship etc
- USA does waterboarding, invading other countries and rendition
- Various Asian economies use low cost labour (well below TUC approved minimum wages)
- Cuba is a bit dodgy
- Saudi Arabia etc have "issues" wrt their treatment of women
- Russia appears to be lurching to a one party state
- Africa is most certainly riddled with "issues"

Will the "brothers" in the TUC be banning travel books that write about those places too?

Will they be banning people and TUC members from travelling there?

No...I thought not!

TUC influence and power in this country was destroyed because it was arrogant, corrupt and dictatorial.

We live in a free society (almost), it is up to the individual to decide where he/she goes and what he/she reads/buys. The TUC has no right to interfere, or to dictate in that decision making process.

However, this call for a boycott has served one valuable purpose. It is nice to see the "brothers" reminding us, by this very ignorant call for a boycott, why they have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Will someone please put them out of our misery once and for all?

Contemptible and Loathsome

One of the worst aspects of living in the Nanny state is the fact that Nanny's bad habits are adopted by many other people, as they seek to blame others for their own failings or simple bad luck.

Here is, in my view, a text book example of how Nanny is negatively impacting the behaviour of people living in this country.

Mr and Mrs Boardman (in their eighties) who live in Lincolnshire called paramedics last year when Mrs Boardman, who has heart trouble, fell ill.

When one of the ambulance workers (a technician) went to collect a stretcher from the ambulance, he fell over in the Boardmans' driveway.

Can you guess what is happening now?

Yes, that's right, this person (I have thought of using various fine Anglo Saxon words to describe him, but am containing myself) now wants to sue them.

The Boardmans have received a letter from his solicitors saying that he is seeking damages for personal injury.

The East Midlands Ambulance Service appear to be washing their hands of the matter, and claim that he is pursuing the matter in his own right. This implies that his work insurance policy does not cover this claim, which in itself speaks volumes about the credibility of the claim in the first place (ignoring the fact that he is trying to claim off the Boardmans).

Unsurprisingly neither the technician nor his solicitors were available for comment, too shame faced I would imagine.

However, the letter from his solicitor to the Boardmans says that the technician fell when the couple's security light flickered out.

Needless to say this disgraceful and contemptible claim is causing the Boardmans a lot of stress. Jim Boardman said:

"I think it's morally wrong.

There are other side issues to be considered... people could be reluctant to call the public services and it brings into disrepute an organisation which I've got the greatest admiration for."

Now, if you didn't think that this was bad enough, read what Unison (The Public Sector union) has to say on the matter!

Carol Brown from Unison said:

"I can't comment on this specific case because I don't know if this worker is one of our members but if our members are injured during work then of course the union would support them.

I can understand people finding it hard to believe but of course if someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

Read this bit again:

"If someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

BOLLOCKS!

No they don't!

This is the very essence of Nanny in her worst form.

Accidents happen; sometimes because of negligence, sometimes because of people's own stupidity and sometimes because of sheer bad luck.

Using accidents as an excuse to screw people for money is contemptible.

The union are loathsome scumbags for condoning this kind of morally reprehensible behaviour.

Are we now to assume that all emergency services will first have to conduct a risk assessment of a caller and their home, before they will attend an incident or emergency?

Mark my words, that is where this is leading.

Needless to say, the Boardmans say they are now reluctant to call the emergency services.

Nanny has destroyed our society!

Nanny Bans Fire Extinguishers

Following on from yesterday's piece about Nanny banning firemen from entering smokers' homes to offer fire prevention advice, I would like to continue with the general theme of fire safety.

It transpires that those appliances that you and I assume are there to help us fight fires, fire extinguishers, are a clear and present danger to our health and safety.

That at least is the view of Nanny's chums in Hamilton Townsend, managing agents for a block of flats in Bournemouth.

A risk assessment (pass the sick bag) was recently carried at Avon House and Admirals Walk by a buildings risk assessor, these people make a very nice living on the back on Nanny's rules and regulations (under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 the managing agents of every private block of flats must hire professional assessors to carry out a risk assessment).

The risk assessor recommended that the fire extinguishers be removed, as they are dangerous.

Eh?

Seemingly these extinguishers may delay householders from escaping a blaze, and may be dangerous if they are used by untrained people....ah...an opportunity for some wide boy to charge us money to "train" us to use these things!

Rather bizarrely this report has the support of Dorset Fire and Rescue Service, to the extent that extinguishers have already been removed from the two blocks.

The hapless residents of Admirals Walk were informed in a letter from their managing agents that:

"unless all residents are trained to operate the fire extinguishers, there is no legal requirement to maintain these in communal areas of residential blocks".

Pete Whittaker, the protection policy manager at Dorset Fire and Rescue, said:

"As part of the assessment, the assessors now look to see whether fire extinguishers are actually required in that particular block. In some cases, they are no longer needed and provide more of a hazard being there.

We do not want to encourage people to leave their flat to fetch a fire extinguisher from a hallway and then return to a blaze. We want people to get out safely.

Obviously in some cases, an extinguisher could come in useful in a communal area but with new building regulations, every escape route should be completely fireproof. It very much depends on the individual property and what the assessor believes is the correct course of action."

Complete tosh!

It was not that long ago that Nanny was telling us to ensure that we all had fire extinguishers.

Given the onslaught of absurd and contradictory health and safety rulings and edicts, people have totally lost what vestiges of respect that they may have had for health and safety "professionals".

A "profession" that is rapidly consigning itself to the dustbin of history!

The Dangers of Smoke - Firemen Banned

The Health and Safety Gestapo have donned their jackboots again, and have stomped into the firestations of the London Firebrigade.

Fire crews have been banned by Nanny from making home visits, to offer safety advice to people who smoke, unless the residents stub out all cigarettes at least one hour beforehand and open their windows.

What a larf!

Now correct me if I am wrong, but do not firemen kind of expose themselves to the far greater danger of smoke inhalation (burning houses, sofas, rubber, noxious chemicals etc) on a daily basis?

This nonsensical ruling was was recently sent out by London fire brigade chiefs, in order to comply with Nanny's workplace smoking ban.

The rationale being that people's homes are "the workplace" when firemen visit them to offer advice about fire safety.

Now, you would have thought that a smoker's home presents a possibly greater risk of catching fire than a non smoker's home. Therefore, are they not in greater need of advice about how to prevent a fire?

Approximately 40,000 prevention visits were carried out by London firemen last year. These help greatly reduce the number of fires and injuries from fires.

That doesn't bother Nanny, her edict states that anyone requesting a home visit will now be told to provide a "smoke-free environment to avoid threatening firefighters' health".

"Where the occupants are smokers, we ask that they refrain from smoking both during the visit and for a period prior to the visit.

We suggest a period of one hour."

Householders will be told to "ventilate the dwelling before the visit to clear any tobacco smoke."

How the fark does Nanny think that she will enforce this pile of dog doings then?

Aha, how silly of me, she will perform a risk assessment (pass the sick bag someone!).

Nanny says that if her rules are not followed, and a haze of smoke remains, the fireman must "complete a risk assessment and consider whether the visit should proceed."

What utter BOLLOCKS!

Seemingly if the brave fireman feels too afraid to enter, because of a waft of Rothmans, he will stand outside the front door and proffer advice.

I assume that risk assessment will soon have to be performed before firemen are allowed to attend a fire?

These Health and Safety knobheads and Nanny's rules will be the death of us all!

Prats of The Week - Sunbed Wars

It is a wet and windy Monday morning here in Engerlund, and as such it is time for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week my heartfelt congratulations to the passengers of P&O's 77,000-ton Oceana liner who reported Christopher Wells, the skipper, to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

For why?

There has been something of an ongoing spat on board over the use and reservation of sunloungers. A habit that is normally associated with Germans holidaymakers had spread to the passengers of the Oceana (none of whom were German), whereby towels and knickknacks are placed on the sun loungers in order to reserve them for use several hours later.

It is of course a thoroughly selfish habit, as more often than not the lounger remains unoccupied for several hours.

Passengers became increasingly narked over the lack of available sunbeds on the Oceana during their 15 day cruise of the Caribbean last month; all manner of objects used to reserve the sunloungers - towels, books, bags and clothes etc.

It became so bad that Capt Wells imposed a 20-minute limit on sunbeds being left unoccupied, and made several announcements to try to end the so-called "sunbed wars".

Needless to say, the passengers ignored him. There were increasingly heated rows between the passengers over the reservation of the sunloungers.

Eventually Capt Wells (who is married to a German) told the ship's 2,000 passengers:

"We don't want that kind of Germanic behaviour here!"

Clearly the point hit home, ie it was a well judged observation, and some reported him to the watchdog.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry, and Capt Wells has been forced to apologise for causing offence.

I was brought up by my parents to deal with petty matters myself, and not to report ("tell") on people to others. Nanny teaches people to report to the state, and related bodies; by this means she keeps us under control, as we fear that our neighbours, colleagues and friends may in fact be spying for her.

The passengers who reported him are well deserving of this week's "Prats of The Week" Award.

My advice to them is to grow up and deal with the matter yourselves, don't bring others into your petty and selfish arguments.

Hiding Behind Nanny's Petticoats

There is one thing worse than Nanny...

Really? I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?)

Yes, there really is one thing worse than Nanny!

What's that then Ken?

People, or organisations, who hide behind Nanny's petticoats and use her policies/warped ideas to further their own commercial/political ends.

Ladies and Gentleman...a roll on the drums please...



Presenting...

Tesco!

Their crime?

They have recently publicly demanded that Nanny introduce new laws to ban the sale of cut-price alcohol.

Tesco claims that this is in response to the public concern over the level of drink-fuelled crime and disorder.

Tesco claim that legislation is required to "ensure responsible pricing on alcohol".

Now the more intelligent amongst you may well ask, why doesn't Tesco simply put their prices up?

Oh dear oh dear, how little you understand the dilemma that Tesco finds itself in.

You see, if it were to do that people would simply shop elsewhere; and we couldn't have that now, could we?

You see, what Tesco actually wants to do is to use Nanny to pass laws that will enable it and its rivals to fix the prices (to the detriment of the consumers) which is of course illegal at the moment.

Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco's chief executive, has already been pushing Gordown Brown to discuss measures, including price controls, to tackle anti-social and under-age drinking.

In case you have forgotten, despite these "valiant" claims to be a "responsible" corporate citizen and "concerned" about cheap booze, Tesco has been happily selling cans of lager for less than the price of bottled water (mind you that says more about the extortionate price of water - real consumer rip off - than the price of booze).

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, an executive director at Tesco, recently said:

"We accept that we have a role to play in addressing the problem of anti-social drinking.

Competition law prevents businesses discussing anything to do with price with each other and imposes severe penalties for breaches.

The only safe solution is for the Government to initiate and lead those discussions and to bring forward legislative proposals which Tesco and others in our industry can support.

Such proposals would have to apply to all retailers of alcohol otherwise they would be ineffective, as those looking for cheap alcohol would simply shop with lower-priced operators not covered by the legislation, undermining our business and achieving nothing."

Bollocks!

It's a price fixing scheme from start to finish, designed to stifle competition (most notably the smaller corner shops).

It is unpleasant to see a commercial organisation hiding behind Nanny's petticoats in this manner, organisations should not support/encourage restrictive state practices to further their own commercial ends. This can lead us all down a very unpleasant road indeed.

Tesco should be reminded that other organisations, who in the past supported "assertive" state control, have some very ugly history that they have had to hang their heads in shame over - eg Krupp.

Educashun - Failed Degrees

It is reassuring to know that, in this "enlightened age" of educashun for all, Nanny is ensuring that our money is being spent wisely on degrees and courses that add value to society.

Not!

A staggering 22% of university students fail to complete their degree courses. That is the finding of a report, recently released by the National Audit Office, for the Public Accounts Committee.

This drop out rate is in spite of Nanny spending £800M on a scheme designed to curb dropping out.

The root cause of the problem is Nanny's obsession with pushing more and more people into higher educashun, as she desperately tries to manipulate her unemployment statistics.

Square pegs in round holes do not fit!

Here's some free advice for Nanny, if the primary and secondary educashun system is so poor and weak that it produces a nation of innumerate, illiterate dullards what is the point of forcing them into higher educashun?

The report notes that the drop-out rate is worse among those at former polytechnics, the con trick of the century was renaming "polys" as universities, where 44% fail to gain a qualification.

A fundamental weakness of the students is their lack of basic numeracy skills, they simply cannot understand their assignments and lectures.

The educashun system run by Nanny is a complete con trick, on the general population and the poor saps who have to endure it, designed to keep people off the unemployment register.

The report also notes that universities receive a bonus for every student they recruit from "non-traditional" backgrounds. Therefore they are incentivised to take on students (who may well be completely unsuited to university life) simply to take a "bung".

Another con trick by Nanny!

The basics of educashun need to be taught properly first; ie reading and writing.

This is what I'm talking about:

Prats of The Week - Aceeed!!

Dear me it has been while since I have awarded my prestigious, and world famous, "Prats of The Week" award.

This week, without any doubt whatsoever, the judges were unanimous in their decision to award it to Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.

It seems that Nanny's unhealthy obsession with paedophilia has reached new heights of hysteria there, as the school have published photos of their pupils (perfectly innocent and non offensive) with the children's faces hidden by a smiley from the acid house days of the 80's.

For why?

Well, seemingly, the school believes that by showing the actual faces the kids will be exposed to all sorts of paedophile shit.

All very well, if Britain has become a nation of paedophiles and if the kids names and addresses etc were also published.

However, as far as I can tell none of that is the case.

However, in Nanny's world, fear is the key to keeping good order.

Headmistress Clare Reece said:

"The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.

Not all parents want their children's picture on there.

You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures.

In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."



Surely the safety of the kids is the key issue, not the safety of the pictures??

Rather bizarrely, she went on to say that the photographs were printed unaltered in the school newsletter which was sent to parents.

How can the school guarantee that the recipients of the newsletter won't do anything weird with the pictures?

This whole idea is of course bollocks:

1 The children's personal safety is not impaired one way or another by having their face shown, so long as there are no personal details, eg address, disclosed

2 This sends a message to kids that all adults are predators, and should be feared. How healthy a message is that to give them?

3 It also, I have to say, looks very odd indeed and bit weird/sick to do this.

4 Why bother putting photos up at all?

5 School photos have been taken for decades, to show pride and achievement. Millions of us have survived having had our photo taken at school (and displayed), without being dragged off the street by some stalker. The worst that would happen would be the ridicule of one's contemporaries.

I am not alone in thinking this is all bollocks.

Shaun Kelly, spokesman for Children's charity NCH, said:

"The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving?

It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels.

We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."

Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, was even more cutting:

"Every time a school takes silly measures, it says we see the world through the eyes of a paedophile.

They think that any innocent picture of school children will somehow be subverted and manipulated.

These pictures serve a very important purpose of giving children clear images of their experiences, something they can remember later in life.

Depriving ourselves of these experiences is not only irrational but serves no purpose whatsoever."

Rather bizarrely, the school has now taken down the pictures; a message on the website did say:

"Our newsletter section is undergoing maintenance. Back soon!"

However, that has now disappeared too.

I smell a cock up of the first magnitude!

Nanny has a sick mind, and she is trying to infect us with her fears and phobias.

Cann Hall Primary School (or rather those in charge of Cann Hall Primary School) well deserving Prats of The Week.

The Dangers of Lamposts

Have you ever been wandering down the street, texting away merrily on your "Raspberry", when suddenly you find yourself walking into a lamppost?

Have no fear, you need injure yourselves no more.

Nanny has come up with the perfect solution to the menace of lampposts.

She is going to wrap them in padding.

Yes, that's right, she will pad them for your safety and comfort!

It has finally come to this, Nanny really does wnat to wrap us up in cotton wool!

A pilot scheme has been launched in Brick Lane (London), after it was found to have the highest number of "walking and texting" injuries in the country.

Seemingly 10% of people have hurt themselves while focused on their mobile phone screen, that at least is the finding of a survey conducted by 118 118 (the phone directory service). Quite how reliable this "statistic" is I have no idea.

The charity Living Streets has teamed up with 118 118, to test a scheme to pad lampposts.

A poll will be carried out on Brick Lane to gauge the response of locals.

If successful, the concept will be rolled out in Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool.

This sounds like complete bollocks, and I can only assume is a rather a lame PR stunt by 118 118.

The cheaper solution to these "walk and text" injuries is simple:

LOOK WHERE YOU ARE GOING!

The Joy of Lard

Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are becoming increasingly concerned about our level of fatness, and our eating habits, no change there then!

As such they are going to launch a drive against fat, rumour has it that the FSA are considering warning us about the dangers of cheese sandwiches and buttered toast.

The FSA commissioned consumer research which showed that shock tactics, such as graphic images of furred blood vessels and fat deposits, were the best way to change people's diet.

It seems that this time next year we will have endure yet another one of Nanny's remorseless campaigns warning us about the dangers of our everyday, simple pleasures.

The FSA is rumoured to be considering testing messages that show that ordinary foods (eg meat, dairy, snacks and confectionery) are far higher in saturated fats than people realise.

It seems that they are considering using the same form of warning that is printed on fag packets...and we all know how "effective" they have been!

Nanny and the FSA need to remember that, unlike smoking, we really all do have to eat food everyday. You cannot, and should not, criminalise food and eating!

The warnings will include one informing consumers that two slices of buttered toast contain more saturated fat than four doughnuts, and that one cheese sandwich contains more than half the daily amount of saturated fat.

CMI Research, who prepared the report for the FSA, said:

"Shock tactics show potential.

The researchers said that graphic images of fat had a big impact on consumers they spoke to.

Dramatising the amount of saturated fat in foods in an unexpected and unappetising way proved effective, as almost all were repulsed by the idea of eating lard."

Hang on lads, I am not repulsed by eating lard (beef dripping)!

I like it!

The FSA should remember that the body is like a car engine, just as the engine needs oil to lubricate its moving parts, so does the blood in the body need fat to enable it to travel smoothly between the organs.

We would simply seize up without fat.

Here is a perfect recipe for lard (dripping):

Ingredients

-1 slice of thick cut white bread

-Dripping

-Salt and pepper

Method

-Toast the bread

-Spread a liberal portion of dripping (at least 1 cm thick) onto the toast

-Season copiously with salt and pepper

Enjoy!

Needless to say, the FSA has denied it is considering warnings on packaging. However, it then went on to say that it still had a wide range of consultations to make before deciding how best to convey its message. In other words, they do want to use warning messages and if the public reaction is muted we will get them.

I suggest that you purchase one of these fine T shirts or thongs from The Joy of Lard, just to show Nanny what you think of her plans.



Any profits made will be used to add to my collection of lard and dripping.

Theme Tune

I think this site deserves a theme tune, I believe that this may fit the bill very nicely.

"You've got to fight for what you want

For all that you believe

It's right to fight for what we want

To live the way we please

Life and love and happiness are well worth fighting for

Never count the cost or worry that we'll fall

It's better to have fought and lost than not to have fought at all etc..."

All together now!

Nanny Bans Fireworks Again - Via The EU

It should come as no surprise at all to learn that Nanny is doing her best to try to ban fireworks again. Fireworks are fun, and Nanny hates people having fun.

This time Nanny is using her chums in the EU, that most monstrous and corrupt of organisations, to try to ban them.

A directive approved by MEPs (the people who don't want us to read the report into fraud and corruption within the EU) and EU ministers will force Britain and other member nations to adopt new safety regulations by 2010.

It seems that the EU Health and Safety Gestapo are even more officious than our own, they want firework manufacturers to pay for the retesting of tens of thousands of fireworks already considered safe in Britain.

Tom Smith, the Confederation of British Industry spokesman for the pyrotechnics industry, said that the new rules would make it impossible for firework-display firms to produce shows of variety and value.

"Not a single person in Britain will be made safer by all this additional testing, but everyone will be affected by it becoming much more expensive and bureaucratic to import fireworks.

It's a very real threat. You won't have New Year's Eve shows in London and Edinburgh, or on Guy Fawkes Night.

We wouldn't even have a display at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics."

The new European standard means that people will be told to retire at least 26ft after lighting a firework, as opposed to the current 16ft. Many people's gardens are not that big, hence the new rule will stop people holding displays in their own homes.

As ever, we see that the state (this time in the guise of the EU) adds no value to the quality of people's lives. Its sole raison d'etre is to create rules and regulations that justify its own miserable and corrupt existence.

Ask your MEP (if you know who that is) why we are not allowed to read the report on corruption within the EU and the fraud perpetrated by many of the MEP's wrt fraudulent expense claims.

The EU is rotten to the core, and needs to be chopped down to size.

Put a Cork In It!

Give me strength!

One of Nanny's chums, associated with the butchers' profession, is whinging on about booze again.

This time the "big threat" to our health comes from normal sized bottles of wine. Evidently, according to Trish Groves (Deputy Editor of The British Medical Journal) we are all too stupid and weak to be trusted with a whole bottle of wine.

In her view this is too tempting for us; when we open it, we are likely to drink the whole bottle.

Her solution?

Make supermarkets etc sell half bottles instead.

Ms Groves said:

"It's all too tempting to finish the bottle there and then to avoid waste.

Coupled with the news that wine is getting stronger, it's no wonder Britain's middle classes are getting wasted."

-Dare I suggest that the urge to down a whole bottle, once it is opened, is hers?

-Is she in fact speaking for herself here?

-Is it possible that the person she is trying to protect from "hazardous" middle class drinking is herself?

She went on to say:

"My local supermarket has row upon row of good looking wines in 75cl bottles - but it offers only three wines in half-bottles, hides them with the dessert wines that nobody drinks, and bumps up the prices prohibitively."

Well, I will agree with one point, let's push for booze to be cheaper!

OK, here's why she is talking bollocks:

• Some years ago I was on the morning Korean Air flight from Seoul to Tokyo, and partook of a particularly fine English breakfast whilst on board; eggs, bacon, sausage, hash browns etc ...the full monty!
  
  To accompany this fine repast, I had a bottle of red wine. Now the airline, as all airlines do, served the wine in those itty bitty bottles (I think they are a third of a bottle?). Needless to say, one itty bitty bottle was not enough to do justice to this fine repast, I needed had to have at least two more before feeling sated.
  
  Therefore, as this scientific research proves, small bottles in fact encourage you to drink more!



• People have free will and are able, if they wish, to say no; it is not obligatory to drink an entire bottle of wine once it is opened. Nanny and her chums should stop trying to label us as weak willed morons, unable to control and manage our own lives.



• The butchers' profession, and indeed the world of journalism, is inhabited by a statistically significant number of people who are overweight, smokers, drinkers and substance abusers. I do not think that they are in a position to give the rest of us advice as to what we should or should not eat, drink or smoke.



• Bottles of wine have corks, they can be replaced once opened. May I suggest that Ms Groves puts a cork in it!