Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The People's Republic of Liverpool Bans Smoking

The People's Republic of Liverpool Bans SmokingOh 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

10 comments:

  1. Another crazy idea.....If this policy is taken to it's natural conclusion, Nanny will have to give Eighteen certificates to any film that shows fat people or someone drinking alcohol. Perhaps even the current hatred by Nanny of non working disabled people, should they be depicted in films, be given an Eighteen certificate.

    I think even the old USSR or China would have been pleased to have been able to get away with such totalitarian policies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. grumpy2:03 PM

    I read only very recently that the BBFC has sanctioned the release - with an 18 certificate, of course - of a video 'game' in which characters must perform increasingly horrific acts of violence (with blood and guts depicted in full colour) in order to win. Disembowelments, battered skulls; with depictions of the consequent leakage of brain tissue, gouged-out eyes and similar are, apparently, some of the more palatable forms of sadistic activity depicted.
    Even Nanny's little helpers must know that these things will be available to under-eighteens within days of release.
    Clearly though, amputation, emasculation and mutilation are so much less likely to adversely affect Liverpool's little darlings (who probably acted as consultants to the vid game's makers) than the sight of some moral bankrupt puffing on a cigarette.

    I would disagree (slightly) with tonk:
    I reckon that '...the old USSR or China would have been bloody amazed to get away with such policies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dixon of Dock Green2:11 PM

    Tonk that is precisely the way this is going. The great leader is already waiting on a report from a so-called guru about the dangers posed to children by video games and the internet (Shock! Horror!).

    I see a situation where eventually ALL adult recreation, activity and entertainment will be controlled and limited by laws to protect children because their parents cannot be expected to exercise the slightest degree of responsibility for what their own children watch and where they play.

    This situation is already being distorted by mass hysteria on the part of over-protective women and feminised modern "men" (aka wooses). The hysteria would be hysterical if it was not so damaging to privacy, freedom and the right to choose.

    The thin edge of what constitutes "harm to others" is being stretched into a mighty wedge of oppression for grown up people using that over-used emotional trigger phrase "protection of children". Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reasonable safeguards but they need to be balanced against their impact on ancient freedoms. Reason and balance is something I fear our Nanny State lacks in buckets.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nanny State Your Intentions2:24 PM

    And from smokefree Liverpool's website there is alink to an associated organisation called D*myst.

    The winner of their latest competition is a 12 year old girl who can now go to the cinema free for a whole year.

    Double standards?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nanny has got a tremendous tactic for dealing with any nay sayers in regards to matters allegedly pertaining to child protection, I have seen it on other blogsites. Should you question the logic or validity of any decision, Nanny and her followers instantly accuse you of supporting child abuse.
    Nanny has started to adopt similar tactics in relation to matters pertaining to climate change, (pass the sick bag please) even during a recent PMQs, a Labour MP said that anyone that denies climate change is insane.

    My biggest gripe with Nanny and the way she spends my tax money at the moment is the number of "Dot Gov" adverts on TV and radio at the moment. Most ad breaks on TV now contain a threatening ad to tell me to pay some tax or other or face the consequences (usually a fine...Kerching) or to grass someone up. Radio ad breaks are much the same. I wonder how much these ads cost. I understand that the car crushing ad from Nanny's DVLA cost £5M. I object to Nanny invading my house to threaten me four times an hour while I'm watching TV and enjoying my beer.

    I agree with Grumpy and Dixon of Dock Green (Evening All)

    Watch out! Dot Gov is about!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. when we won the European capital of culture title surely everybody should have appreciated the joke...this is liverpool folks...don't take these people seriously...we the inhabitants don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:07 PM

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

    What makes you think that anyone who even wants to become such an animal is human?

    ReplyDelete
  8. grumpy9:20 PM

    thud said;
    "...this is liverpool folks...don't take these people seriously...we the inhabitants don't."

    That's a major cause of the problem, not just in Liverpool, but in Nanny's Britain more generally: we don't take them seriously, so we tut-tut, shake our heads, say "See what the daft pillocks have thought up now" and treat their antics as though they were no more than kid's silly games.
    Meanwhile, these 'daft pillocks' carry on unhindered in their deadly little game of undermining English/British society; subverting everything and anything in our lives that we are too bloody complacent to protect.
    I think that we should all take them seriously; very, very seriously indeed. In Liverpool and in every other part of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Watch out! DotGov is about!
    Well, now we know why they do bugger all about Zimbabwe.
    In Zimbabwe the Zanu demolish the houses of people they suspect of voting for the opposition, or simply NOT voting for Zanu.
    Here, they merely steal money off people they suspect of not buying into the 'warondrugs', or steal and destroy the property of people following European Law on importing personal booze supplies, or destroy the property of people who don't pay Road Tax.
    If you remember, Road Tax doesn't pay for roads at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:59 AM

    The smoking ban is an amazing idea. Smoking is bad for you, I just think you are angry because you aren't allowed to smoke where you want, then good. I have no problem with people who smoke, as long as they don't affect other people. I do however think it is worse when people huddle outside buildings (AND HOSPITALS) smoking. Instead there should be sealed smoking 'chambers' or pubs that allow smokers in and pubs which don't.

    ReplyDelete