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.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Nanny Bans Coastguards

DrowningIt would seem that Nanny's health and safety rules are now putting people's lives at risk.

Nanny has decreed that coastguards must complete a health and safety questionnaire, a "vehicle pre-journey risk assessment", before they can respond to calls for help on land.

Under the new rules, the teams have to take the time to answer four questions on the type of rescue and journey they are about to undertake.

After filling in the date and time, the lead rescuer must outline the "reason for journey" and detail any risks the team may encounter during the rescue, including both current and forecast weather conditions.

The form then asks for a summary of any "actions taken to mitigate risk" before the leader can fill in a "yes" or "no" as to whether the risk is "acceptable".

The form is purely to be used for land rescues, not rescues at sea.

Ermm...isn't this a tad inconsistent?

Let us trust that the idiots who thought his idea up never need urgent/speedy rescue themselves!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store. is brought to you by "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries


  1. Anonymous11:31 AM

    It's not new; Thames Valley police had H&S assessments in place a few years back. It led them to decide to wait safely down the road until the gunman had killed everyone and cleared off. Can't have any of those expensively trained armed response officers being put at risk now can they?

  2. Anonymous11:54 AM

    Ken, O/T but rather telling - be afraid, be very afraid....


  3. Ken,

    Oh on the contary; let's hope one of these idiots does require a timely land rescue.

    I agree with anon above, the emergency services have had their hands tied with 'Elf'n'Safety restrictions.....Sometimes, in relation to the Fire and Rescue "service" this had left to unnecessary death or suffering.

    I wonder what is deemed to be an acceptable risk? Life involves risk taking, being in the emergency services or military may well be a tad risky by it's very nature.....The loons really are running the nut house now.

  4. Lord of Atlantis1:47 PM

    I read about this latest pearl of wisdom from the Marine and Coastguard Agency which beggars belief! It also poses the question, would not our emergency services function far more efficiently, if they were allowed to get on with their work, and were not straitjacketed by these assorted besuited health and safety and political correctness prodnosess?

    You said, Ken,"Let us trust that the idiots who thought his idea up never need urgent/speedy rescue themselves."

    It may seem uncharitable, but I sincerely hope these jobsworths do find themselves in urgent need of help and are told, "Sorry, we have to fill in your forms first!" Month' awards. In view of the continued 'services' provided by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, perhaps they should receive one of the 'Prats of the Week' awards?

  5. It may seem uncharitable, but I sincerely hope these jobsworths do find themselves in urgent need of help and are told, "Sorry, we have to fill in your forms first!"

    I think it can be assumed with complete certainty that when "one of their own" needs urgent care or rescue, the "rules" will go straight out the window.

  6. I trust that all of you expressing an independent opinion here have the appropriate academic qualifications, Professional Independent Thinker's Association memberships and adequate Public Liability Insurance.

    Can't have just anyone going around using a brain you know, it's a dangerous machine.

    The opposable thumb wasn't just tacked on willy nilly by some chap in a little workshop you know, my goodness me no. Had to do all sorts of studies, pre-studies, pre-pre-studies and risk assessments before we allowed that little bit of idle nonsense to evolve - and look at the ruddy trouble and expense it's caused the taxpayer since.

    Some days I wish we'd never started using tools. Think of the stubbed toes and infected scratches that would have been saved if, instead of running around the plains bashing food over the head, we'd just stayed up in the branches.

    Oh, hang on - branches are usually up high aren't they, with no safety rails. Hmm.

    OK - single cell organisms. Just think of how much the taxpayer could save if only the taxpayer had stayed as single cell organisms, clinging somewhere safe and sheltered and secluded and out of reach of anything nasty.

    We'd be rolling in it by now as a Nation.

  7. Grant9:10 PM

    I read elsewhere today that yesterday three 'climbers' were terminated by an avalanche on a rather attractive hill in Scotland.

    Given that anyone attempting to rescue them or even just retrieve the bodies would be putting themselves at risk (of form filling at least) why is it that fully trained 'emergency services' personnel - people who have chosen do follow that career - are constrained by H&S rules but pretty much anyone can put themselves at risk for their own personal pleasure?

    Once we have an answer to that question we might move on to why Nanny insists on failing to provide readily available protective equipment for her troops when they are deployed around the globe.

    Once both questions are answered we might compare them for any evidence of consistency ....

    Hmm. Why bother? Nanny seems not to care about keeping up the pretence any longer. She will just lie and spout any nonsense in the hope that someone somewhere thinks she still have a caring soul and some sort of responsibilities that she attends to. Few are fooled.