I am not the least bit surprised at the latest bout of lunacy involving Nanny's "won't someone think of the children?" centred policies.
This was bound to happen!
Two working mothers (Leanne Shepherd and Lucy Jarrett), who happen to be in the police force, have ended up breaking Nanny's law.
What have they done?
They have looked after each other's children, on a private basis which enabled them to job share at Aylesbury Police Station.
Fair enough you might say?
Not in Nanny's world.
For you see my loyal readers they are not registered childminders.
So what?
The fact that they look after each other's kids for more than 2 hours at a time, and derive "reward" (ie they get to keep their jobs) means (in Nanny's eyes) they are breaking the law.
Ofsted require that they complete a myriad of checks (and of course a CRB check) before they can look after their kids again.
How did Nanny come to hear of this private arrangement?
Some interfering, nosey c*nt with nothing better to do with their lives reported them to the state.
Yes my loyal readers, Nanny has done well she has created a nation of spies and informers who enjoy dropping other people in it!
Labour's Childcare Act 2006 prevents anyone from gaining a "reward" for looking after someone's children for more than two hours away from the child's home, unless they register with Ofsted and follow the normal childminder rules.
It is rather sad that it has taken people 3 years to wake up to the real consequence of this appalling piece of legislation (one of many) drafted by Nanny.
Quite why the Tories or Liberals did not kick up a fuss over this law when it was being passed I don't know.
It is also rather ironic the police officers didn't know that they were breaking the law.
That sums up the state of legislation in this country:
- Too much
- Over complicated
- Massively intrusive
A lasting monument to ZaNuLabour!
I truly hope that Labour gets a sound kicking in the coming months, and that they are well and truly kicked out of orifice for several generations.
Needless to say, Nanny is now sh*tting herself over the public outcry (there is even a petition on the Downing Street website) and is rapidly trying to backpedal. There is to be review etc etc.
Children's Minister, Vernon Coaker, slimed:
"The legislation is in place to ensure the safety and well-being of all children. But we need to be sure it does not penalise hard-working families.
My department is discussing with Ofsted the interpretation of the word 'reward'."
All very well, but these are the c*nts that drafted the legislation in the first place. Shouldn't they have thought of this before?
Answer: Nanny didn't give a toss then, because she assumed that people would roll over and take it.
Now that she is on the verge of being wiped out at the polls, she is running scared.
Let us do the country a real favour and kill her off once and for all.
When the politicians (of whatever party) come a knocking on your door begging for you votes, ask them to show (in writing) exactly what they will do to cut off the tentacles of the state, that infest our daily lives, in the first 100 days in office.
Only a plan in writing, that shows exactly which legislation they will repeal will suffice.
Don't vote for the parties that won't produce such a document.
Nanny will not be content until she has taken every child away from its natural parent.
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.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. 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
On the plus side, my work keeps badgering me to do silly things outside of my working hours. This causes no end of trouble due to nurseries/after school care not always covering the hours I need. My boss always instructs me to get "friends/neighbours" to help out, now I have the perfect retort to that!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, I am appalled at the state's intervention on the domestic arrangement between two respectable adults and their own children.
WTF does Ofsted think it is doing here? It's not like either of these people are advertising themselves as childminders to strangers? It's just friends doing each other a favour. Let's not forget that with them both being in the police, getting childcare for their long (and sometimes unpredictably extended) shifts at silly hours is nigh on impossible as it is.
Even with the law so stupid, I am utterly speechless at the cretinous actions of the unnamed informer. Spiteful bastards.
The only way to deal with this is to tell the state to mind its own fucking business and carry on as usual.
ReplyDeleteMethinks that Nanny disapproves of all such informal, bartered service arrangments because they interfere with her capacity to collect taxes . . . . "Ker-ching," anyone?
ReplyDeleteGod knows she doesn't give a fark about kids themselves, just look at the sort of nonsense that she tolerates -- or actively endorses -- when it comes to their rearing and education.
Ken said: " Let us do the country a real favour and kill her [Nanny] off once and for all."
Yes, but then what would we have to grouse about? Perhaps it better giving Nanny a good swift boot in the arse on a daily basis.
'Methinks that Nanny disapproves of all such informal, bartered service arrangments because they interfere with her capacity to collect taxes . . . . "Ker-ching," anyone? '
ReplyDeleteExactly what i was thinking, Black Sea.
It's the perfect solution really - more state control and extra tax opportunities.
This bunch are beyond belief.
Well said, Ken!!
ReplyDeleteOne is encouraged to assume that these two ladies, as police officers, are trustworthy, sensible people with whom anyone would feel comfortable leaving their child. (I know, a bit of a stretch these days but bear with me).
Nonetheless, this is a complete lack of ZaNuLabour absence of common sense at work with our tax£ yet again.
It struck me only this morning that actually this gvt wants no one to succeed - except themselves of course.
It also occurred to me that the bastard snitchy meddlers would have been totally ignored and even called 'racist' if they'd reported an Asian family and social circle for the very very common practice that culture has of sharing childcare.
I am not racist. I am passionately against discrimination on any irrational ground. I am simply pointing out yet another gruesome episode of ZaNuLabour's Bash-White-Middle-Class-Decent-People.
Meanwhile, our kids are being abused and neglected on a routine, daily basis precisely because of this gvt's utterly delusional Nanny-Knows-Best impositions.
Perhaps if any of them had actually had a proper caring and old-fashioned Nanny they'd have turned out reasonably sensible, well-balanced, no-nonsense and with a modicum of common sense?
Sam
The reason why the Tories and LibDems didn't kick up a fuss about ths asinine law is that they are almost as brainwashed with all this 'child protection' nonsense as ZanuLabour, and most of them don't give a toss about old-fashioned concepts such as civil liberties, privacy, and personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI shudder to think what my normally polite mid-20th century parents and grandparents would have said about such an erosion of their discretion to bring me up as they thought fit. Why should any parent be treated as suspect in relation to their own or anyone else's children unless there is evidence of lawbreaking on their part?
Even when there is such evidence, it doesn't seem to prevent official bungling which results in scandals like the death of Baby Peter.
So Nanny is useless, even by her own criteria.
Well said as well, Anticant.
ReplyDeleteThere is an all-pervasive public service ethos of 'everyone is guilty' before any common-sense investigation has ever taken place.
The psychologists would call this 'projection'. That is, projecting onto others the sins of which you yourself are guilty but for which you don't want to take responsibility.
As Operation Ore uncovered, there were hundreds of paedophiles masquerading as decent citizens (including people who worked at Westminster, teachers, lawyers, social workers etc. and, indeed, a priest of my own acquaintance).
It's sick, completely sick.
In the immortal words of an anonymous Cabinet Minister reported in The Guardian this last January:
"The banks are fucked, we're fucked, the country's fucked."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/19/economy-banking
Sam
Here is another instance of paedophile hysteria in action:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6851656.ece
"Historic Abuse" means allegations relating to something claimed to have happened many years previously.
I have just succeeded in persuading 'Liberty' that there is a case for examining ways of limiting the damage which is so often done to subsequently acquitted defendants when 'stale' cases are brought which sometimes relate to incidents said to have happened as long ago as thirty years previously. If not a statutory time limit on such prosecutions, there should at least be anonymity for the accused before conviction. (And also in rape cases, where the victim has anonymity but the accused doesn't.)
See 'Fainthearts at Liberty' on Anticant's Arena.
This really is ridicious... what about leaving kids with Neighbours or a child bringing their best friend on holiday with them?
ReplyDeleteOr a child bringing a friend home from school *shock horror* at 3pm and stay until 6 before going home for dinner.
I have a friend who picks up her child and a friend on Thursdays from school so that she can look after them both until about 6pm so that the other mother can work later that day.
"When the politicians (of whatever party) come a knocking on your door begging for you votes"
ReplyDeleteThey never do round here.
And as for this arrangement constituting a "Reward" - surely unless the Inland Revenue state that it is a benefit in kind, the parents should tell Ofsted to go take a hike.
I applaud these two women for their arrangement and am totally appalled at the stupid law that could now have them both back on benefits. This was a very well thought out plan that had both work and childcare covered. This country needs more people like this rather than the workshy who will just use this as another excuse. Shame on both the law and the spiteful petty minded alleged do gooder who felt it was their nosy business to tell the authorities. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
ReplyDeleteOn another note regarding this, I was reading a comments page on this subject. One individual expressed their rage at this. They finished up by adding that they had no issues with the so called nanny-state up till now but this is going too far.
The phrase 'and then they came for me' sprang suddenly to mind.....and, shame on me too, I had no sympathy at all for that individual.
It occurs to me that the 'pairing' of MP's who are, allegedly, unavailable for important votes in parliament sounds very much like a 'benefit' too. In which case perhaps they should set an example and ensure they are always in attendance for such votes, just as things used to be in the old days.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it do they ever vote about anything these days? Never seem to hear of such things reported on a regular basis. What do the useless trough dredgers do for their money?
Anonymous Sam,
As my father was in the forces and tended to move every 2 years or so I was packed off to boarding school at age 11 in order to obtain a stable and consistent education. That's what many people did back in those days, probably unnecessarily as it turned out in our case, but that was the way it was.
Boarding schools were interesting places back then and probably still are today. At the time it was an all boys school so all the teachers were male, many unmarried. Indeed for those who took on the responsibility of controlling us after school hours once we had passed the third year most of the accommodation was controlled gentlemen of bachelor disposition, though not necessarily 'confirmed bachelor' in all cases as we discovered from time to time later.
I doubt that the percentage of paedophiles in the population today is significantly different to then, unless we assume the balance of the population has changes in some way. The visibility may be far greater and perhaps the opportunity to obtain and distribute apparently offensive material is greater - but then that ease of access also leads to ease of identification and so, potentially, mis-identification. Perhaps even a focus on the wrong targets for our ire since the obvious and evident target is frequently met by picking the least challenging subjects.
And it is exactly that thinking - how can we measure our 'success' and be sure it will look good - that leads to 'laws' being created with the potential for easy hit rates, as in the case of the two police ladies, or so it seems.
Two points: Although it has now gone far too far to avoid its vulgar use as a synonym for child abuser, the accurate meaning of 'paedophile' is a lover of children - not a child molester. Perhaps fortunately for me, I tend to be a paedophobe (with occasional family exceptions).I do my best to avoid small children like the plague.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I agree with Grant that the percentage of child molesters in the population is probably no larger than it ever was. But the incessant harping on the subject by the hysterical 'child protection industry' has put the idea of it into many more people's heads than it would previously ever have occurred to, and there are always some nasty folk around who consequently decide to try it 'for kicks'. It would be a great deal better if the government, and especially the red-top press, shut up about the matter and allowed the inflated panic and irrational mistrust which they have sown about adults in childrens' minds to die down.
According to a policeman friend there are no more kiddy-diddlers now than when I were a kid back in the 1950s. Not only that, most "inappropriate behaviour" was by family members, relations and friends. Not strangers.
ReplyDeleteWhile a lot of these stupid laws have been dreamt up by ZaNulabour's feminist bra-burners led by Harridan Harpic, I suspect a desire to keep children at home where they can be indoctrinated by government/corporate propaganda to ensure they grow up into non-thinking, happily consuming sheeple who lap up Nanny's every little piece of propaganda.
Bleuuuuuuuurgh.