Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Greetings loyal readers, midway between the pig out of Christmas and the alcoholic oblivion of New Year, I am paying a brief visit online to warn you that Nanny has been busy this festive period.
Barrow Borough Council have decreed that the age old tradition of throwing boiled sweets at pantomime audiences is a health and safety risk, and have ordered actors to use marshmallows.
Pantomime, for those not familiar with the British tradition, is where parents take their children to watch the principal "boy" (an attractive young woman dressed as a man in thigh length leather boots) kiss the leading lady and the "dame" (a middle aged man dressed in an outrageous female costume) make some very risque camp jokes.
That dear readers is why so many Brits have sexual hang ups!
Anyhoo, for good measure aside from banning boiled sweets being thrown into the audience of Aladdin, Nanny has also forbidden the squirting of water into the auditorium and the flash of fireworks and puff of smoke when Aladdin's genie appears.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Well I have to say that this coalition government is certainly beginning to show its true colours.
Despite the paralysis of Heathrow, one of the world's largest airports (a vital economic hub for the UK), the government showed a "can't do/won't do" spirit and a remarkable lack of leadership wrt actually trying to resolve the problem. All it did was to send the hapless, hopeless and somnambulistic Transport Secretary to meet with the witless board of BAA.
Meanwhile another member of the government (a foolish elderly man easily flattered by the attention of two young female reporters posing as constituents) declared war on Rupert Murdoch. Should government ministers be taking their personal prejudices and vendettas into their day jobs?
The final layer of icing on this cake of folly was added by Nanny's Culture Secretary, Ed Vaizey, who has come up with an internet censorship plan to rival the great firewall of China. He want to ban porn on the net, and block it "at source".
The excuse that he uses, as indeed all Nannys use, is that the ban would "protect the children".
Funny that I thought we lived in a world designed and run for/by adults, not vice versa.
As in the days of the Lord Chancellor (who would censor scripts for "smutty" references to "bananas" etc), the problem comes with the definition of what exactly is "pornographic" (ankles, boobs, feet??? All of these are capable of arousing some people but not others).
The reality would be that, even if it were feasible to block porn (experts contend a firewall such as China's would have to be constructed) other non porn sites would also be blocked (and most certainly would be tempting Nanny to block them).
However, I dare say that in the fullness of time a site would arise (WankiLeaks) that would enable people to jump over the wall to look at all the porn they needed.
Do not be too relaxed about this, as noted above the coalition has been showing its true colours recently; governments that lack leadership, declare private wars on sections of the media they don't like and who try to censor the net are not to be trusted.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Despite the remarkable failure of BAA to keep Heathrow, one of the world's busiest (yet truly awful) airports, open during the inclement weather my partner (Eva) managed to fly back from Stockholm yesterday without any delay or fuss.
How?
Oh, simple, she flew Norwegian Air to Gatwick (an airport not "managed" by BAA).
Her journey though was not without an element of Nannyism.
On board the flight she was about to open a chocolate bar that contained nuts.
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, she was forbidden from opening it.
For why?
Seemingly, somewhere on board was a person with a nut allergy.
Now if this person was sitting next to her, was going to lick the bar or sniff in the nuts I could understand the concern. However, this was simply not the case.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I was settling down to watch Thunderbirds on Syfy yesterday morning to be astonished to hear the Syfy warn me that "the following programme contains scenes of violence".
It's Thunderbirds for farks sake, not a Steven Seagal movie!
In the episode I watched (indeed in all episodes) the central characters smoked (even on planes) and drank. I am surprised Nanny didn't warn me about that too!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Given the fact that there has been sufficient and well publicised warnings about the snow I assume that Nanny (eg councils, the Highways Agency etc) and "quasi state" bodies (eg Network Rail, BAA, BA, train companies etc) were ready for it, and have responded professionally and efficiently ensuring that our transport system continues to function during the snow.
What's that you say?
Really, the transport system has ground to a halt again?
Surely not?
Surely these bodies were prepared and ready this time?
Funny that isn't it, the state and "quasi state" bodies are always rather good at telling us how to live our lives (eg "don't travel", "check your flight details before leaving home", "no liquids", "check in at least two hours before departure" etc) and are more than happy to rob us blind (eg taxes, train fares etc) in return for providing us with "services" that fail?
Rather a one way "relationship" isn't it?
Looks like I will be using a lot of cat litter over the coming days!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
On December 1st I wrote that the "five a day" advice about eating five portions of fruit and veg a day was bollocks.
Now, some 16 days later, Nanny's chums from Oxford University research write that that was in fact bollocks. They claim that a "staggering" 33,000 lives could be saved a year in Britain if everybody ate five pieces of fruit and vegetables a day and stuck to recommended guidelines for salt, fat and fibre.
Snort!
More bollocks I suspect for sadly, as we know, Nanny likes to mould "facts" to fit her own agenda.
Additionally, out of a population of 60 million 33K is but a pin prick (given that this doubtless includes a vast number of people whose deaths have but merely been postponed for a wee while, and who have been condemned to live a little longer in pain and discomfort).
Eat, drink and exercise in a sensible manner (listen to your body, not Nanny) and allow yourselves indulgences. That is the key to a healthy happy life.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that the media, government and weather "experts" are all screaming at us that the coldest winter in 400 years is about to begin today, and that when you wake up and read this we will all be covered in a thick blanket of snow.
That'll be the global warming then!
Hmmm, well call me cynical but I don't have much faith in the weather forecasters.
In the unlikely event that we are covered in snow, given the mass hysteria of the media et al there will be absolutely no excuse for the train companies, airports and councils not to have done some decent prep beforehand and for all services to be running smoothly and efficiently.
Yes???
However, I will give you a tip if you find yourselves snowbound without any grit to hand...cat litter!
It works a treat, I recommend that you buy a ton of the stuff just in case.
In related news, did I mention that I am a proud shareholder in one of the world's largest cat litter mines? (which has the cat shit market by the bollocks)...;)
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that, despite promises of austerity (and sharing the pain etc), our overlords in HM Treasury are having a little trouble getting into the spirit of "we are all in this together".
George Osborne had made a promise that this Christmas HMT would buy its official Christmas tree from B&Q (estimated price £40), instead of the normal one that costs them £875.
Why does the "normal" tree cost HMT (ie us, the taxpayers) so much?
Well loyal readers our "beloved" ex PM and his administration of cronies managed to sign themselves up with a company (Exchequer Partnerships, a PFI supplier), who apparently live on the planet Zog and are of the view that trees cost £875.
Anyhoo, all was going according to plan (in George's mind) until the Treasury's Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, wrote him a memo informing him that he could not buy a £40 tree.
For why?
It would be a breach of contract, the company would not water it, they probably wouldn't lend a ladder to help decorate it and most likely there would be health and safety issues regarding the decoration of said tree.
Can you see the underlying message here?
Yes, that's right, it's:
"We have no intention of making any changes in the way that this department operates, go fark yourself!".
Now those of us who live in the real world know perfectly well that a tree can be bought for £40, and watered for two weeks or so (even if it isn't, it's only meant to be there for a couple of weeks) etc. However, the brain dead members of our civil service (who are paid remarkably well) cannot and will not see it that way.
The very sad conclusion to be drawn from this instructive Christmas tale is that the government (even if it is sincere) hasn't got a hope in hell of cutting costs in the areas where they can be cut, without affecting front line services; because the people who administer the cuts will do all in their power to block them, and pass them onto front line services.
In short, the civil service needs to be shut down and built up from scratch again.
Don't forget that at the height of our Empire -"E is for Empire, on which the sun never sets!" - (when we ran approximately 25% of the world) we were able to do it with a civil service that was barely 30% of the bloated, pension inflated monstrosity that we have now.
BTW, it seems that the PFI supplier was so humiliated by the publicity concerning this that they eventually "gifted" a tree for £30. They wouldn't lend a ladder though, and the permanent secretary had to stand on a chair to put a star on the top.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Ooh err Missus, it has been a wee while since I have awarded anyone my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Award.
Therefore, without any further delay, I am please to announce that it goes this week to Esex County Council.
For why?
Just ask Ron Warrick, a lollipop man who plies his trade outside St Mary's Primary School in Shenfield.
Sadly for Mr Warrick, since the council spent £30K on safety improvements at the junction he has had to hang up his lollipop.
For why?
The council deem it unsafe for him to step into the road.
He is now paid to press the button at the pedestrian crossing, and has to wait on the pavement while the kids brave the road themselves!
Chris Beazley, the head teacher at the school, has even been instructed by the council to tell parents that Mr Warrick will be giving lessons to parents in how to cross the road.
For why?
The council are of the view that the parents are crossing "incorrectly"!
SNARF!!!
Essex County Council, well deserving Prats of The Week!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that Nanny's chums in Islington council have come up with a terrific money making wheeze.
The council will fine people £110 if they put rubbish in the wrong bins, that's £30 more than fines levied on shoplifters.
Allegedly the fines will help save the planet!
Bollocks!
The money is being used to pay the wage bills of people who add zero value to the community, such as the spies who will monitor adherence to this new rule.
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
The last few days have been a tad "busy" wrt daft c*nts making a**eholes of themselves.
In London I read that Camilla was poked with a stick and here, in Stockholm, some knobhead seems to have blown himself up with some sort of homemade pipebomb.
Sadly the world is populated with knobheads, intent on inflicting their inner "pain" onto others.
I have some sage advice that will at least help resolve street demos, which these days are populated by "feral" knobheads.
Whilst the UK media whips itslef up into "outrage" over the "stick poking" incident, and Nanny and her dog whistle politicians use such nonsense as an excuse for "tougher" laws etc I have a simple solution to future riots.
All that has to be done is for a few water cannon to be brought along to the next student riot. The water cannon should be filled with petrol (gas if you are in the USA), not water, and the crowd sprayed liberally with the petrol.
A senior polcie officer should then address the crowd and inform them, for their own "health and safety", that if they are not off the streets in five minutes he will be dropping a lighted match within their vicinity.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Greetings loyal readers from a snow covered Stockholm.
I will keep this article relatively brief, as I am using the world's slowest pc.
Anyhoo, I see that despite the wise words of the Information Commissioner (that parents taking photos of their kids' Nativity plays is not an illegal act) Nanny's drones (as I predicted) are whining back.
Certain teachers and union bods have tried to claim that the advice given is not actually correct.
For why?
It seems that these bans have been put in place because of advice given by our "respected" local councils. In other words, Nanny's drones are attempting to blame another deprtment of Nanny.
Be that as it may this is spurious reasoning:
1 Councils have no business dicatating to parents what they may/may not photograph.
2 Councils talk claptrap.
3 Advice from councils and idiotic bans such as this should be ignored.
Stick a hearty two fingers up to Nanny this Christmas!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Sometimes, despite the many years I have been running this website, I read a story about Nanny's stupidity that takes even my breath away.
Such a story came to light recently about Harpers, a private company which runs Sports Centres on behalf of councils in the South-East. Harpers have decreed that floats (used by people to help them swim and not drown) should be banned unless used only during paid lessons.
It seems that some kid managed to almost choke on a float (why was that kid eating the float in the first place?).
Anyhoo, Harper's pool in the sports centre owned by Wokingham Borough Council at Lower Earley are happily following this decree and even ban adults from using floats.
I have to ask, how stupid are children these days to consider munching on a float (to the point of choking themselves) to be a pleasurable activity?
Why do Harpers believe that adults would do the same?
Or could it be something to do with the fact that floats are allowed, but only if used during a PAID lesson?
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
Contrary to what some of Nanny's acolytes would have us believe (eg those running Applecroft primary school in Welwyn Garden City), the taking of photos by parents of their kids in school nativity plays is not a criminal act.
The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has decreed that parents should be free to photograph their children in nativity plays and that such photos do not breach the data protection laws.
This ruling, whether or not it carries any weight in itself (bear in mind the Nanny drones who try to enforce this nonsense are not trying to hide behind data protection laws, but are using other made up laws to get away with their nonsense), comes as one hapless father in Leicestershire was threatened by a Nanny drone at one school with arrest if he dared take a photo of his child.
The Information Commissioner's Office has now released guidance for schools, after receiving numerous queries from parents.
Mr Graham is quoted by the BBC:
"Having a child perform at a school play or a festive concert is a very proud moment for parents and is understandably a memory that many want to capture on camera.
It is disappointing to hear that the myth that such photos are forbidden by the Data Protection Act still prevails in some schools."
A common sense approach is needed. Clearly, photographs simply taken for a family album are exempt from data protection laws.
Armed with our guidance, parents should feel free to snap away this Christmas and stand ready to challenge any schools or councils that say 'bah, humbug' to a bit of festive fun."
The real question is whether the drones who try to ban photos will listen to this, and whether anyone has the guts to make a scene (at the risk of humiliating their kids) to overturn this nonsensical ban.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Those of you who have managed to stay awake during the ongoing WikiLeaks drip drip release of diplomatic chit chat may find the following article, published on China Matters, to be of interest.
It seems, if Peter Lee (the author) is correct, that this is a media run leak (rather than a WikiLeak run leak) whereby the US has allowed the media organisations to redact certain data.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I see that the health and safety gestapo have identified another "threat" to children. This time the "threat" comes in the form of tea and coffee served at "coffee mornings" hosted in childrens' centres.
Mill Hill Children's Centre, Waterlooville Hampshire, is the latest childrens' centre to fall under the jackboot of the health and safety brigade. Despite having served tea and coffee to adults, who take their kids there for some 7 years (for an entry fee of £1), hot drinks are now banned (ironically the £1 charge remains!).
The fact that people drink tea and coffee at home seems to have escaped Nanny, as does the fact that the risk of a kid having a cup of coffee dropped on him/her is considerably less than the risk of the kid being injured in a car crash whilst being driven to a "coffee morning".
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Ample evidence of the madness that is engulfing our country can be found all around us, not least in the hysteria whipped up by the media and dog whistle politicians over the "dangers" of photos being taken at schools during plays and performances etc.
This hysteria manifests itself in various schools, including Applecroft primary school in Welwyn Garden City. Here photos taken of the school's pupils that appear in the school yearbook have the kids' eyes redacted by a crude black line (except for the kids of the parents to whom each book is given - ie each yearbook is customised and manually edited by the teachers for each parent!).
Additionally, parents are banned from taking pictures in school, in case the pictures are then superimposed onto obscene images for later distribution.
Parents of pupils at the school are fed up with this nonsense, and want it stopped in time for the school's nativity play.
The policy was introduced 3 years ago via a 17 page "photography policy":
"The proliferation of internet web pages and social networking sites has given rise to increased concerns that images will be misused and that a child's face or body could be used to represent matters wholly contrary to the wishes of their parents."
Needless to say, the damage that this policy has on the relationships and trust between adults and children is incalculable. I dare say no one has bothered thinking of that.
Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
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
Just a brief comment about the ongoing snowbound shambles that is our transport infrastructure.
I watched Philip Hammond, Nanny's Transport minister, on Newsnight last night.
Goodness me there was a man who seemed to be perfectly "satisfied" that the state was doing all it could to deal with the issue.
LOL!
The same old bleating line "worst weather in decades" was trotted out, along with some banal comments that the main roads were all clear...errmmm...they most certainly are not.
He steadfastly refused to agree that the army should be called in to help (a call being made by, a.o., the AA).
He then went on to issue the Nanny state's mantra "only travel if your journey is absolutely necessary".
Well, here's a message for the minister and Nanny:
Most people (adults and children) have have to travel to get to their work, or go to school.
Is he suggesting that the country should simply stop work?
Admittedly, in my area:
- The mail has stopped - There were no trains to/from Brighton station yesterday - Gatwick was shut - Corner shop had no papers, bread etc - Local supermarket resembled a third world shop; it had run out of most fresh produce - Hospitals have asked that only emergencies attend - Schools are shut - No grit on our roads - No waste collection etc etc
In effect, it does seem that many have had to stop work. So much for the "plug in and play" environment that governments are meant to provide us with (see "Happiness").
However, Nanny has run up a £4.8 trillion debt.
How the fark are we going to pay that off, if we can't get to work to pay her ever increasing taxes?
The minister and Nanny are living on another planet!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
How lovely to have such a "seasonal" snowfall in the weeks leading up to Christmas!
That of course would be fine were we living in a country with a decent transport infrastructure, and well managed central and local government services. However, in Nanny's Britain the state (despite being remarkably good at telling us how to run our lives) is incapable of managing basic services.
As usual the UK ground to halt within hours of the first snowflakes appearing; roads were not gritted, trains were stuck and airports closed.
For why?
Those who are responsible for managing the transport infrastructure are simply not up to the job, and trot out all the usual complacent excuses about the weather being unpredictable and it being the worst since 989BC etc etc.
Bollocks!
Countries such as Russia and Poland (who are not meant to be as well off as the UK) manage to keep their trains, buses and airports running.
What does Nanny do?
She bleats out the same tired old line "do not travel unless your journey is absolutely necessary".
Lovely advice if you live in Lah Lah Land. However, the majority of people have to travel to get to work, go to school and shop etc.
Here's what needs to be done:
1 Gritters, snow ploughs and track de-icers should be working during the night, not just during daylight hours.
2 School kids should be advised to walk to school, rather than rely on their parents driving them.
3 Individuals should be responsible for clearing their own pathways (and those of their elderly infirm neighbours) of snow (this is the law in other countries, eg Poland).
4 The Meteorological Office should be fined when they screw up their forecasts.
5 It should be mandatory for everyone (on cold days such as this) to have a bowl of porridge fortified with a tot of whisky or rum for breakfast.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
It transpires that the advice drummed into our heads over the years by Nanny, to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day is in fact bollocks.
BTW, what exactly is a "portion"?
Anyhoo, as with all of Nanny's advice it was based on flaky "science"; ie no rigorous research had been conducted before she happily dispensed the advice.
The British Journal of Cancer reports that official guidelines on eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may not have a substantial effect on cancer.
Scientists now "believe" (please note that we are still in "belief" mode) that the risk (please note we are talking "risk" here, not the same as saying "definite") of developing cancer is much more related to how much you eat and drink, rather than what you eat.
Factoid: during the Second World War, the British government told the people to eat more carrots on the false pretext that it would help them see in the dark. The reality was that there was a glut of carrots, and the government wanted us to bulk up our food intake with them.
The "good news", from Nanny's perspective, is that the current "belief" is that high levels of booze and fags increase the chances of cancer. This of course will give Nanny every opportunity to lecture us about how much we smoke and drink.
Here's the reality of this research.
We are now living longer than we have ever done before, hence cancer has a greater chance of developing.
Like it or not, the longer you live the greater the chance of developing cancer. There is a very strong link (in a large number of cases) between the way the body works and its interaction with background radiation (emanating from the earth and the sun); ie once you have had your "lifetime's limit" of background radiation your body is less well equipped to deal with cancerous cells.
Like it or not the older you are, the greater the risk of developing cancer (it's an odds thing).
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
As we know, Nanny and her acolytes have something of a fetish for gathering data on all of us and putting that data into databases.
Nanny's rationale being that the databases help her to "help" us live "better" more "secure" lives etc etc; eg the "super" NHS database (that has yet to work) and the proposed child "protection" database (that allows all manner of people access to personal details).
Nanny has assured us, on numerous occasions, that the data stored in these databases is secure.
Bollocks!
As we have seen in the UK (eg with the loss of HMRC data on 25 million people), databases are far from secure.
However, the ongoing Wikileaks fiasco wrt 250,000 "classified" US cables knocks the UK security failures into a cocked hat.
Whilst the content of the leaked cables is, to people with half a brain, hardly surprising and in many cases bordering on the trivial; the damage done to US diplomatic efforts is incalculable. People will now treat US diplomats in the same way as they treat journalists, and work on the assumption that whatever is said may well appear on the net one day.
How did this fiasco come to pass?
Post 9/11 the US became more scared and paranoid than it usually is. Now, under such conditions, one would assume that there would have been a "security lockdown" wrt handling diplomatic communications.
Perversely, no, the exact opposite happened.
Working from the premise that sharing data would increase US security, the government of the day undertook to build a central database of all diplomatic communications.
Maybe, in itself, this was a logical idea.
However, the US government then asked themselves the fundamental question wrt databases namely:
"Who do we grant access rights to?"
They chose, for reasons that are beyond any understanding, to grant unfettered access rights to over 3.5 million people.
Yes, you did read that correctly, over 3.5 million people were given access rights to this database!
An accident waiting to happen!
Quite why the US authorities are so "shocked" over this leak is beyond me. Frankly the fact that the leak didn't occur years ago is more surprising.
The lesson to our own Nanny is clear, databases can be abused. To leave the design and security of such databases to politicians (who have zero experience of the real world, work or IT) is asking for trouble.
BTW, one small question, what on earth does the US government want the biometric data of UN personnel for?
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Fresh on the heels of the recent announcement by the Tory led coalition to ban all branding of fags, our "beloved" government is now planning to up the minimum price of booze.
Nanny's Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, will publish a white paper this week that will outline plans to ban cheap alcohol sales.
Supermarkets will be banned from selling wine, beer and spirits below the cost of duty on the product plus VAT.
There are also plans to raise the duty paid on super-strength beer, as part of the Police and Social Responsibility Bill that is also due to be published.
Licences could be removed from sellers that breach the rules.
I had been labouring under the misunderstanding that we were now being governed by a Tory led government, with an agenda to lessen the burden of state control on the individual, not a socialist administration intent on encroaching ever further into our daily lives.
Clearly I was wrong.
I find it hypocritical, to say the least, that our "respected" MPs (hereafter referred to as useless gobshites) are striving to increase the price of booze; given that these useless gobshites have unfettered access to subsidised bars and restaurants (open until the wee small hours) courtesy of the long suffering taxpayer.
Why do they allow themselves the option of being able to drink cheap booze, but deny the voters that same option?
My thanks to the Irish Daily Star for coming up with a headline (albeit intended for the Irish cabinet) that so ably describes our government.
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
I am gemused to see that our coalition government has announced that it will spend around £2M a year measuring our "happiness".
A fascinating idea yet, somehow, I suspect deeply flawed.
Let us start with the basics, ie what exactly is "happiness"?
There are some basic theories that state that humans have several levels of "needs" that have to be satisfied before they achieve "nirvana".
The basic "needs" are:
- Food - Shelter - Safety/warmth - Sex
Once these have been sated, the human "id" (or ego) takes over, and mankind (so the theory goes) looks for fulfillment (or his/her destiny) via intellectual pursuits and "leisure activities that boost the ego and give rise to feeling of self satisfaction/contentment.
Hmmmm, all well and good, yet measuring these key performance indicators (KPI's) is all but impossible.
1 As each new generation is born in the "First World", their aspirations are higher than the previous generation.
Economic, political, technological and social advancement means that each generation expects growth and improvement in their basic conditions. Our grandfathers would have been more than content with a roof over their heads and an indoor privy. The current generation expects nothing less than a 42 inch plasma TV with internet access etc.
2 One person's view of "enough" wrt eg food or sex, is not the same as another's. There are some who can make do with sex once a month whilst there are others, eg certain "celebrities", who cannot get a "boner" unless it's at least 3 in a bed twice a day with half a kilo of coke.
3 It is fair to say that many in the UK are more than sated wrt their food intake, one only has to watch people stuff their faces with all manner of shit from takeaways etc to see that.
Yet, take a close look at many of these face stuffers and ask yourselves are they really happy?
To my view they look terribly unhappy, and are in fact using food to take their minds off their own self perceived misery and self pity.
4 Despite all our social and economic advances, there are still people in this country who do not have a roof over their heads, who live in cold damp rooms and who do not have enough to eat.
Unless their basic needs are met there can be no effective measure of the country's happiness, because they have yet to get to the next level (where "happiness" is meant to kick in).
5 The Orifice of National Statistics will be the organ of the state assigned the task of measuring "happiness". As we know from its lamentable record wrt providing economic statistics whatever numbers it reports are unreliable, out of date and subject to revision.
Having proven that measuring "happiness" is all but impossible, the question that also needs to be asked is whether this really is any of the government's business?
Traditional political models work on the assumption that if the government stimulates the economy, and ensures that there is a reasonable level of "full" employment, then people will be happy. As demonstrated above, "happiness" is a little but more complicated than that.
For sure, money alone cannot buy you happiness. However, abject poverty in the face of conspicuous abundance is miserable.
The real key to "happiness" is a subjective mixture of:
- "wealth", - "freedom", and - the expectation/"hope" of self improvement.
These three "keys" to happiness can only come about when a government runs a "plug in and play" environment, whereby the individual can safely go about his/her business (without harming others) in the expectation that the government will not keep changing the rules of the game or stifle initiative and self growth via excessive rules, regulations and taxes.
This means that governments need to focus on downsizing their role in society, and individuals need to become (and be allowed to become) more responsible for their own lives.
Wasting money on measuring "happiness" will not achieve anything tangible, other than a "feelgood" buzz for Nanny.
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
I would like to wish all my loyal American readers, wherever they are in the world, a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving in the USA is one of the busiest periods for travelling in the year. Therefore this story from the USA is rather appropriate.
In Europe, over the past few years, we have become accustomed to increased security checks at airports eg; shoes and belts have to be removed, passengers have to walk through metal detectors, pat downs are common place, body scanners are now being installed etc.
These security checks are as a result of the perceived increase in threat level from various terrorist groups, and the increased security requirements imposed on Europe by the US authorities.
I was therefore somewhat surprised to read that in the US, only recently have pat downs and body scanners been introduced and that a vocal minority of the travelling public there are rebelling against these on the grounds that they represent a threat to individual civil liberties.
John Tyner, a software engineer from California, has become something of an internet "hero" when he recorded his run-in with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at San Diego airport on his mobile phone.
The new security pat-down procedure, introduced on November 1, has caused an uproar; the alternative, walking through a body scanner, is not trusted by people in the USA on both health and modesty grounds.
Mr Tyner refused to submit to the body search, and told security officials in San Diego "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested".
Apparently there is now a range of T shirts with that motto emblazoned on them, and a movement has formed declaring 24 November to be "National Opt-Out Day" (urging passengers to refuse to be searched).
I can, to a degree, sympathise with the idea behind this; innocent until proven guilty ought to be the maxim, yet we are all seemingly treated as potential terrorists. The delays to travel brought about by the increased security checks is also a major hindrance to the "enjoyment" of flying.
However, I do wonder if these same people who are complaining would be quite so vocal if a bomber manages to get through and blow up a plane?
There needs to be a balance struck between sensible precautions (eg profiling etc), and excessively intrusive time wasting searches.
We, in Europe, have rolled over and meekly accepted all the security "upgrades" (eg body scanners, no liquids, show removal etc) without so much as a whimper. This passive obedience particularly sticks in the gullet, when one reads that the country that has insisted on Europe introducing these measures can't introduce them in its own borders without an almighty fuss from the travelling public there.
European and US travellers may well have some lessons that they could learn from each other, with a view to persuading the authorities to make the security checks more focused and less intrusive for the ordinary non terrorist passenger.
Do remember this, the terrorists win if they force us to live in a state of fear and siege.
On this rather "heavy" note I wish you all a peaceful, happy and rewarding Thanksgiving.
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
Yawn...another tedious "study" into the alleged effects of drinking has been published.
This study, conducted by Toulouse University (so it didn't cost British taxpayers anything I assume), compared drinkers in Belfast to drinkers in several regions of France. The rationale for the demographic split is that the French drink the same amount, but in a different pattern.
It seems that the good people of Belfast drink most of their booze over the weekend (Nanny calls this "binge" drinking), whilst the French spread it out over the week.
The study concluded that men who "binge" drink, had nearly twice the risk of heart attack or dying from heart disease compared to regular drinkers over the 10 years of follow up.
Binging, according to "experts", consists of drinking just over two pints of strong lager in one day!
Good grief, that's absolutely pathetic!
That is barely a gnat's piss in a swimming pool.
Clearly those who conduct research live on a different planet to me (and I guess a few of my loyal readers?).
As to what "twice the risk of heart attack" actually means in real life is not quantified. Given that a vast number of people in Britain consume more than two pints on a daily basis, I don't see bodies piling up in the street felled by a sudden cardiac arrest.
Needless to say, the media have latched on to this and of course our dog whistle politicians (who enjoy subsidised all day drinking courtesy of the taxpayers) will call for "action" to be taken.
It is of course utterly meaningless, the so called "unit" approach to "safe" drinking is nonsense. One person can drink gallons and not be affected, whilst another can have but half a glass of wine and fall flat on their face. It all depends on the individual, both physically and mentally.
One size does not fit all and Nanny, by reducing the "recommended unit intake" to the lowest possible level, makes a mockery of her health advice.
The only "lesson" one can possibly draw from this study is that drinking all week does you no harm.
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
I see that Nanny's war against fags continues unabated.
Rather ironic, given that Nanny makes so much money out of fag taxes and that people's health is worse affected by pollution from cars and planes etc.
Anyhoo, dismissing those "annoying" little facts, Nanny has decided that the current design of fag packets is just too sexy. In her view they encourage people to smoke.
LOL!
Please, who is she trying to kid?
Who can seriously say that a fag packet looks sexy, or enticing?
Who on the planet has really been tempted to smoke, simply because of a fag packet?
Nanny's proposed solution is to have all fag packets made from brown paper, no logos or anything.
Here's why this idea is bollocks:
1 No one gives a fark about the design of fag packets, least of all the hardened smoker.
2 There will be a new market created in fag cases and fag packet covers (much like mobile phone covers).
3 Counterfeiters will rejoice, and Nanny's tax take will be reduced accordingly.
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
Nanny's so called "Big Society" may or may not be quite as "big" as we were led to believe. Those who publicly "swim against the tide" of whatever the media/politicians deem to be the "big society" will find themselves ostracised.
The departure of Lord Young, David Cameron's "enterprise tsar" and scourge of "red tape and health and safety", may well backfire on the government.
It most certainly can be argued that Lord Young, given that he is a very experienced politician, should have known that by saying that those who have mortgages have "never had it so good" that his words would be twisted by the media.
However, he is technically correct. Those with mortgages and jobs are better off in this recession, with low interest rates, than they would have been in earlier recessions when rates were higher.
He also noted that the spending cuts are not as "harsh" as they are being made out to be. In fact the "cuts" will take government spending back to levels last seen in...wait for it...2007! Also bear in mind that the national debt stands at a staggering £4.8 Trillion, the cuts are but a "gnat's piss" when compared to that figure.
With regard to the loss of 0.5M public sector jobs, this should be taken against a backdrop of a workforce that numbers 30M and the fact that there are many public sector jobs (eg back office diversity officers etc) that are non jobs.
Needless to say, if you have no job or are on a very low income and rely on the state then the recession will bite.
Lord Young though was pointing out that the self flagellation of the government and media, over the depth and harshness of the recession and cuts, may well in fact be overdone.
His straight talking advice and commonsense wrt cutting bureaucracy and rolling back the state (which is responsible for getting the country into this mess) will be badly missed.
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
