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, October 20, 2010

Project Prevention

I see that a US charity (Project Prevention) has started to pay UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised. The charity is of the view that drug addicts make "unfit" parents.

Maybe so.

The trouble is, who comes next on the list of "unfit" parents?

-Alcoholics (the charity in the US also pays them to be sterilised)?
-Fat people?
-Retarded people?
-Poor people etc?

By the way, who exactly draws up the list of the "unfit"?

Eugenics, and variations thereon, lead to a very ugly future (as the past clearly demonstrates).

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 booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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. It was only a matter of time before Nanny's friends reverted to type.....Hitler anyone?

  2. There is a world of difference between a privately funded charity offering an entirely optional incentive for someone to get sterilized, and the state using taxpayer's money to force someone to be sterilized.

    Comparing the two is like saying a shopkeeper choosing to put a CCTV camera inside his own shop is 'government spying'.

  3. Anonymous10:05 PM

    Snippery slope

    A US charity called Project Prevention is offering drug addicts £200 if they agree to have a vasectomy so they can’t pass on their degenerate lifestyles to the next generation. Apparently alcoholics (however defined) will get £100. Whether or not this will actually produce the desired results is doubtful, and you can’t help wondering where all this is going to end. What about people who weigh 20 stone? What about long-term benefit claimants? It’s not hard to find people prepared to express Sun-reader type opinions that “they shouldn’t be allowed to breed”. What about smokers? What about heavy drinkers, or indeed anyone who drinks more than the officially sanctioned annual thimbleful? Or those who don’t eat their “five a day”?

    The discredited eugenics movement of the early 20th century is generally thought of now as being about racial purity, but in reality it was just as much, if not more, about improving the quality of the population by preventing the feckless underclass from breeding. The well-known novelist H. G. Wells, generally regarded as a man of the political Left, advocated ridding the world of the “unfit” through forced sterilisation, and he was far from alone. It seems that this mentality of making value judgments as to who is fit to reproduce and who isn’t, based on “lifestyle” criteria, is starting to creep back in again by the back door. It’s certainly widely spoken of already in relation to healthcare entitlement.

  4. Anonymous12:58 AM

    vasectomy? What of female junkies?

  5. They tested the water earlier in the year,with,the "morally unfit"should not be allowed to breed,then in the same week,there was a failed "novelist"suggesting that the "poor "should be limited to two children,since no-one beat them to death for suggesting such a thing,they take that as acceptance by the general public and proceed to phase two,involving a "charity"to enhance thier image,for every-one knows that "charities" have every-ones welfare at heart and can not possibly be tainted with nasty eugenics,and use stupid junkies as thier guinea-pigs,because socially they are beyond the pallium,so who cares,only next time it will be you.

  6. Tonk.7:13 PM


    The police see private cctv as a resourse they can demand to see; (If a crime has taken place-cctv doesn't prevent crime it only records crimes that have already happened) so in that sense, it could be mooted that these private businesses are spying for the organs of state.

    Regarding your point in your first paragraph; does the charity carry out these proceedures in their own facility? No, they don't. Do the charity pay for the proceedure to be carried out in a private facility?..No.....The op is carried out within NHS facilities by NHS staff and therefore, the tax payer IS funding this work...Having spent my working life in prisons and secure forensic psychiatric hospitals, I know that people that are desparate to get the cash they need will do desparate things......It may be a good thing for some people to be prevented from breeding but, are we the right people to judge others, based on our own morallity and prejudices?....Personally, I think not.