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.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Dictatorship of Stony Stratford

Big Brother
I see the Gauleiters of Stony Stratford (population 12,000) are licking their lips in anticipation of being the first town in the UK to ban smoking in the street, if the motion put forward by councillor Paul Bartlett is passed by the town council and Milton Keynes Council.

In the event that the motion is passed on 19 July, smokers who have a fag in the street would find themselves at the mercy of plastic police (PCSO's), traffic wardens and (even more alarmingly, shades of 1984 here) members of the public who would be able to report smokers who then would be liable to being fined.

In what "normal" town would a "normal" citizen stick his nose into a fellow citizen's business and report him for smoking in the street?

Bartlett's excuse for his proposed law is that it would "make the environment cleaner" and prevent "harm" to children.

How many times does Nanny use the "won't someone think of the children!" excuse to ram down our throats some unsavoury piece of legislation?

Bartlett appears to have a few "issues" when it comes to smokers/smoking, he is quoted rambling in a disjointed and semi incoherent fashion by the Mail:

"Why should people have the freedom to smoke in my face, pass on diseases and spoil the environment?

When you walk through the high street in any town smoke is in your face and harming you and any children there.

Smokers then get their butt, which is full of saliva, and chuck it on the floor.

It costs millions to clear street rubbish, and goodness knows what a child could pick up from them.

If I make the environment cleaner and save on council tax, sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns.

Given Bartlett's fears over pollution etc, why does he not ban cars as well?

I would have some respect for him if he had at least a consistent policy towards pollution.

Anyhoo, my sympathies to the residents of Stony Stratford, if this law is passed, aside from the impossibility of enforcing this absurd ban it will unleash upon the streets a tidal wave of interfering odious unpleasant busybodies who will use their new "powers" to make everyone lives a misery.

Feel free to drop Bartlett a note via this link

As per this site's mantra, councils are the enemy of the people!

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, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries


  1. I find this whole sorry tale rather sinister.....especially the idea that local Nanny is likely to produce a town of grasses....I don't smoke, never have and never will but, if we allow nanny to put in place such a ban, who or what will be next? Divide and rule.......Single out one group punish them, no one cares because it doesn't affect them, then when someting does affect them, the others won't support them because they were not backed previously.
    We are seeing this done regarding public sector pensions and conditions; I have heard many say words along the line of, "I've had my pension cut so why should they keep a good pension" or "I have to work harder and longer for less, so why shouldn't they."...Divide and rule, citizen fighting citizen; Nanny loves it because the population, if divided, is easier to control. Nanny has run great media campaigns to demonize sections of the population for example; Smokers, drinkers, fatties, bankers, public sector, disabled, benefit claimants, drug users, students etc etc

    What all our progressive Marxists, including our PM, can't seem to get is this; rather than drag everyone down to the bottom level, why not put mechanisms in place to help those that help themselves; reward those that do the right thing and not those that just keep producing kids with no means of supporting them......The best first move would be to take ALL political interference out of the state's indoctrination system and return it to a real education system and then secondly, insist that the BBC sticks to it's charter that prevents it from being biased, which at the moment it is. Then I would ensure that choosing to have a child with no means of supporting it just to get housed and to receive large handouts that increase with the more kids you produce were a thing of the past.......Sadly this will never happen because if any government announced such a policy, the "Baby Business Brigade" would shout, "Won't someone think of the children."

  2. Archroy11:14 AM

    I can't see that the councillors have any powers to do this. I suppos ethe interfering old biddis could try to stop people smoking in a council-owned park (or even car-park) but a street is part of the public highway, and they have no more power to stop smoking on Stony Stratford High Street than they do on Oxford Street.

    It's the local council equivalent of masturbation, I think

  3. Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells11:20 AM

    Ken said
    "Bartlett's excuse for his proposed law is that it would "make the environment cleaner" and prevent "harm" to children."

    So why doesn't he ban the hundreds of cars that pass through the town every day? Those who wish to ban smoking outdoors seem to very conveniently forget the vast amount of toxic exhaust fumes pumped out by traffic. We really do need to get rid of all the petty little pillocks that infest both local and national government, and replace them with people who can think logically and run a joined-up organisation.

    Back in the 1950s when I grew up, we were all too busy putting the country back together after the bloodiest war ever to be bothered with trivia. Sadly, the Nanny State is a sign of advanced decadence and to be quite honest I don't think it'll be long before Western "civilisation" collapses.

  4. Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells11:24 AM

    Archroy said:

    "but a street is part of the public highway, and they have no more power to stop smoking on Stony Stratford High Street than they do on Oxford Street."

    Unfortunately they can. All they need to do is enact a by-law. We only have the right of passage along the public highway and even that can be restrained by law, ie ASBOS or restrictions on association.