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.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Knobhead of The Millennium - David Halpern

My hearty congratulations to David Halpern (head of the Government's Behavioural Insights Team - aka 'The Nudge Unit'), who has slam dunked himself to win my prestigious, and rarely awarded, Knobhead of The Millennium Award.

For why has he been given such an award?

For his cretinous (and highly dangerous) suggestion that HMRC should overclaim tax from taxpayers.

At the Civil Service Live event Halpern said "it would be better for us to modestly overclaim tax" because when HMRC underclaims people become irritated and tempted to cheat.

He then went on to talk ever more bollocks about the "the psychological boost of getting a rebate" - and the possibility that people spend rebates:

"When people get tax back from HMRC, they feel great.

In the US, people love it, and they spend the money differently too. So we're trying to persuade you guys [HMRC] that's what you should do. Make sure you have a certain amount of outcome which means you have to give people their money back."
Our taxes are paying the salaries of cretins like Halpern!

David Halpern well deserving Knobhead of the Millennium!

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"

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. Anonymous11:57 AM

    What a fuckwit!

    I also see that the Government want companies that legally assist people to pay less taxes to hand over their clients details so that they be exposed as being ‘morally repugnant’.

    I think it is morally repugnant to get elected on the basis of a manifesto that you have no intention to adhering to, to falsify your expenses and to hound people that are operating within the law.

    1. Indeed, and it sets a very dangerous precedent because it would likely mean a breach of the principle of legally privileged advice being confidential.

    2. Tonk.2:58 PM

      So let's get this right; Nanny is going to publish a list of people that have done nothing illegal.....Is that right?

      She is going to force private companies to disclose confidential material and then she'll publish it?

      Here are a couple of other lists Nanny could publish in the same catagory:-

      List of people that haven't committed theft.
      List of people that haven't committed criminal damage.
      List of people that aren't muggers.....And so on.

  2. What a crazy idea!

    I wonder if his "wizzard wheeze" costs in the extra staff for dealing with the appeals, telephone charges, lawyer fees etc etc. Not to mention the army of staff required to sort out the overcharges and issue refunds.

    I wonder if this "scheme" falls foul of section one of The Theft Act 1968? It states along the lines of; "Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanatly depriving them of it." I suspect knowing that there will be an overcharge, is dishonestly taking another's property however, expecting them to reclaim it may perhaps, eliminate the last condition however, if the victim does not claim it back, will HMRC return it? If not, perhaps it is theft.

    Is this gentleman encouraging HMRC to commit theft? People that suggested others should riot were given long prison sentences; should this gentleman be banged up too?

    Perhaps someone will make the complaint to the Met Police and then they will be duty bound to investigate it.

  3. As it is implict and/or explict in all assessments from Government agencies, that penalties attend non-compliance, the proposal seems covered by s.21 Theft Act 1968 - Blackmail.
    Under the Act, blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss. By s.21(3) Theft Act 1968, the maximum sentence for blackmail is 14 years.
    Elements of blackmail
    To be liable for blackmail the defendant must:
    Make a demand
    With menaces
    The demand must be unwarranted
    have a view to make a gain for himself or another or have intent to cause a loss to another

  4. Anonymous2:27 PM

    'Behavioural Insights Team' what the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    can we go and get these bastrads now, please Ken, can we..........???

  5. Funny he should say that, when I was gainfully employed I got the distinct impression that they did overclaim, but I never got any back!

  6. Anonymous4:24 PM

    It never ceases to amaze me how fucking stupid, compliant and brainwashed the people are that make comments on the BBC news website.
    I am sure that it is not just careful editing by whoever moderates the site, but the news story today about how the Government’s plans for exposing people that are engaged in a perfectly legitimate activity has drawn hundreds of comments which are not only directly in contrast of what is written here, but also in contrast to any common sense.

    This is not the first time that such a thing has happened.

    Where do they get those cunts from?

    1. Alice8:27 PM

      I have long abandoned the BBC Have Your Say sections because there is never any debate whatsoever, nor any politeness or compassion. Just horde after horde of trolls.

  7. Lord of Atlantis11:25 AM

    A very well-deserved award. I think people are more likely to be irritated and be dishonest if they are OVERcharged tax! Apart from anything else, this seems to be inciting theft. So why hasn't this person had his collar felt by the boys in blue?