Bread Causes Lung Cancer

Apparently, if you choose to believe the research, carbohydrates are now being blamed for fuelling lung cancer.

A new study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, has revealed a 49% increase in risk among people consuming a diet with a high glycemic index.

In the UK, there are around 45,525 new cases of the disease diagnosed each year, while 35,371 people lose their life to the disease annually, according to Cancer Research UK.

Dr Wu, who had something to do with the study, is quoted by the Telegraph:

"The results from this study suggest that, besides maintaining healthy lifestyles, such as avoiding tobacco, limiting alcohol consumption and being physically active, reducing the consumption of foods and beverages with high glycemic index may serve as a means to lower the risk of lung cancer."

In other words, stop enjoying your life.

I have a simpler solution, simply stop smoking bread and bagels, instead why not just eat them with a liberal coating of butter and other fats!

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"

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

Nanny's Bollocks Science

I see that Nanny has conducted some more "scientific research" which is in effect bollocks, that concludes that people who eat three or more slices of white bread a day are more likely to be obese.

Researchers in Spain found graduates who ate three slices of white bread per day were 40% more likely to be obese or overweight five years later when compared with people who ate it once a week.

The findings were presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Here's why this study is bollocks....it totally ignores the other crap that these people eat/drink or put on their white bread.

White bread itself is not the cause of obesity. Obesity is caused by taking in more calories on a daily basis than you burn off.

In other "research" it seems that women who sleep in rooms that are not totally dark "may" be more prone to weight gain than those who don't.

What utter bollocks!

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"

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

The Dangers of Bread

Did you know that bread is dangerous?

No?!

Neither did I.

However, according to the new rules introduced at one of our local gastro pubs it is.

We were dining "gastro" last night, and had a sharing dish to start of olives, olive oil, balsamic vinegar and good quality warm ciabatta.

Rather than make complete pigs of ourselves, we left some bread and asked the waiter if he could "doggy bag" it.

No chance!

For why?

It seems that the gastro pub's interpretation of health and safety laws now views the taking of food off the premises (including bread) as a threat to the diners' health and safety.

"We cannot risk anything happening to you because you consumed food prepared here off the premises".

I have dined in weird, wonderful and crap establishments around the world over gazillions of years (see Restaurant Reviews), and I have never ever been told that before!

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!

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

Prats of The Week- Aldi Selby

Tis a Monday morning and time, yet again, for me to award another of my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to the Aldi store in Selby.

For why?

Ask Paul Ward, who sent his 10 year old son (David) to the store recently to buy a loaf of bread.

Problem?

Well yes actually.

David was allowed to enter the store, wander round, pick up the bread and walk to the counter.

So far, so good.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, the store refused to sell it to him!

For why?

Aldi in Selby, seemingly, has a policy of not selling anything to children under 16 unless they are accompanied by an adult.

Despite being sent back again by his father, to explain he was on a mission for his father, David left empty handed and hugely embarrassed.

Seemingly Aldi is wary of child shoplifters.

Fair enough, in theory, but here's why this particular store's policy is bollocks:

1 Not all kids under 16 are shoplifters, whilst some adults (over 16) are shoplifters. Shouldn't they ban adults as well then?

2 Given the policy of banning kids, why was David allowed to enter the store and wander round in the first place?

3 Where did commonsense go in all of this? I can well understand if a gang of kids "run amok" in a store they should be kicked out. However, one child with one loaf of bread who is paying for the loaf surely does not a present a threat to the security of the store? Were they accusing him of stealing something else (it doesn't appear to be the case)?

4 Shall we demonise all kids in this manner? What kind of life do we condemn them to if they grow up in a world where they are treated with suspicion, shunned and taught the mantra "guilty until proven innocent"?

5 How are children meant to grow into responsible adults if they are not allowed to go on errands such as this, on their own, for their parents?

As noted Aldi Selby, well deserving Prats of The Week!

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!

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

The Joy of Fry Ups

Yesterday Giles Coren wrote a piece in The Times about the dangers of fry ups.

Quote:

"I'll tell you what's holding us back from finally getting rid of the fried English breakfast for ever: lack of education. You never see a person with a degree eating a fry-up, do you? Certainly not someone with a 2:1 or better in a humanities subject from a university founded before the invention of the iPod. That's because they are smart enough to know better. "

Well, the "educated" team at Nanny Knows Best did not sit idly by and let that one pass!

Post haste the following email was sent to Coren and The Times:

"Giles

Re today's article about fry ups, here is a photo of the contents of a typical fry up that I treat myself to on some Saturday evenings.

Please note:

1 I have a 2:1 from Edinburgh

2 I am 45, and in very good nick

3 It is washed down with lashings of Erdinger

4 You will be pleased to know that I fry the bread and eggs in olive oil, and grill the English sausages, bacon and tomatoes

Did you not write recently that your doctor warned you about your own diet?

Kind regards

Ken Frost

www.nannyknowsbest.com"

Should you wish to have your own fry up, here's a list of the basic ingredients (per person):

1 Spuds for the chips

2 4 large English sausages

3 4 rashers of back bacon (smoked)

4 2-3 large tomatoes

5 2 slices of white bread for frying

6 3-4 eggs

7 2 slices of buttered white bread

Additional ingredients, if you are peckish, can include; mushrooms, beans, lamb's kidneys and black pudding.

Accompany your fry up with a well chilled supply of Erdinger, and plenty of salt.

Enjoy!





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 champagne. 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

Nanny Bans Thick Bread

I understand that the House of Lords is about to debate a very important issue, one that affects all of us.

The issue?

-Terrorism?

No

-The Credit Crunch?

No

-Labour's donations scandal?

No

Give up?

OK then, I will tell you.

The House of Lords is about to debate that most burning of issues, the thickness of slices in a ready cut loaf of bread and the dangers posed to our health by the "thick" sliced loaves.

Seemingly a thick slice contains a zillion calories more that a medium slice. Needless to say Nanny is displeased with this, and as such wants to ban thick sliced loaves.

Errmm here is a radical suggestion, why doesn't she just let the consumer decide which type of loaf that they buy?

Quite why the House of Lords is wasting their time on this most absurd of issues is beyond me.

Get a knife, buy an uncut loaf and cut the thing the way you want it; or just buy a medium/thin sliced loaf.

Problem solved!

Unfortunately Nanny doesn't think that we have the brains or the will power to make such decisions, and feels the need to take away our right to choose.

Here is an excellent way to indulge yourselves with slice of thick white, one that I really enjoyed when I was growing up (it did me no harm).

-Cut a thick slice of white bread

-Toast it

-Spread it with a generous amount of beef dripping

-Add copious quantities of salt and pepper

-Eat

Mmmmmm...scrummmy!

Duck Off!

Oh dear Nanny has got her knickers in a right old twist over the very harmless habit of feeding the ducks.

Now we all know that to eat, or roll around in duck shit is probably a bad idea. It is fair to say that even the most mentally challenged of us could have worked that out for themselves.

Unfortunately, for the ducks, Nanny doesn't think we are that bright. As such Oakley and Deane Parish Council have banned the feeding of ducks in the local pond.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council chairman Councillor John Strawbridge said:

"The pond has always been popular with locals

and an attractive feature of Oakley.

We don't want to be killjoys and we'd like

to encourage people to carry on enjoying it,

but feeding the ducks puts a strain on its entire eco-system".

He then went on to fret about the bread being bad for the ducks.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council admit that they have little proof to back up their ban. Indeed, common sense would dictate that if ducks didn't like the bread, then they wouldn't eat it.

Hilary Box, 75, who had a contract for 22 years to feed the ducks, thinks the whole idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"The sign says that feeding bread to ducks

can be bad for them but I think we have the

healthiest ducks in the world.

The bread does not appear to have done

them any harm and they haven't suffered over the years.

Feeding ducks is part of the English way of life,

it's part of the heritage to come to the local

pond with some bread. "

For fark's sake, it's a 400 year old village pond with a few ducks!

Doubtless it has been there longer, without causing any harm, than those on the Parish Council.

Another fine example of a useless interfering council, that adds zero value to people's lives.

Someone should ban the feeding of local councillors!

Educashun

Today we see another batch of A level results delivered into sweaty eager hands. As ever we can expect the pass rate to have soared to ever more dizzying heights, as Nanny proudly tells us that her educashun policies are the best since sliced bread (which of course is very bad for you, as it contains too much salt!).

However, there is a small fly in her oinkment. The trouble is no one believes Nanny when she says that she is turning out well educated citizens.

Last month Sir John Rose, CEO of Rolls Royce, admitted that it is being forced to look overseas for talented graduates; he warned of the skills crisis in the UK.

Rolls Royce is now getting around 25% of its annual intake of graduates from overseas, mainly America and Germany. However, Sir John warned that this will rise as British graduates favour poncy subjects, such as media studies and hospitality.

Last year, for example, more people did A levels in media studies than physics. Since 1990, the Institute of Physics said that the number of people taking physics A level has fallen nearly 40% from 45,334 to 28,119.

Director General David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce echoed Sir John's views, seemingly bosses have been telling him that Polish workers and other Eastern Europeans are their number one choice for many jobs.

These workers have "higher-level skills and a far better attitude to work than local people." Most of them are "enthusiastic" and "committed", compared to their British equivalents who are low-skilled and lazy.

It is predicted that China and India will soon be producing 5 million graduates every year, including 600,000 in science and engineering.

A survey, from the Association of Graduate Recruiters, said that bosses complain that some graduates have difficulty holding a proper conversation, struggle to make decisions and are not motivated.

Qualifications are of little use if you do not have the skills, abilities, and drive to make your way in the world. The Nanny state takes away these skill sets, as it destroys people's self reliance and discourages people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Nanny Bans Granny

It seems that not only does Nanny hate teenagers, but she also hates the elderly.

That at least is the experience of Betty Wilbraham, an 82 year old grandmother, who was going for a quiet drink in her local pub - the Hereward in Ely Cambridgeshire.

Betty, as per the custom of a lady brought up in a more genteel age, wears a hat when she goes out. Unfortunately the Hereward has imposed a "No Hats" policy, in order to allow their CCTV system to identify trouble making scumbags.

Now this policy, if applied in a sensible manner, is perfectly reasonable; there are trouble making scumbags who use hoodies and hats to hide from the camera. It is not unreasonable for the pub to ask "likely looking lads" to reveal their acne and pox ridden faces, lest they start to "kick off".

Unfortunately we live in the age of Nanny, where the state has taken responsibility for every aspect of our lives.

The result?

We no longer take responsibility for any aspect of our lives, and we have stopped thinking and using our common sense.

Needless to say Betty's hat caused the jobsworth morons running the pub some form of seizure, they asked her to remove it for security reasons.

The staff were of the opinion that there was a risk she would not be recognised on CCTV cameras if she started any trouble.

I would point out that the hat had maroon ribbons, I am sure that she could have been tracked down by our ever resourceful boys in blue in the event of her "kicking off"; after all if they have the nonce to record the Attorney General on the phone, then they certainly can track down an 82 year old.

Betty, towering above many at just over 5 foot, is none too impressed with the pub and vented her spleen:

"It is ludicrous to think that a little old lady like me could cause trouble in a pub.

I don't consider myself a threatening person.

It just shows the ridiculous nature of some of these rules and regulations.

Everyone is obsessed with security these days.

The girl told me that the pub was a hatless zone.

I did what she said because I did not want to make a fuss and I don't like to disobey orders.

I'm a hat person.

If I am going out to lunch I always wear a hat.

My mother wouldn't have set a foot outside the house for a loaf of bread without her hat.

She would have been horrified if ladies went to lunch without their hats."

Tony Love, the manager and evident lackey of the Nanny state, said:

"We put up the new signs

because we were finding it difficult classing what was a cap.

All customers and staff are treated the same.

In this day and age you don't know who are the troublemakers.

It is pointless having CCTV to protect people if those who cause trouble hide their faces.

I do understand Mrs Wilbraham's point of view but it is for her protection as much as anything else."

Love has clearly fallen under the dubious spell of Nanny, he misses the essential truth that is vital to the harmonious interaction of a mature and vibrant society; namely that people should apply common sense and use their judgement when interacting with people.

Relying on the state to act as arbiter will simply turn us into a nation of mindless automatons, destined to decay and wallow in our own filth as we wait for Nanny to wipe our bottoms.

The Birds

Nanny does seem to be having some sort of problems with animals at the moment, particularly the winged flapping variety. I wonder if she was frightened as a child when watching "The Birds"?

Anyhoo, Nanny's trolls in Rotherham Borough Council have got themselves into something of a strop over the behaviour of George and Janine Cooper.

What was their crime?

Simple, they were trying to feed the birds in their local village of Kiveton Park.

Now Nanny gets very angry about this sort of behaviour, and decided to film the couple as they brazenly broke the law; in fact Nanny filmed them over a period of four days!

They set off each day at 7am, with five bags of bird food, which they make from; bird seed, sultanas, sunflower seed, water and scraps of bread.

Mr and Mrs Cooper used five regular feeding points, including a bluebell wood and a paved area near the village library.

Then, out of the blue, two of Nanny's little "helpers" (wardens) appeared from the shadows and gave them a £50 fixed penalty notice for dropping litter. The wardens said that CCTV cameras had been tracking their movements for days.

Mr Cooper, who is 65, stood up for himself and refused to accept the ticket. He and his wife, who is an RSPB member by the way, continued what they were doing.

Nanny's trolls hate being disobeyed, so Rotherham borough council posted a notice to them, demanding payment within 14 days, with the threat of a £2,500 fine or even jail unless they comply.

Mr Cooper said:

"I couldn't believe it.

The council people had driven there in a car and were hiding behind a building.

They said they had seen us go there four mornings in a row and drop bread,

which they regard as litter.

They said they had video evidence to prove it.

I said, 'You must be joking' and handed the ticket back.

They have posted it to us but we have no intention of paying."

Mrs Cooper, who is also a member of the Wildlife Trust, said that she and her husband were only trying to "do our bit for wildlife and the environment".

She said:

"These idiots are treating us like common criminals.

I can't believe the extent they have gone to for the sake of fining us 50

but they are wasting their time because we won't pay.

We are not litter louts;

we are bird lovers who respect the environment

and I have no sympathy with people who drop litter."

They have been doing the morning feed run for eight years, and have never had a complaint from the residents.

Mrs Cooper said:

"We live in a rural area and the paved area near the library is an open space where nobody walks,

so it does not cause any problems."

How can Nanny foster a "Respect" society when she treats people in this way?

Nanny Bans Celebrities

Nanny has decided to ban celebrities; what a bloody good idea!

Unfortunately her ban only extends to those celebs who endorse, what Nanny describes as, "junk food".

Nanny's chums in the Department of Health have issued an advisory document that says:

"Role models for children should not be used to endorse or personally to promote products (high in fat, salt or sugar) or promotional offers to children."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the role of parents to decide what children should eat?

The state should have no part to play in dictating, in a consumer society, who can buy what food product.

Nanny's dictat may end campaigns such as the Walkers crisps advertisements starring Gary Lineker, and David Beckham's £1M a year appearances for Pepsi (no loss there then).

The ban also extends to cartoon celebrities such as The Incredibles, who are used to promote Golden Nuggets cereal, and Spiderman who for reasons best known to himself eats Penguin biscuits rather than flies.

The proposals affect TV and cinema adverts, as well as internet campaigns and product packaging aimed at children under 12.

Needless to say Nanny does not think that her proposals go far enough. Health campaigners want a total ban on advertising "junk foods" to children. They believe voluntary codes will leave "wriggle room" for manufacturers, who will still be allowed to use celebrities to promote "healthy" foods and balanced diets.

Nanny classifies some brands of sliced white bread (which we all know to be the work of the devil!) and chicken tikka masala as "healthier choices".

Interestingly, because Nanny cannot issue a law that covers all potential loopholes, non celebrities that have been created especially for the promotion of "junk food" will not be banned.

In other words, Ronald McDonald and Tony the Tiger live to fight another day.

If only Nanny could kill off that irritating clown, then she might have maintained some credibility!

Nanny Bans Eating

Nanny, seemingly, never stops telling us what particular food stuffs are bad for us.

I don't know, maybe she gets some form of sexual thrill out of trying to scare and worry people about what they eat.

Anyhoo, yesterday red meat took centre stage; as Dr Elio Riboli, from the little known European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, said that their study found that those people who eat 3kg of red meat every day are likely to suffer from indigestion and flatulence.

Dr Elio pointed out that they had to issue a fatuous report every few years, in order to justify their existence.

Well, I can tell you, Nanny is outraged she is really mad now!

There seems not to be a day go by, when another horror story about food does not appear on her desk.

Remember these scare stories folks?

-Eggs are dangerous because you can get salmonella, and they raise your cholesterol

-White bread is bad because it is white

-Brown bread is bad because it prevents you from absorbing calcium

-Beans make you fart

-Beef on the bone turns you into a mad cow

-Sugar...don't get me onto the subject of sugar

-Salt, well Sid the slug can tell you all about the dangers of salt

-Salmon contains mercury

-Chicken can infect you with SARS

-Ham contain nitrates and other nasties

-Chili powder is a definite "no no"

-School meals turn you into the working classes

-Milk, butter and cheese contains fat; and we all know what that does to you

-Carrots turn you into an Antique Roadshow Presenter

-Vegetables and fruits contain pesticides

-Genetically engineered foods are dangerous, because Prince Charles says so

Oh dear! The list simply goes on and on.

Well Nanny is fed up, and bored, with constantly telling us about the danger of what we eat.

Therefore she is going to ban eating altogether.

She believes that not eating at all is the safest way forward for her "charges". Not eating is perfectly safe; after all, it hasn't done Michael Jackson any harm has it children?

OK, maybe I am making a little bit of this up (not the list though). However, there really was a report issued yesterday about the dangers of red meat. Seemingly if you eat too much, you increase the chances of getting cancer by 30%.

Now think about that for a minute.

Increase the chances by 30%, what does that actually tell you?

Bugger all!

The study doesn't tell you what your chances of getting cancer are, if you don't eat red meat; eg they may be zero, in which case a 30% increase is still zero.

The report is useless.

Here is another useless report. In 2003 the WHO World Cancer report said that tobacco and diet accounted for 43% of all cancer deaths.

Well think about that fatuous statement for a minute.

We all die of something, be it cancer or heart failure; doctors like to have a reason to put on the death certificate.

Following that reasoning of causality, doctors need a rationale for the cause of cancer. Since they don't know, they use food and fags as a convenient excuse.

All people eat, drink and some smoke; yet we don't all have cancer. However, WHO are stating that because we eat and smoke that this is the cause of cancer.

Their reasoning is unsound.

The human race has been in existence for around 150000 years, and has eaten its way through all manner of noxious substances.

Yet it has flourished.

Nanny, despite being around for only a few years, seems to think that she knows better than 150000 years of evolution.

Nanny and her food fadists should be ignored, and should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

Enjoy your life; after all, you only have one.

Nanny Joins Ghostbusters

Following on from the death of the Pope, Nanny has had a spiritual awakening; in other words she has decided to interfere in yet another aspect of people's lives.

This time, her chums in the Norfolk education authority have drawn up guidelines for teachers who give instruction in Religious Education (RE).

Seemingly the phrase "Holy Ghost" is now considered to be "spooky". Therefore, it has been banned.

Instead teachers should use the phrase "Holy Spirit".

Then, for good measure, Nanny goes on to instruct that the first 39 books of the Bible should not be called "the Old Testament"; because it makes them sound old-fashioned.

Erm, sorry, wasn't the Old Testament written a few thousand years ago?

How can you "modernise" that?

The Catholic faith is then given an image makeover, Nanny says that Communion bread and wine should not be referred to as "the body of Jesus" or "the blood of Jesus"; because it suggests "a cannibalistic consumption of human flesh".

What utter bollocks!

Who the hell hires, and pays, these morons?

Norfolk county council's cabinet will be approving these ideas this week, and they will be introduced in all the county's schools by September next year.

Added do's and don't include the advice that teachers should avoid equating Islam with terrorism, by not showing children photographs of Muslims holding swords or kalashnikovs.

The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem must not be called such as, and this is particularly stupid, it implies that Jewish prayer is negative and moaning.

Photos of Hindu holy men, who are emaciated and covered in mud, are to be avoided; as it gives the impression that Hinduism is for "weirdos or masochists".

Sikhs also get the full "Nanny treatment", teachers are to avoid showing kachs; seemingly they look like merely voluminous underpants, and can give rise to a poor response.

The above nonsense shows how by giving a few morons a little bit of power, they can wreak havoc.

If you want to tell the Norfolk Education Authority what you think of their scheme, please use this link.

Nanny Bans Hot Cross Buns

As Easter is almost upon us I thought you would be pleased to know that Nanny has, just like she did at Christmas, stuck her interfering nose into this celebration as well.

It seems that schools across Britain have been ordered by local authorities to abandon the ancient tradition of serving hot cross buns at Easter, so that non Christians won't be offended.

The scary thing here is that we pay these council dimwits a salary.

Can anyone tell me why?

Nanny's friends in the councils are running scared of receiving complaints from non Christian religions.

Pathetic!

The morons who run Tower Hamlets have slapped a ban on hot cross buns, after they received complaints about serving....wait for it...pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

A jackass (I would use stronger words, but it is Easter!) spokesman for the Labour-run council claimed that there had been "a lot" of complaints but did not have a figure.

The spokesman then added for good measure:

"We are moving away from a religious theme for Easter and will not be doing hot cross buns...

We can't risk a similar outcry over Easter like the kind we had on Pancake Day. We will probably be serving naan breads instead."

I'm sorry, call me old fashioned if you will, but isn't Easter a religious festival??

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this!

Liverpool council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has seemingly told reporters that the symbol of the cross had the "potential to offend"; buns will no longer be served to children.

Despite this ruling, the council confirmed that it will continue to organise special menus to celebrate events as diverse as the Chinese New Year, Italian National Day and Russian Independence Day.

Twats!

Other councils on the hit list for removal from office, for not serving hot cross buns, include; York, and Wolverhampton both Labour run. Officials in Wakefield, which is also controlled by Labour, have decided it would be more appropriate to tailor the Easter menu to information technology.

"We are not serving hot cross buns at all..Each term we try to come up with a menu which encourages children to think about different issues...

This Easter term we chose information technology and did not even consider putting hot cross buns on the menu."

What were they smoking when they came up with that, I wonder?

Ann Widdecombe summed it up just right:

"These people are silly asses,".

"It would appear that we should know about everyone else's culture apart from our Christian tradition. It seems that anything that comes from an ethnic minority is fine, while anything Christian is wrong...

What can be more innocent than a hot cross bun?

There's no more fun way to explain the Christian tradition to a child and it is not as if eating a hot cross bun automatically makes you a born-again Christian."

I would note that the Muslim Council of Britain called the decision "very, very bizarre..This is absolutely amazing..

At the moment, British Muslims are very concerned about the upcoming war with Iraq and are hardly going to be taken aback by a hot cross bun."

Adding:

"Unfortunately actions like this can only create a backlash and it is not very thoughtful. I wish they would leave us alone. We are quite capable of articulating our own concerns and if we find something offensive, we will say so...

We do not need to rely on other people to do it for us...British Muslims have been quite happily eating and digesting hot cross buns for many years and I don't think they are suddenly going to be offended."

Given the above, I wonder precisely who Nanny is seeking to serve by banning these buns?

By the way Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Authority believe that hot cross buns are very healthy. On a weight-for-weight basis, the buns contain the lowest amount of sugar and fat; as well as having the highest fibre and lowest calorie content.

The bottom line is this, Nanny has gone mad and must therefore be "retired" immediately.