The Duke of Westminster Nails It - The Secret of His Success!

The Duke of Westminster's key to success. Priceless. https://t.co/mkPfwwttO3 pic.twitter.com/ydGupCD59H

— Katie Martin (@katie_martin_fx) August 10, 2016

Forget Nanny's exhortations to study in failing schools for meaningless qualifications from fake "universities" in degrees that have no value, in order to acquire a minding numbing job in which to bust your arse to pay her taxes.

It's who you know, not what you know that will help you through your life!

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 Bans The Reliable- Only Fuckwits Need Apply

This story, recently featured in the media, surely earns the brain dead drone who imposed this piece of Nannyism an unchallengeable award of "Fuckwit of The Millennia".

Aside from all the other regulations imposed upon the hapless employer by Nanny, wrt employing people, another useless rule has been created (almost out of thin air).

Nicole Mamo, who runs a recruitment agency in Thetford Norfolk, was attempting to place an advert for hospital workers. She was mindful not to upset Nanny wrt offending people on the grounds of race, age or sexual orientation etc.

However, she made one fatal mistake.

Can you guess what that is loyal readers?

Yes, that's right, she asked for applicants to be "reliable and hardworking".

Under Nanny's iron fist, this sort of blatant discrimination against the idle and feckless will no longer be allowed.

A drone working in Nanny's job centre in Thetford told her that the phrase was forbidden, because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

The drone at the jobcentre went on to say that it was policy, because they could get sued for being discriminatory against unreliable people.

Seemingly, following the media furore, the jobcentre went on to deny that there is such a policy and claim the advert was placed without any fuss.

Well, they would say that wouldn't they?

Nanny and her minions make the rules up as they go along, because they know that they can get away with it!

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!

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

Hoisted By Her Own Petard

Poor old Nanny "Smiler" Brown hoisting herself by her own petard (shades of Mussolini spring to mind) by having her oft repeated, and nasty "Little Englander", phrase "British jobs for British workers" thrown back at her by the wildcat strikers.

The sure sign of a dictatorship is when a government plays the "race card" and pretends to "protect" its nationals from "foreigners".

Like it or not we live in a global economy, Nanny's attempts to pretend that she cares about us (wrt subjects that really matter, eg jobs etc) have been shown to be the hollow fallacies that they really are.

In truth that is often why she tries to divert our attention with her meaningless, yet dangerous) health and safety initiatives, and campaigns against conkers, hot water, door mats, salt, smoking, drinking etc.

She is a powerless old crone, intent on staying in orifice long past her sell by date.

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 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

Prats of The Week

It is a Monday morning, a tad grey and gloomy, what better time than to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award?

This week it goes to Sainsbury's.

You may recall that a little over a week ago Sainsbury's were featured on this site (somewhat off message) for totally screwing up a delivery of groceries. Needless to say they further screwed the order up by failing to deliver at the agreed time on Friday (the third failed attempt by them), citing some cock and bull story that the driver had changed his route and ignored instructions.

The groceries, after another email was sent to the Justin King the CEO, eventually arrived some 3.5 hours late that day. Needless to say Sainsbury's were not finished digging their own grave, on Monday they then attempted to make another delivery of the same order.

A truly spectacular and stellar performance most certainly worthy of an award, but not this one.
No, Sainsbury's are not being awarded "Prats of The Week" for their failure to deliver groceries, but for something else.

It seems that Sainsbury's has been overcome by a bout of political correctness and spinelessness, as it has decied to allow Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers' alcohol purchases on religious grounds. Other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Not only are Sainsbury's kowtowing to Muslims who object to handling drink, but they are also kowtowing to those Muslims who won't touch the morning after pill. Sainsbury's is allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. Seemingly a Sainsbury's pharmacist, named Ahmed, declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for "ethical reasons".

Here's why this excuse of ethics is bollocks:

• People, when joining Sainsbury's, know full well what it sells



• Employees are expected to sell products without fear or favour to customers, those that refuse to do so are clearly in breach of their terms of employment



• Those that disapprove of the products on sale should seek employment elsewhere



• The salaries paid to the "ethical" objectors are derived from the sales of drink, newspapers containing photos of boobs, pork and other "controversial" items. Why are the "ethical" objectors still happy to make money from the sale of "non ethical" products? Isn't that hypocritical?

Sainsbury's, in theory, should have had the brains and the guts to point that out to their "ethical" objectors; in other words they should have stood up to them.

Instead Sainsbury's has opted for the easy, cowardly route of kowtowing to bullies, religious zealots and bigots.

This country has no room for bigots, bullies or zealots. Those who don't like the system and way of life here have a number of choices:

1 Seek to change it through democratic means, by submitting their views and opinions to rigorous intellectual scrutiny and debate

2 Integrate

3 Leave

Three choices, that's far more than many people get in some religious theocracies!

As for Sainsbury's, by kowtowing in this spineless manner they have left themselves open to more demands and blackmail from zealots and bigots and have further divided society.

I trust they are very proud of themselves?

Sainsbury's, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Feel free to write to the CEO of Sainsbury's, Justin King, at his email address justin.king@sainsburys.co.uk

Dummies

It is reassuring to know, that as Babylon burns (so to speak), Nanny focuses her gimlet eye on the things that really matter.

To this end she has banned Sid and Alma from standing outside a Sidmouth lifeboat station.

Now, I hear you ask, who are Sid and Alma Ken?

I will tell you.

Sid and Alma are two life sized mannequins, who have been used to collect donations for a lifeboat charity. They have been dressed in full lifeboat uniform of life jacket and helmet, and each have a bucket for people to donate cash.

Sid and Alma have been very popular, and have managed to bring in around £15K each year.

The money funds the local lifeboat, the Pride of Plymouth.

Can you guess what the problem is here?

Yes, that's right...they don't have a licence to collect the money!

Some interfering busy body in December, with too much time on their hands (the sort of person who would have found gainful employment in the Gestapo) complained that they are collecting money illegally.

You see folks, anyone who uses a tin to accept money for charity in public needs a collector's permit from the local authority.

The busy body...let us hope that this person is never in need of a lifeboat..lodged their complaint with East Devon District Council.

Nanny's chums in the council, never ones to let common sense get in the way of the law, state that under licensing laws the mannequins may have to be removed.

Sidmouth Lifeboat secretary, Philip Churchill, thinks that this is a load of bollocks.

Quote:

"The dummies are incredibly important to us

and provide a significant part of our income.

If they went, we would have extreme difficulties replacing that income.

We rely on these collections.

"Visitors have their photographs taken with them

they are a good tourist attraction."

Seemingly East Devon District Council have nothing better to do than act as jobsworths, and are now using taxpayers' money to investigate whether the dummies are operating illegally.

Sid and Alma can apply for a licence. However, they would need to be over 16 and fill out a form with their name, address, phone number and date of birth.

They would also need a letter from their charity, confirming they are an authorised collector 28 days before they begin.

A petition to save Sid and Alma has been set up by the lifeboat station, you can sign it here Save Sid and Alma.

Feel free to tell Nanny's chums in East Devon District Council what you think of them, via this link: Dummies.

The list of councillors, and their email addresses, can be accessed via this link Dummy List.

Give them my love:)

Money Well Spent

Nanny loves to spend money, or rather she loves to spend our money.

In Nanny's world what's ours is hers, and what's hers is hers!

Congratulations are due to Birmingham City Council for finding new ways of wasting the taxpayers' money. It was reported earlier this money that Ian Smith, one of its workers, is being paid an annual wage of £91,000 despite having been off sick for a year.

Mr Smith is employed by the council's Street Lighting Direct Labour Organisation as a "signals operative", and receives a basic salary of £71,000 and bonuses totalling £21,000 from Birmingham City Council.

Quite a decent wage for a "signal operative", whatever that is?

What's even more impressive is that he has been off sick for a year.

Ah, but you see he is also the department's full-time representative for the Amicus union. The leaders of "the Brothers" must be looked after mustn't they?

Seemingly Mr Smith also received an annual "standby bonus" - paid to lighting engineers to be on call to repair lights at anti-social hours - of £16,000, even though he no longer repairs lights.

A spokesman for Birmingham City Council said that parts of their pay structure were based on outdated employment practice, and were "clearly not fit for purpose".

No shit?

In other words they know that they are wasting your money, but can't be arsed to do anything about it.

In addition to spending vast sums on one man's lighting skills, Birmingham City Council also pay roadworkers up to £53,000 a year for painting lines and cleaning bollards.

Great!

Where do I sign on?

I fancy a spot of therapeutic painting.

Councillor Alan Rudge, the cabinet member for equalities and human resources (another daft council title), said:

"The Council is dealing with the issue through the recognised trade unions.

It is currently in discussions with these groups

and with other organisations who are representing employees.

The Council is carrying out a pay review

in accordance with a national agreement

between councils and trade unions.

The City Council has an implementation date for this

review of 1st April 2007.

The review will deal with, among other things,

the equality and fairness of pay across the workforce.

We cannot continue with pay and grading structures

that are in some areas outdated, unfair and inflexible,

no matter how difficult the change may be."

Call me a cynic...you're a cynic Ken!

However, doesn't that sound to you like they are only dealing with this now because they have been caught out by the media?

I guess the Brothers in the unions could threaten to go on strike, but would anyone really notice if they did?

As I keep repeating, what is the farking point of our local councils?

All they do is waste money, and impose useless and unwanted petty rules on the rest of us.

Abolish them!

Vent your spleen on Birmingham City Council via this link: Twats

In other news, it seems that John Prescott is costing £18M to run, even though he now has no role in government or society.

Nanny, spending our money on her behalf!

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is Father

The joy of being Nanny is that Nanny knows best, and she is absolutely certain that we would be incapable of running our own lives without her.

As such it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny is keen to get her clawing hands on people's children, as early as possible in life.

Give Nanny a child, at a tender young age, and that child is hers for life!

Therefore Nanny is mounting a campaign to encourage more mothers to hand over their children to state-run nurseries, and go out to work, under Nanny's latest drive to combat child poverty.

Sounds all rather reminiscent of some form of Nazi ideology doesn't it?

Nanny's chum John Hutton, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said at the end of October that Labour's plans to extend childcare places will provide women with a "world of employment opportunities".


The reality is that they don't give a stuff about women working or not, what they actually want is to get their hands on your children missus!

Nanny is using the findings of a report commissioned by the Government, which found that traditional two parent families are getting a raw deal from the state compared to single mothers.

Seemingly lone parents receive help to find work and support for childcare. However, couples with children are virtually invisible to public services because it is assumed their life is easier.

In many cases, one adult goes out to work while the other - usually the woman - stays at home to look after the children.

Now you see, in the "old days" there would be nothing wrong in one person staying at home to look after the child. Now of course that is deemed to be morally wrong.

I might ask one question, if both parents are out working and choose to leave their child with Nanny all day, why do they bother having children?

Anyone care to answer that?

I guess of course, that makes me a terrible old reactionary who does not understand the joys of leaving children to be brought up by someone else.

Hutton said there should be "more help, for example, getting the second adult in a household into work."

Adding:

"By 2009/10 we will have universal childcare available

for every three to four year-old

Now, that is going to open up a world of employment opportunities,

mainly again for women but for parents generally.

I think we've got to develop an approach

which first of all makes the opportunity to work our priority.

That is the best way out of poverty."

What of the children who never see their parents, and who end up being brought up by the state?

What kind of adults will these hapless children be turned into?

The best people in the world to bring up children are the parents, not those working for the state.

Sorry folks, I know this view is highly unfashionable these days!

Nanny Bans Birthdays

Once in a while Nanny does try to do the right thing, and make a positive difference to our lives.

Eh?

What's that you say Ken?

Straight up folks, I kid you not.

One such attempt has been her work in trying to reduce the amount of age discrimination in the workplace. As an aside, a few years go before I hit 40, I was talking to a so called "recruitment professional" (worse than estate agents in my view) about consultancy. His advice was that once you are over 35 (yes 35) you are too old!

However, I digress, as with all of Nanny's attempts to improve things they tend to go wrong; because they hit the wrong target, or because the legislation is so sloppily drafted that the practice becomes over officious and over prescriptive.

Nanny's anti age discrimination laws are a case in point. Aside from the fact that age discrimination is currently hard wired into all aspects of society (eg adverts for "fun/useful" products only target the under 30's), Nannys new rules have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that people are now applying them in an absurdly prescriptive manner.

Alan & Thomas insurance brokers in Bournemouth have taken Nanny's new rules to heart by banning the circulation of birthday cards for staff to sign, amid concern that light hearted "ageist" comments could unwittingly breach Nanny's new age discrimination laws.

Seemingly remarks such as "It's better to be over the hill than under it" or references to bus passes could cause offence, the company said following legal advice.

The new laws allow staff to take action against their company, if they feel they have been harassed or victimised due to their age.

Alan & Thomas will now send a card to each staff member on their birthday, signed by the directors.

Personal cards from individual members of staff are still allowed, as are cakes.

Julian Boughton, the firm's managing director, said:

"The new rules outlawing age discrimination are a potential

minefield for both employers and employees.

Every business should be taking action.

Often employees don't realise the implications of what they are writing."

Neil Gouldson, an employment law specialist at Rowe Cohen, said:

"Gags in birthday cards about people being 'over the hill' will need to be curbed."

For fark's sake!

Meanwhile, if you are elderly and end up in one of Nanny's less well run "homes" for the elderly and infirm; you may well be starved, maltreated or abused. Why doesn't Nanny legislate against that?

Plod's Discrimination

Dear old Nanny really loves to try to re-engineer society, by artificially "skewing" demographics to suit her political dogma. Unfortunately history has shown that whenever governments try to "manage" reality, and impose their view of a perfect society, things go horribly wrong.

Despite the lessons of history, Nanny still keeps trying. A recent case in point being Nanny's chums in the Gloucestershire Constabulary who rejected 108 potential recruits because they were white men.

Now Nanny's coppers have come a cropper (Ha!..come on, I'm doing my best here folks!), they have admitted positive discrimination and have been forced to pay compensation.

Gloucestershire Constabulary claimed that that it had been trying to increase diversity, by selecting only women and candidates from ethnic minorities. That is all very well, but the average citizen in Britain (be he/she black, white, green or purple) would prefer to have police officers who could do their job rather than police officers who fit an artificial racial/sexual specification.

I would also note that discrimination on the grounds of race or sex is in fact illegal.

Don't they teach the police the law then?

Needless to say Nanny's chums, when faced with an employment tribunal in Bristol, had to own up to the fact that they were in fact breaking the law.

Happy with the fact that the police admit that they have been breaking the law?

I'm not!

The tribunal was told that Matt Powell, had applied to join the force in October 2005. A month later, after being told that he had progressed to the second stage of the recruitment process, he left his job as an IT team leader at Filton College to concentrate on his application.

In January 2006 he received a letter saying that he had been "randomly deselected". He was never given an explanation for his rejection.

In April the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission started an investigation. They reported that the force had unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of race and sex.

The tribunal was told that 66% of white men, who applied to join the force last year, had been turned down. Every ethnic minority candidate who applied had been invited to an assessment centre.

Nanny has agreed to £2500 pay compensation to Mr Powell, and may now expect claims from the other 107 men, who were told by the force that they had been "randomly deselected".

Clive Tomer, chairman of the tribunal, said that Gloucestershire Constabulary had been

"at the very least disingenuous and at worst misleading".

In other words, they had lied.

Happy with the fact that the police lied?

I'm not!

Gordon Ramsey (not the chef), the head of human resources, said:

"We were trying to advance diversity in the force

and we thought at the time that this was lawful,

positive action.

When we found out after an independent investigation

by the Commission for Racial Equality that it wasn't lawful,

we accepted that."

I find that hard to believe that they didn't know that discrimination is illegal.

Do you believe them?

Ethnic Quotas

I have said it before, and I will say it again...in fact I said it yesterday...Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering.

Why, oh why, do governments insist on this?

It only brings about pain and misery for those on the receiving end of the "engineering".

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums on the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force recently decreed that companies that bid for multimillion-pound Government contracts will be rejected if they do not employ enough black and Asian workers.

This committee has formulated plans to question competing companies about their attitudes to race, before choosing which to employ. Firms will be asked to provide figures showing the numbers of their black and Asian employees. This figure will be compared with the proportion of people from ethnic minorities living near the company's offices, and will be a factor when deciding the winning bid.

That's right folks, skills no longer matter!

Firms must employ the "right mix" of people if they have a hope of working with Nanny.

How patronising to those "classified" by Nanny as being non white.

Iqbal Wahhab, chairman of the Ethnic Minority Advisory Group, a government-backed think-tank, said:

"These new procurement policies are required to assist employers in making more enlightened recruitment decisions.

It may be unpopular in certain quarters,

but the fact remains that we should not have been in this kind of position in the first place."

Utter bollocks!

Society will only grow and flourish if it is based on a meritocracy, not on biased politically motivated patronage.

A spokesman for the British Chambers of Commerce said that the plans would hinder the competitive tendering process and make it more difficult and expensive.

"Public tenders are already complicated enough.

Lengthening the applications will only further dissuade businesses from applying for public work.

This will do nothing to ensure that government contracts go to the firms with the most competitive bids."

Nanny doesn't give a stuff about the cost, as it is us the taxpayer who funds her daft ideas.

Three pilot schemes are up and running in Job Centre Plus, the Identity and Passport Agency and the Department for Education and Skills.

A pathetic political sop to those who play the victim. Those who play the victim, will always be the victim.

Get off your knees and earn people's respect!

Educashun

Goodness me, what an outpouring of discourse "The Mass Debate" caused yesterday!

Anyhoo, may I tear you away from the mechanics of projectiles and divert your attention to Nanny and her works?

This little vignette sounds almost so implausible that I thought someone was "'aving a larf" with me. Regrettably it is 100% true.

One of Nanny's chums, Dr Mike Reddy a senior lecturer in computing and engineering at the University of Wales, wants to engender trust and respect in his students.

Er, why?

I have no idea, but the method he has chosen will do no more than to make him look like a twat in their eyes.

He has decided to let them set their own final-year exam, and also to take notes into the exam hall in case they could not answer their own questions.

What???? I hear you ejaculate (oh dear, there's that word before the 9PM watershed).

Yes folks, not only do his students get to set the exam, just in case they really are too thick and dumb they can also take their own notes in to answer their own questions!

Beggars belief doesn't it?

Dr Reddy claims that it is better than "the common practice" of recycling old exam papers, or giving "strong hints" about content. Well, none of the exams I took were recycled; but then again, my lecturers and teachers actually took some pride in their work.

He said:

"We all wanted the chance to show the research we had put into the subject.

Some people would suggest that an open-book exam is open to plagiarism.

I would counter that by the fact that the students felt a trust and respect from our collaboration."

Prof Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment research at Buckingham University, said that this was a load of old bollocks (or rather he implied it:)):

"Final degree exams recognise achievement and provide accurate information about how well the student has done.

They are high stakes and competitive and should be carried out under invigilated standards."

In the same spirit, Nanny Knows Best is proud to announce its own degree scheme. Those of you who want to award themselves a first class degree in Nanny Studies should send a cheque addressed to the Ken Frost "build a holiday villa in Spain" fund.

It is not only fun, novel, exciting and challenging; it is compulsory!

In The Mix

Nanny is very concerned that all aspects of society "accurately" reflect her views as to what, and who, makes up that society.

As ever, In Nanny's view the best way for her to influence how society functions is to "get 'em while they're young". Therefore schools are to be required to balance the social and racial mix of all their pupils under Nanny's new rules, designed to end backdoor selection.

Schools will have to carry out detailed research into applicants, to ensure that they "attract all sections of local communities".

In other words, schools will not be given a choice in who they select. This may be fine for "social engineering", but it is not fine for those pupils who do not conform to the intellectual "norm" or "average".

Regrettably, despite political dogma claiming otherwise, those who are the brightest or slowest are often failed by schools that do not practice streaming or selection. The most apt analogy being that the convoy can only travel as fast as the slowest ship.

Those who are the brightest become bored and frustrated as the class meanders along at a snail's pace, whilst those who are in need of extra tuition to help them reach the "norm" are not given the attention that they need.

It is a lose lose situation.

Anyhoo, Nanny doesn't give a stuff about reality; she is only concerned with dogma. Schools will be banned from asking about the financial, employment or marital status of parents before a child is admitted, to ensure fairness. Questions about a child's "behaviour or attitude" at primary school, when deciding on admissions, will also be banned.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said:

"These proposals are inconsistent and I think they will place impossible demands on head teachers."

Nick Gibb, a Tory schools spokesman, said that teachers would be:

"bogged down conducting analysis for social engineering reasons."

The new rules also state that faith schools should "encourage local people of the faith, or of other or no faith, to apply for their school."

Er doesn't that kind of undermine the concept of a faith school?

Unworkable and unreasonable!

Another Nanny initiative that will end up in the dustbin of history.

The Farting Chair II

You may recall the story I regaled you with a while ago about the teacher, Sue Storer, who left her job as deputy head of Bedminster Down Secondary School in Bristol because her chair made farting sounds.

Needless to say, she took her "case" to an employment tribunal and tried to claim £1M for loss of income etc etc.

Well folks, the result of the tribunal is in...she lost.

Nice to see the tribunal exercised common sense, even if the parties in this case didn't.

Had common sense been exercised by the various parties involved, I think it quite likely that she would not have left her job and brought this case. However, Nanny doesn't allow us to exercise common sense anymore!

Yellow Peril

This week we "endured", according the media, the hardships of a one day strike by Nanny's council workers.

Nanny's council staff are upset about their final salary pension schemes not being treated in the same way as their "brothers" in Whitehall.

It is a fair point for Nanny's employees to ask for equal treatment between themselves. However, what Nanny's workers are conveniently ignoring is that many of us in the private sector, who do not work for Nanny, no longer have the luxury of final salary pension schemes; they have been deemed to be prohibitively expensive, and as such are being fazed out.

Nanny's staff should take note of the above!

As to the effects of this one day strike, well maybe I lead a very blinkered and sheltered life, I noticed not one iota of difference.

Food supplies, power, water, phones, TV were still all readily available; I could work unimpeded. The hospitals and police functioned, and people still went about their daily business.

Croydon functioned as normal!

Therefore I have to ask this, if we do not notice Nanny's council workers going on strike, what exactly do they do?

I can answer my own question, here is a fine example of the added value of Nanny and her lackeys (who are paid for out of our taxes).

Motorists in Sheepcote Street Birmingham were issued with parking tickets when yellow lines were painted around their cars, having parked on the street which had no yellow lines.

The £60 fines were put on windscreens of parked cars last week, after Nanny's council workmen painted the lines on either side of the wheels and occasionally on the vehicles themselves!

Eamu Begum, a victim of the Yellow Peril, said:

"I park here every day and have had no problems before.

The yellow line goes around some of the cars and they've even got paint on one of the vehicles."

Eventually Nanny's chums in Birmingham City Council, having received a number of complaints, agreed to waive the fines.

Jobsworth wankers!

Seven million people now work directly for Nanny (note this figure excludes those working for Nanny's favoured suppliers such as Crapita); excluding those in the front line value added services, such as health care and the police, what the hell do these people do and why are we paying them?

The high level of public sector employment, paid for by the private sector, is unsustainable.

I am highly displeased with the situation!

The Farting Chair

I have to admit that I never thought that I would be writing about farting chairs, it seems more like something out of Benny Hill!

Have we descended to that level?

Anyhoo Sue Storer, deputy head of Bedminster Down Secondary school, is taking her ex employers to an employment tribunal.

She is claiming overwork, intimidation and stress.

Fair enough, perfectly reasonable grounds with which to make a claim.

However, it seems that the nub of her case (at least the way that the media report it) is the fact that she had a farting chair. Much like the chairs that CJ used in Reginald Perrin, her chair made farting noises whenever she sat or moved on it.

Mrs Storer told the tribunal that her two joint deputy heads, who were both men, were given new "executive" chairs without having to ask; whereas she continually had to apologise to pupils, parents and other teachers for the noises.

She ended up resigning from her job, and is now claiming more than £1 million, based on lost earnings and loss of pension, against Bristol City Council for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination.

In reference to the chair, she said:

"It was very embarrassing to sit on.

I asked for a chair that didn't give me a dead leg or make these very embarrassing farting sounds.

It was a regular joke that my chair would make these farting sounds and I regularly had to apologise that it wasn't me, it was my chair."

Seemingly a consignment of new chairs arrived in May 2002, and she was not allocated one.

She even tried using health and safety to justify a new chair (quite why farting constitutes a health and safety issue I don't know).

Quote:

"I had specially requested a chair under health and safety regulations and I didn't get one."

When asked why she did not sort out the problem, she said:

"It's a health and safety issue for an employer to ensure you have a comfortable chair."

She said that she had raised the issue with the health and safety co-ordinator, Dick Hibdidge, a fellow deputy head.

Quote:

"After 12 months of not receiving a chair, I put in a memo and still didn't receive one."

Richard Bevan, the chairman of the school governors, said:

"I just can't understand why that issue wouldn't have been resolved. I would have thought that anybody in a senior position could have sorted out that problem."

The head teacher said that one delivery of chairs sat in reception for two weeks.

Quote:

"If it was an issue, I would have expected her to help herself."

Herein lies the problem with the Nanny state. We have all become so used to relying on, and hiding behind, rules and regulations, that we have forgotten to use our initiative and common sense.

Common sense would have dictated that both parties addressed this issue, and found a simple way of obtaining a new chair.

Common sense, it seems, was sadly lacking in this case.

Educashun, Educashun, Educashun

As we all know, Nanny is very keen to "improve" educational standards and exam results.

To this end she has "rigorously" measured exams results each year, in the expectation that they show an improvement. There are two ways to improve exam results:

1 Improve the quality of education, and ensure that the pupils sitting the exams are trained to give of their best.

2 Reduce the standards of the exams, and make them easier to pass.

Needless to say Nanny has opted for option 2!

Nanny's new exam in mathematics will allow pupils to achieve an A grade without answering any of the most difficult questions.

Teenagers will also be able to gain a grade C, which is vital to their schools' ranking in Nanny's league tables of examination results, by answering questions intended for students with much lower abilities.

Nanny's exam watchdog, The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has written to schools saying that the new GCSE course will be introduced in September.

The first pupils will sit the exam in 2008.

The current GCSE, which is set at three tiers of difficulty, will be replaced by Nanny's new "improved" version which has two levels.

Pupils who currently take the lowest tier in the present system can get only a grade D at best, which according to Nanny's chums in the teaching profession is "demotivating".

Unfortunately Nanny still can't get it through her head that some people are brighter than others; there are people who, no matter what you try to teach them, are as thick as a plank.

The new structure will make it possible for every student to achieve a grade C, in theory.

Tony Gardiner, a past president of the Mathematical Association, said the new structure was intended to "turn more Ds into Cs" in order to help Nanny reach her targets.

Quote:

"The effect will be that there will be fewer hard questions.

People entered for the higher tier will see that there are only a few hard questions,

so they can ignore those and concentrate on the others".

Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, put the boot in further and said:

"Exams are meant to provide information to employers, sixth forms and universities of a student's capabilities.

It doesn't do them or the student a favour to provide a false picture."

An independent review of the new GCSE, by academics at London University's Institute of Education, found that all but the most able pupils were likely to gain higher grades than they would under the present system.

In a mock paper of the "higher" tier of the new syllabus, 80% of questions were set at a difficulty of grade B or lower. Pupils needed only 67% to gain an A grade and 81% for an A*.

The report stated:

"All the examiners at the awarding meeting were exercised by the relative lack of questions at grades A and A* levels of demand."

The review went on to say that 55% of questions were set at the D and C grade levels, but students could obtain a B with 49%.

Nanny is doing no one any favours here, except of course herself, those pupils who "succeed" in passing will be fooled into believing that they have some academic ability; employers and universities will simply find other ways of streaming the wheat from the chaff.

Prat Of The Week

This weeks Prat of The Week Award goes to Imran Khan.

What?

Imran Khan, one of the world's finest cricketers...have you gone mad Ken? I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on the net?).

No, not that Imran Khan, but Imran Khan the employee of Direct Line Insurance.

Khan has taken Direct Line to an employment tribunal for religious discrimination. It seems that Direct Line have done an unspeakable thing to him.

They have offered him bottles of wine as a performance incentive.

Louise Cummings, Khan's team leader, said she introduced the incentives as a means of "improving staff morale and performance".

Quote:

"If I had realised that I had hurt anyone's feelings, then I would have taken steps to rectify that immediately."

Khan is claiming that the bottles of wine on offer put him at a disadvantage because, as a Muslim, he cannot drink alcohol and was therefore unable to claim the prizes.

He is therefore seeking damages for "hurt feelings" under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

A cynic might suggest that Khan was just "trying it on".

Tariq Sadiq, speaking for Direct Line, said that another Muslim worker, who had won an alcoholic prize in a similar scheme, had "simply" exchanged it for an alternative.

I am sure that had Mr Khan used his brains, he could have found a suitable alternative.

I was about to say that as a prize for winning Prat of The Week, a bottle of Noilly Prat will be winging its way to Khan; but he would probably find that offensive.

So he will get nowt!

Nanny Deploys Enver In Fight Against Terrorism

Dear old Blairy Poppins, despite spending £1800 a day on make up to cover up his stress, is turning into a very worried man since the recent terrorist bombings in London.

In fact Blairy is so worried, that he has decided to deploy one of his most fearsome weapons in the "war against terrorism".

What can this be? I hear you ask.

None other that Enver Hodge (Nanny's Employment Minister).

You remember Enver don't you?

She had something of a success in the 1980's and 90's with her childcare policy in Islington. In Islington a number of children, in Nanny's care, were abused by some 32 members of staff; yet Hodge did not act. Indeed when the Evening Standard started to report the issue in 1992, she accused it of "gutter journalism".

She then managed to further pour salt in the wounds, by writing to the BBC in 2003; claiming that one of the victims, Demetrious Panton, was "extremely disturbed". Needless to say this dim-witted outburst backfired, and Hodge had to apologise and pay £10K to a charity.

In addition to allowing systematic abuse to occur, whilst under her "watch", Hodge managed to bankrupt Islington council. During her period in office she made sure that her own children were kept well out of the clutches of Nanny, by sending them to fee paying schools.

Her nickname, coined by her own staff, during this period was "Enver Hodge"; a reference to the Stalinist dictator of Albania.

To read more about Enver visit The Enver Hodge Approach To Parenting

Therefore, as you can see, Enver is a fearsome weapon indeed. The terrorists should be shaking in their shoes.

As such Blairy has commissioned her to "help" Muslim youths improve their employment opportunities.

Somehow or other Nanny has got it in to her head that unemployment causes people to go out and blow up their fellow citizens.

Funny that, I don't remember any bombs going off when unemployment was over 3 million!

Anyhoo, Enver has told a seminar in London that it is vital to discover why young Muslims with promising starts fail to get jobs.

According to independent research discrimination is one problem, but strong family ties and an unwillingness to relocate also play a part.

Enver said that it is important to find ways of encouraging young Muslims to feel integrated into British society, in the light of the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July.

Sorry Enver that is total bollocks.

The solution to the lack of jobs and alienation felt by the Muslim community, and indeed the means to prevent future attacks, lies within the hands of the Muslim community themselves; it is not for Nanny to interfere and make matters worse.

By singling our Muslims for special treatment, Nanny:

1 Shows fear

2 Is rightly or wrongly perceived to be rewarding illegal behaviour

3 Further alienates the Muslim community by making them out to be victims, in need of special treatment

4 Causes resentment from the non Muslim community

I suggest that Blairy and Enver visit In Your Face and read "The Cricket Test Revisited" for more details.

Nanny's Gambling Addiction

Nanny has encountered a problem, with regard to her desire to screw the electorate for as much tax as possible. Having come up with a brilliant wheeze to deregulate gambling in the UK, thus generating over £2.5BN in gambling tax revenue, she has found that some people are worried about the addictive forces that she may be unleashing.

Given Nanny’s desire to stop you drinking, smoking and eating; it is hardly surprising that people may be forced to turn to gambling, as their only pleasure left in life (note Nanny intends to tax sex very soon). Therefore, there is a considerable risk that she will turn us into a nation of gambling addicts.

However, Nanny has thought of that. She has decided to ensure that the root cause of gambling addiction will be weeded out; whilst still allowing her to collect vast “wedges” of tax, by allowing casinos to spring up all over the UK.

Nanny has decided to ban “grab a toy” and “shove penny” machines from traditional British seaside resorts.

In a “scientific” study, conducted on the back of a fag packet last night, nanny’s little helper Tessa Jowell (the “Culture” Secretary) has decided that “grab a toy” and “shove penny” machines are the root causes of gambling addiction in the UK.

Nanny, by banning these dangerous games, will neuter the concerns expressed by church groups and assorted busybodies; thus ensuring that her casinos can open in towns and cities across the UK.

These casinos will generate the $2.5BN in tax revenues needed for nanny’s tax hungry, fun loving, Chancellor Gordon “Smiler” Brown.

However, the “grab a toy” games tend to be found in amusement arcades located in Britain’s seaside resorts. These arcades provide the resorts with much needed revenue and employment, and are seen to be part of the “traditional” British seaside experience.

The fact that the banning of traditional seaside pursuits may destroy the traditional British seaside is of no concern to Nanny; she and her friends tend to holiday abroad anyway.

Experience Not Welcome

Nanny, despite her self proclaimed wisdom in all matters, has many prejudices. One of these is an innate hatred of independent schools.

This is rather hypocritical, given the fact that many of Nanny’s friends and ministers have gone to independent schools themselves; or send their children to independent schools.

However, in Nanny’s view that is not the issue. She firmly believes that the ordinary members of the British public must send their children to Nanny’s state schools; where they can be taught Nanny’s special curriculum, by Nanny’s specially trained teachers.

Those that go to independent schools are taught to question dogma, independence of thought and to achieve all that is achievable. Nanny abhors these traits in ordinary members of the public.

Sometimes, those who have taught in the independent sector seek to join the state sector. This of course would threaten Nanny’s precious state system; by exposing children to thoughts and ideas that had not been properly approved of by Nanny and her acolytes.

Initially Nanny did not bother to try to disguise her hatred of independent schools; she placed signs, such as the one above, outside all of her schools. These naturally discouraged anyone with independent experience trying to join Nanny’s schools.

However, despite attempts to “dumb down” examinations, standards have fallen dramatically in Nanny’s schools; primarily as a result of Nanny’s obsession with controlling, and regulating, every aspect of the curriculum and day to day management of her schools. The decline in standards has caused many to seek to emulate the independent sector, by trying to bring in teachers from the independents.

Nanny won’t have that, in a splendid display of cunning, she has created a bureaucratic barrier to entry to all of those from the independent sector; who seek employment in her schools.

The barrier comes in the form of the state recognised teaching qualification. Nanny pretends that this is to ensure that only teachers of the “highest calibre” teach in her schools. We all know this to be a lie. Those who have spent many successful years teaching in the independent sector, are in fact banned from joining the state sector; as they do not possess this bureaucratic entry slip.

The absurdity of this artificial barrier to entry was highlighted yesterday by the story that Tristram Jones-Parry, soon to be retiring head of Westminster School, could not get a teaching position in the state sector; because he does not have this bureaucratic entry slip. The fact that there is a severe shortage of teachers in the state system, eg 3500 maths teachers, seemingly counts for nothing.

Nanny doesn’t care; her precious ideals come first, these of course must take precedence over “education, education, education”.