Nanny's Middle Eastern Adventure

I hate to throw a damper on Nanny's enthusiasm for regime change in Libya. However, if she succeeds in throwing Gaddafi out, who exactly is lined up to replace him and how long will our troops be expected to be stationed there whilst "democracy" and a political infrastruture is installed?

Has Nanny learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?

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

The Pope Touched My Thigh

I am "gemused" to see that the tireless campaigner for women's rights and equality for all, Harriet Harperson, has watered down her "Equality Bill" following divine intervention from Pope Ratzinger.

Seemingly Harperson and ZaNuLabour don't want to go to war with "holy mother church", most especially when the Pope is coming to Britain during an election year.

I realise that Blair believes that the Pope is inflammable etc but, given that he has gone and was responsible for a disastrous fanatical holy war in the Middle East, I would have thought that ZaNuLabour would have shaken free of the shackles of religious fundamentalism by now.

Evidently not!

Politics and religion should be kept separate at all times.

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

Blair's Fanaticism

Sadly fanaticism occurs in "democracies", not just dictatorships.

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

Thought For The Day

A small "pop quiz" for all my loyal readers.

Question

Which country/region would you invade in order to promote democracy, and make the world a "safer" place?

1 A country that used to hold regular elections for its president, or

2 A region that appointed an unknown political lightweight to the newly created position of president, by way of a closed door political stitch up between heads of government, without consulting its people?

Answer

Isn't it obvious?

Country number 1!

Why?

The first country was Iraq, the second region is the EU.

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

Scuttlebutt

Here is a little piece of rather old scuttlebutt that I have only just been told about, by an ex forces bloke I was chatting to yesterday.

I have no way of knowing how true it is, and would be happy to hear opinions from any serving members of the armed forces as to its veracity.

Seemingly when Bliar was still PM and he made his last visit to Iraq, to meet the troops, special security measures were taken.

No surprises there then?

Ermmm...well yes actually...here is the unusual added security measures taken..

Those British troops who were due to see him when he spoke in some hall had their weapons removed.

For why?

It seems that some of those serving in Iraq consider Bliar and Nu Labour to be traitors, for the shambles of Iraq, and that there were very real concerns that one of them would shoot him.

As noted I have no idea how true this is, and would welcome input from anyone who was actually present during Bliar's last visit to Iraq as PM.

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

Poor Old Boris!

Nice to see that Nanny's police have nothing better to do with their time!

Read the Mystery of The Disappearing Cigar Case.

Nanny's Special Little Friend

"Even the most glittering and glorious of reigns must come to an end."

So it will soon be for Bliary Poppins, as she shuffles off into the sunset; leaving "Smiler" Brown in charge of the country.

Bliary insists though that she leaves a strong legacy, she cites her "achievements" re; anti social behaviour, the "respect" agenda, educashun and the health service.

Errrmmmmmm...run those by me again????

Poor old Bliary, it happens to all leaders past their sell by date, her memory seems to have failed her; surely the above issues haven't quite been "addressed" to everyone's satisfaction?

Oh, and by the way, aren't there a few other things that she will be associated with (she's far too modest in not mentioning those items)...what were they now???

Oooh ooh, I remember; cash for honours and the Iraq war.

How could she forget those two "legacies"?

Whilst we are on the subject of legacies, I would be remiss not to mention Bliary's special friend across the pond.

W is leaving office next year, and part of his legacy seems to be tad intertwined with out own "beloved" Prime Minister. Now W is working hard to try to fix one part of his legacy, namely Iraq.

The troop surge has, so he says, improved the security situation there; despite the fact that around 200 people were blown to bits in a Baghdad market the other day, and despite the fact that the "surge" will not reach its "climax" (can I say climax on this site?) until June/July (surely "surge" is a misnomer?).

Anyhoo, one teeny piece of information that W and Bliary haven't quite told the world relates to troop numbers.

Now, we know that British troops are being pulled out as fast as Smiler Brown can get them out (so that he doesn't have to face the issue when he is PM), and we know that the Iraqi leadership has said that security will be handed over within the year etc etc.

We also know how many US and British troops are in Iraq, don't we?

Post "surge" there will be 170,000 US troops and several thousand UK troops, right?

Right?

Wrong!

For you see dear reader, there are other US troops there as well; these troops are not included in the official reporting or body count figures when they are killed.

Why is that?

Easy, they are working for Balckwater and other private US companies (including one run by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company).

So how many private mercenaries are in Iraq then, on top of the 170,000 official US troops?

100,000!

That is the figure according to Jeremy Scahill in his book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Scahill says that private contract companies take up to 40% of all of US money spent in occupying Iraq. These armies are expensive partly because the mercenaries who work for them earn around $100K, far more than the ordinary GI Joe.

Despite the costs, there are several advantages to using these private armies:

• The body count figures, reported by the media and Pentagon, exclude the 770 mercenary deaths.



• The mercenaries are unaccountable to public oversight by Congress, re their actions and their costs.



• When W announces in the future with great flourish that the US is pulling out of Iraq, the mercenaries will be left there continuing the war.

Quote:

"Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power
and protection within the US military apparatus.
This company's success represents the realisation
of the life's work of the conservative officials,
including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush
Administration's war team. While initial inquiries
have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive
subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq,
a thorough investigation into the company reveals
a frightening picture of a politically connected
private army that has become the Bush Administration's
praetorian guard.

Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative
Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince,
the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous
political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious
right and the Republican revolution of 1994..."

As the old saying goes:

"Judge a man by the company he keeps"

Bliary's legacy will be judged on his choice of friends, most notably his special little friend across the pond.

What a legacy to be proud of!

Britain's Booze Culture

There is much wringing of hands in the media and parliament these days about the alleged booze culture that is engulfing Britain. Methinks these hand wringers should take a trip to Russia (where the quantity of booze consumed has trebled over the last few years), if they really want to see a society awash with drink.

Anyhoo, the Public Policy Research (PPR), the journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has come up with a "solution". They say that it is time to practise "tough love", and raise the minimum drinking age to 21.

Here's why this idea is bollocks:

1 Some other countries have a minimum drinking age of 21, eg USA, yet they too have drink related problems.

2 It is, like it or not, part of the British culture to drink. The ancient Romans, when they occupied Britain, wrote many missives complaining about the oceans of booze consumed by the natives.

3 The age at which people can do many other things, as an adult, is less than 21; eg joining the armed forces and fighting for one's country, bonking, driving a car, voting and opening a bank account.

Why, if you are thought old enough to put your life on the line for your country, should you not be allowed to have a drink?

4 The key to responsible drinking lies with how you are brought up with drink as a child. I was allowed to drink sensibly as a child, and look at me now.

5 There are far more dangerous things that young people are exposed to when they reach the majority age; eg fighting in Iraq and opening a bank account which exposes them to exploitation by some real shysters.

The suggestion to raise the minimum drinking age an over reaction, which won't work.

Prat of The Week

Having had a most indulgent Easter, I feel suitably enthused to award another of my prestigious "Prat of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to Nanny's armed forces minister, Des Browne. Des has had something of a bumpy ride over the past few weeks, and has managed to massively mismanage the situation in spectacular fashion.

Firstly, 15 service personnel were kidnapped by the Iranians and publicly paraded to the world's media, capitulating and apologising for their alleged "transgressions".

Quite how it is that their support ship and support helicopter did not provide them with support, warn them of the approach of the Iranians and then protect them is beyond me.

May we expect Nanny to provide us with a public explanation of this shameful debacle?

May we fark!

Then, as if the humiliation were not bad enough, Degsey allowed these 15 people to sell their stories to the media.

The fact that up until now people serving in the armed forces have been forbidden from selling their stories, unless they were recounting a tale of spectacular heroism (I don't think our 15 can claim that), seems to have escaped Degsey.

It also seemed to have escaped his notice that our guys are getting shot at and killed on a regular basis in Iraq, and that selling stories is highly offensive to those on active duty and their families.

However, Degsey was not finished in digging an early grave for himself, he has now banned serving personnel from selling their stories. Two of the 15 have already done so, but the remaining 13 will not be able to.

Is this man a prat, or what?

Feel free to drop him a note browned@parliament.uk

VOO Halloo II

Yesterday I wrote about Nanny's great new "initiative", VOO's.

Violent Offender Orders (VOO's) are designed to stop criminality and violence, before the criminal has even thought of committing the crime. All the police have to do is identify someone with a dodgy background, or extremist views, then the court slaps a VOO on them; hey presto problem solved!

Ho hum, all a bit of a fantasy really in my view.

However, if Nanny really is serious about identifying people who have yet to commit a violent crime but are nonetheless at risk of doing so; may I suggest that she directs her gimlet eye to the people identified in yesterday's Channel 4 Dispatches documentary "Undercover in The Mosque"

(Note Channel 4 have some sort of gizmo that you can download to enable you to watch their stuff, so in theory you can watch it on line)

The documentary identified a veritable hotbed of extremism and unpleasantness being pumped into people's minds in some mosques in Britain, by certain highly unpleasant individuals.

In brief, if you are:

-A woman
-A Christian
-A moderate Muslim
-A Muslim who helps non Muslims
-A Jew
-An atheist
-A homosexual
-A believer in democracy etc etc

Then tough luck, these guys think that you will go to hell and have every intention of speeding you on your way.

Quote:

"'An army of Muslims will arise' announces one preacher.

Another preacher said British Muslims must 'dismantle' British democracy

- they must 'live like a state within a state'

until they are 'strong enough to take over.'"

I would say that these characters are well deserving of a VOO or two. The trouble is that I doubt very much that Nanny will be handing out many VOO's to them.

Why is that then Ken? I hear you ejaculate...please stop this constant ejaculation at the keyboard, semen is such a persistent stain and clogs up the keys.

I digress...the reasons that Nanny won't impose VOO's on these people are two fold:

• Labour politicians are desperate to ingratiate themselves into the Muslim community. They need their votes, and can't be bothered to differentiate between mainstream Muslims and extremists (in fact they don't even take time to understand the difference). A such, any hint of a VOO which might upset their voters won't be popular with Labour.



• The extremists are followers of Wahabism, an extreme version of Islam practiced by Saudi Arabia. Much of the finance and support for the extremist preachers is in fact coming from Saudi Arabia. BTW, you may recall that the perpetrators of 9/11 had Saudi connections.

What is the significance of the Saudi connection?

Saudi is our ally in the forthcoming attack on Iran, and as such we trust them implicitly.

Bliary Poppins in fact recently blocked an investigation into bribery charges relating to Saudi Arabia and BAE, on the grounds of "national security".

Why was this?

1 There is a multi billion pound defence contract with Saudi Arabia in the offing.

2 Bliary Poppins recently spoke of an "alliance of moderation" to take on Iran as part of battle against extremism.

Guess who forms part of this alliance of moderation?

Yes, that's right, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (a country riddled with extremist madrass's exporting extremist preachers to Britain, also not a democracy).

Why do we need an "alliance of moderation"?

Ah, simple, because we are going to attack Iran this year.

Don't believe me?

• The US is deploying another strike group in the Gulf



• Israel is practicing (and of course has denied this) attacking nuclear facilities with low yield nuclear weapons



• The US detained six Iranians inside Iraq last week. The Iraqis claim that they are diplomats, the US says they are not



• The US has appointed an experienced admiral to be head of Central Command (this you see will be mainly a sea borne air assault, rather thand a land assault)

Saudi Arabia is cosying up to Britain and the US, as they being Sunnis do not want to see the Shias take control of key areas of the Middle East (the Shias in Iran are now very chummy with the Shias who now are in charge of Iraq, thanks to the "regime change" enforced on Iraq by Blair and Bush).

Taking the above into account, there is no way on earth that VOO's will be used on the extremists identified in the documentary (as they are supported and financed by our "allies of moderation").

Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council summed it up well:

"We are losing our children to extremists".

Note and understand very clearly, that mainstream Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding. The rise of the extremists, if not checked, poses as much of a threat to the average Muslim living in Britain as it does to the non Muslims living here.

Something in this country really stinks.

Fat Myths

Now that we are firmly in 2007, and being bombarded by both the media and Nanny into detoxing and taking diets, it is worth sitting back and considering exactly what constitutes being fat actually means.

Indeed Nanny is so keen on fat issues that she wants to set up a database to monitor every child in the country, including their diet.

Yet some health researchers argue that being overweight is actually beneficial: it's the dieting that kills.

In Septicland, the land that gave us WMD in Iraq, no less a person that the US surgeon general has claimed that obesity is "a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction".

Errmmm...is anyone buying that hyperbole?

Nanny needless to say, as she follows all things American, is eager to jump on the bandwagon. Nanny wants to introduce a £224M "Children's Index".

What the fark is a "Children's Index" then Ken?

I will tell you...

A "Children's Index" is a database of every child in the country, that will chart progress from birth to adulthood and will flag up "concerns" about each child's development.

Two "flags" on a child's record will trigger an official investigation into his or her family.

Interestingly Nanny's Information Commissioner, in a report issued in November, is very critical of the scheme.

Quote:

"Government policy proposes treating all parents

as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children."

Seemingly, one of the proposed danger signs on the Children's Index would be if the child were not eating the Nanny approved amount of fruit and vegetables each day.

Yet there is no scientific evidence to support the fat myths propgated by the media, Nanny and the diet food industry.

• The recently published Health Survey for England, 2004 shows no significant increase in the weight of children in recent years. The Department of Health report found that from 1995 to 2003 there was only a one-pound increase in children's average weight.



• The Thousand Families Study found little connection between overweight children and adult obesity. In the study, four out of five obese people became obese as adults, not as children.



• In the US it is estimated that 10% of high school pupils suffer from eating disorders, brought about by the incessant media message that slim is good and fat is bad.



• In 2004, a World Health Organisation study of British pupils found that overweight children ate sweets less frequently than normal weight children did. Children who ate larger amounts of junk food actually had less chance of being overweight.



• In America there was a rapid increase in the number of overweight people in the early years of this decade. However, that is because the goal posts were moved! The classification of what was "overweight" was reduced from those with a body mass index of 27, to those of 25.



• In 2005 a US Centres for Disease Control study found the lowest death rates among overweight people.



• A 2004 Harvard University study examined 14,000 children, and found that junk food did not lead to obesity.



• 95% of dieters are fatter five years after their diet then when they started to trim.



• The Iowa Women's Health Study and the American Cancer Society study found that weight loss was associated with higher rates of mortality.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is obvious; have it large in 2007, and get well stuffed!

Nanny Bans Wireless

The truly remarkable thing about Nanny and her followers is that they are happy to make decisions, and act, on "faith based analysis" totally devoid of any scientific study or verifiable evidence.

That's the beauty of knowing that you are right, you never have to check the validity of your decision making. At this stage I could make a snide comment about President Bush's and Prime Minister Blair's Iraq "policy", but that would be a tad off topic.

Anyhoo, it seems that Nanny's followers are getting themselves into a right "two and eight" (rhyming slang for "state") over wireless networks.

It seems that some parents and teachers (remember Nanny comes in many forms; "Nanny is a Nanny does") are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks.

Why?

Well these people, despite having no hard scientific evidence, are of the belief that wireless networks pose a danger to their precious childrens' health.

The fear is that the low levels of microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters could be harmful, causing loss of concentration, headaches, fatigue, memory and behavioural problems and possibly cancer in the long term.

Nanny's followers lobbied hard at Prebendal School, in Chichester West Sussex, and have persuaded the headteacher, Tim Cannell, to remove the wireless network in October.

Mr Cannell said:

"We listened to the parents' views

and they were obviously very concerned.

We also did a lot of research.

The authorities say it's safe,

but there have been no long-term studies to prove this."

The key part being that there is no evidence to say that it is dangerous, yet they remove it anyway; a decision based purely on ignorance and fear.

Vivienne Baron, who is bringing up Sebastian, her 10 year old grandson, said:

"I did not want Sebastian exposed to a wireless computer network at school.

No real evidence has been produced

to prove that this new technology is safe in the long term.

Until it is, I think we should take a precautionary approach and use cabled systems."

How does she know that cable technology is safe?

How does she know that pc's are safe in the long term?

They have only been with us for 20 years or so, damage caused by serious long term exposure to pc's might not be evident for another 20 years or more.

You see folks, what we think of as safe is based more often than not on our prejudices and fears, rather than hard reliable scientific fact.

At Ysgol Pantycelyn, a comprehensive in Carmarthenshire, parents put paid to the wireless network there too.

I would make the following observations; based on my own prejudices, fears and ignorance:

• Were we to have had this fuss when fire was invented, we would still be eating raw meat and huddled together in animal skins. Fire is dangerous, it has a habit of burning things and killing people. Yet we have used it for thousands of years.



• I wonder if Sebastian's granny, or the parents of all the other "Sebastians" allow their sprogs to use mobile phones?
  
  I bet many of them do.
  
  Aren't these meant to be slightly dubious as well? Don't these emit low level microwave radiation?
  
  Do I smell the faint whiff of hypocrisy here?



• Do these same parents of "Sebastians" have pc's, wireless networks, tv's etc at home?
  
  I bet many do?
  
  Again, there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

I wonder what the next panic will be about?

What do you think is dangerous and should be banned?

Remember folks, don't worry about using facts to justify your campaign or arguments; blind prejudice and ignorance is all we need in Nanny's Britain!

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is Father

Nanny has an almost messianic belief that she would make a better parent to people's children, rather than the parents themselves.

As such it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny's special little friend, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes, wants to force parents to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes.

For farks sake!

In Nanny's view, those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must therefore "correct" their inadequate parenting.

Now, I fully agree that interacting with children by reading stories etc is a good thing. However, how precisely will the state determine if a parent is interacting enough?

Cameras in people's homes maybe?

Encouraging children to nark on their own parents, as they did in Nazi Germany and in Orwell's "1984"?

Nanny Hughes said in November that the state would train a new "parenting workforce" (who the fark thinks these phrases up?). This "parenting workforce" would ensure that parents who fail to do their duty with nursery rhymes are found and "supported".

How will Nanny "find" these non singing parents?

What constitutes "support"?

Bliary Poppins, the man who invaded Iraq and caused countless deaths of women and children, says that he believes strongly in family values. He is now backing a variation on the ASBO, the FASBO.

A FASBO is a pre-emptive ASBO, designed to "correct" (whenever the state uses the word "correct" I immediately wretch) the lives of children who are likely to fail even before they are born.

How can you possibly identify a failure before they are born?

In Victorian times there were those who believed that criminal behaviour could be identified, by reading the bumps of people's heads. It seems that we have a new breed of "bump readers".

Parenting orders are now likely to be directed against parents whose children have committed no criminal offence.

Nanny Hughes gave details of the new Nursery Rhyme directive, when she outlined details of Bliary's "national parenting academy" in November. This is the body that will train teachers, psychologists and social workers to intervene in the lives of families and become the "parenting workforce".

Quote:

"Some parents already know that reading

and singing nursery rhymes with their young children

will get them off to a flying start

often because this is how they themselves were brought up.

For other parents without this inheritance

these simple techniques are a mystery

and are likely to remain so

unless we act and draw them to their attention."

Nanny Hughes condemned the way governments before 1997 (ie she took a cheap swipe at the Tories) thought they had no role in the upbringing of children, which it "regarded as the entirely private arrangements families make."

The reason that governments pre 1997 thought that it was a private matter, is because it is!

Herein we see the fundamental problem with Labour, they believe that they know better than the individual as to what is best for the individual.

When the state thinks that it knows better than the people who elect it, then we really are in trouble.

Nanny Hughes then said that without Labour's policies:

"We would be on the road to ruin..."

Hah!

The arrogance of the woman!

Pass me the sick bag someone.

They Don't Like It Up Them!

It seems that Nanny has adopted a Corporal Jones style response to the criticism being heaped upon her by the good denizens of the web, namely Nanny and her chums "Don't like it up them!"

Nanny betrayed her frustration with the internet by allowing one of her acolytes, Matthew Taylor (outgoing chief strategy adviser), to speak out at an e-democracy conference in London last week.

Nanny is of the firm belief that the internet is fuelling a "crisis" in the relationship between politicians and voters, and that it is all too often used to encourage a "shrill discourse of demands".

Nanny/Taylor is of the view that the net is being used by people merely to abuse politicians, and to make "incommensurate" demands on them. This makes it increasingly difficult for governments to govern.

Taylor said:

"We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being

increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government."

It seems that we regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious"!

Remember folks these are the same guys who sold peerages, who invaded Iraq on a false pretext, who have failed to install a decent IT system into the NHS, who have screwed up the budget on the 21012 Olympics etc etc.

Maybe the internet community does actually have something to complain about?

The trouble with Nanny is that she doesn't like to be criticised. Indeed politicians have, for centuries, had a dislike of being exposed for the corrupt venal individuals that many of them really are.

When printing presses were first used by pamphleteers centuries ago, the government tried to close them down.

The net is no different to the pamphlets of centuries ago. Yes, there is a large amount of crap on the net; however, that crap is more than outweighed by the quality and breadth of information/data now readily available to all.

As I state in my "Core Beliefs":

• The internet is one of mankind's greatest inventions, it offers a portal into an unrestricted, uncensored world that transcends national boundaries; where everyone can express and exchange ideas, experiences, hopes, fears and desires.



• Mankind only betters itself, and evolves, when ideas and conventions that represent the status quo are openly challenged. Even if the challenges are proven to be false and misleading, the very act of making one take a fresh look at oneself stimulates and freshens the mind.

As Taylor said:

"What is the big breakthrough,

in terms of politics,

on the web in the last few years?

It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking,

hostile and, generally speaking,

basically see their job as every day exposing how venal,

stupid, mendacious politicians are".

The solution, Mr Taylor, is for Nanny to start improving her act; then maybe she would find herself facing less criticism.

Politicians long for secrecy, and the ability to hide their mistakes and corruption from prying eyes; they are, in effect, creatures of the night.

The only way for a society to advance and improve itself is for every rock to be kicked over, and every dark dingy place to have a bright light focused on it so that the unpleasant nasty little creatures that inhabit that twilight world are exposed for all to see.

That is the way to improve society, not Nanny's preferred "easy" option of letting these little creatures hide themselves away in the dark.

I Fucked Up!

In case you hadn't heard, Blair has admitted that he fucked up with regard to Iraq.

No Kidding!

Risk Free Weapons

Nanny is very concerned about the environment these days; she loves to lecture us about global warming, the benefits of recycling and the environmental impact of heavy industry.

That, I guess, is why she had a rain forest destroyed in the Amazon recently in order to provide the wood for a refit of the fixtures and fitting in Westminster.

Anyhoo, Nanny has turned her attention to the environmental impact of war. She has decided that weapons actually pose a serious health and safety risk, as such she wants to minimise that risk.

Somewhat of a contradiction you would have thought?

Apparently not, according to Nanny's friends in the MOD and BAE Systems (one of the world's largest arms manufacturers).

The latter are designing "green" munitions and lead free bullets.

The MOD (Ministry of Defence) has proposed quieter warheads, to reduce noise pollution, and grenades that produce less smoke.

Dr Debbie Allen, director of corporate social responsibility at BAE systems, said:

"Weapons are going to be used and when they are,

we try to make them as safe for the user as possible,

to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment."

Needless to say, this green policy has caused some people to take a sharp intake of breath. Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

"This is laughable.

BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical,

but they make weapons to kill people and

it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly."

FYI Britain has dropped more than 900 bombs in Iraq, and the United States dropped 1,500 cluster bombs.

Nonetheless, BAE are championing bullets with lower lead content because:

"lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people."

Am I the only one who thinks that the above could be construed as being a contradiction in terms?

Funny old world isn't it?

Nanny Bans Peaceful Protest

Nanny will soon be holding an important conference in the G-Mex Centre Manchester, starting the 17th of September, this is when Nanny's lackeys in the Labour Party will be holding their annual conference.

As such Nanny would like the event to go smoothly, and not be interrupted or upstaged by the annoying realities of day to day life. Therefore Nanny is enforcing a "cordon sanitaire" around the conference, in order to ensure that the media see only what Nanny wants them to see.

This is bad news for Military Families Against The War, who had been planning to camp near the conference in Manchester. Unfortunately for them Manchester City Council is Labour, and as such looks after Nanny's interests rather than the interests of the general public.

Needless to say Nanny's chums in the council have banned the camp, on health and safety grounds.

How useful these spurious health and safety issues can be, when you are trying to manipulate the media!

Seemingly, if you are to believe the council, providing facilities for the campers would not be logistically possible.

As an aside, the police operation covering the event will be the "biggest the city has ever seen".

Up to 1,000 officers every day will provide "robust" policing to cover anyone entering the "island" zone around the G-Mex.

I wonder what "robust" actually means?

I don't know about you but I am old enough to recall the glory days of Thatcherism, when some people were a tad anti Tory, and do not recall that Tory conferences were ever this "threatened" by the forces of evil.

Ironic that the Labour Party, allegedly the party of the "people" (how I loath that word), feel so threatened by the very people that they are allegedly in office to serve.

Anyhoo, around 20 activists have been denied permission to pitch tents in Albert Square in front of the Town Hall from the 21st of September on health and safety grounds.

Rose Gentle, whose son died in Iraq in 2004, said the council were "doing the government's bidding".

Quote:

"We think it's because it's the Labour conference

and they don't want us going and voicing our opinions

because Mr Blair is going to be there.

They say it's health and safety.

They said they don't want drunks thinking it's somewhere they can sleep.

But we've got our own security."

By the way, the cost of the police operation is around £4.2m.

Money well spent!

Nanny's Toilet Spies

Yesterday, being the anniversary of 9/11 and the attack on the Twin Towers, Nanny and her chums did their level best to remind us all that she is working for our benefit in trying to win the so called "war on terror" and ensuring that the "battle for civilisation" is won by the "good guys".

A cynic might argue that attacking Iraq, which was not responsible for the 9/11 slaughter, was a rather strange way to "protect us".

A cynic might also argue that a more effective means of lessening the chances of terrorist attack would be to allow the natural fissures and rivalries within Islam to be exposed from within, and for the extreme elements within the various factions (eg extremist Sunnis, extremist Shias etc) to fight it out amongst themselves and to kill each other, rather than for us to unite them by bombing civilian targets in the Middle East.

The most effective way for these fissures to be exposed, and for the "united" extremists to be thrown back to their natural state of trying to kill each other, would be for all of our troops to be removed from the Middle East and for us to stop buying oil from the Middle East.

However, what the fuck do I know?

Nanny has proven, by the fact that we all feel so much safer than we did a few years ago, that she really does know best.

On that note, she has been working hard to try to ensure that our flights are less likely to be blown up or highjacked.

By the way, I know that facts are something that Nanny really abhors, but do you realise that it has been at least 25 years since a British flight has been highjacked?

Maybe Nanny has been over reacting wrt her ever increasing security clampdowns?

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided that planes need CCTV and sound recording devices installed...yes Nanny really does have a fetish for CCTV!

Researchers in Britain and Europe are looking at technology that would introduce a network of microphones and cameras throughout aircraft, including the toilet, which would be linked to a computer.

This computer would be "trained" to pick up suspicious behaviour.

Precisely how a computer distinguishes between "ordinary" toilet activities, and suspicious toilet activities is beyond me. That being said, Catherine Neary of Bae Systems is very confident of the scheme's success. Bae is one of the British participants in a £24 million European Union project Safety of Aircraft in Future European Environment.

Ms Neary said:

"It would pick passengers who are behaving oddly or in an unruly manner.

They may appear nervous, or could be getting up while the plane is taxiing.

If someone looks as if they are praying,

the microphones would be able to tell if they were by picking up key words."

Adding:

"There are likely to be cameras and microphones in the toilet,

because that is where terrorists go to assemble bombs.

If people know they will be safer,

they will be happy to accept the sensors,

but we are considering the legal implications of this."

Oh yes, I can really see this working!

CCTV is all very well, but it is invariably used "post event" to catch/prosecute the criminal after he has done the dirty deed. Unless you have "real time" human observers monitoring the plane, who are able to intervene pre attack, then this system is worthless.

I also suspect that the Mile High Club may be a tad annoyed about this too, or maybe not?

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one will be closely inspecting the facilities and the bowl the next time I answer the call of nature.

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11

Just in case you were wondering, Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Has anyone told Tony?

Tunes of Glory

I spent four happy years as a student at Edinburgh University, and as such have a certain fondness for the sound of the bagpipes.

That being said I know that some people find the "skirl" of the pipes to be a tad "grating" on the ears. However, I find Nanny's recent attack on the bagpipes to be an overreaction to say the least.

Nanny's Army Medical Directorate environmental health team have issued a dictat to soldiers learning to play the bagpipes, telling them to limit their practice sessions to only 24 minutes a day, or 15 minutes when indoors.

Pipers will also have to wear ear plugs under the new dictat.

What do they say, I wonder, about soldiers fighting in Iraq and other places where guns, bombs and shells are banging and whizzing around?

Do they ask the combatants to limit their activities to 20 minutes a day?

Bagpipes have played a crucial role in Scottish regiments, which have traditionally been led into battle by kilted pipers for centuries.

Davy Garrett, who played the pipes in the Army for 12 years and now runs a piping school, said:

"This is just another example of the Nanny state

and one that I am very concerned could ruin the future of piping in Scotland."

Bill Lark, 85, a Black Watch piper who led his comrades into action against the Japanese in 1944, also thinks that the rules are bollocks:

"The pipes should be played loudly.

That's how they inspire soldiers and scare the enemy."

I feel suitably inspired to watch my copy of "Tunes of Glory" (starring Alec Guinness, John Mills and Gordon Jackson), I recommend you all do the same.