The Olympics - Jeremy Clarkson Speaks

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how long it will take for some "no life idiot" to complain about Clarkson's comments, and for Clarkson to be subjected to some daft police investigation and forced into an insincere apology?

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 Fireman Sam

It seems that Nanny continues to crack down on freedom of speech and our freedom to ask questions.

David Jones, a retired fireman and the creator of Fireman Sam, discovered this to his cost the other day when he went through the security gates at Gatwick airport.

As we all know, Nanny has done her best to increase our paranoia and fear about terrorism and has increased the level of security checks over the years at UK airports (all rather pointless on some long haul flights, if the same level of checks are not carried out at other airports en route or for transit passengers).

Anyhoo, Mr Jones placed his belongings, including a scarf, into the tray that passes through the X ray (that can't of course pick up certain types of explosives). Whilst waiting in line he observed a Muslim lady in a hijab pass through the area without showing her face.

Mr Jones made a comment to one of Nanny's security officers thusly:

"If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, Mr Jones was detained by Nanny's security staff and accused of racism.

Factoid: for the benefit of Nanny and her lackeys, any person of any race or colour can be Muslim (it is a religion not a race!).

Mr Jones then was subjected to a one hour stand-off, as Nanny's lackeys tried to force him to apologise.

To whom should he have apologised may I ask, and for why?

1 He wasn't being racist.

2 The comment was not aimed at the lady, nor heard by her.

3 The lady had long since gone.

Mr Jones then claims that, in addition to security staff giving him a verbal going over, the BA duty manager (he was trying to fly BA) got involved and took their side too.

The security staff insisted that he apologise to a Muslim security guard who had "apparently", on being told of the comment (ie she was not initially involved), became offended.

Mr Jones requested that a police officer be sought, unfortunately the police officer also kowtowed to the concept of political correctness. Mr Jones was told that "some things are not to be said".

We have now entered the Orwellian world of thought and speech crimes!

Mr Jones eventually (as he really did want to catch a flight) came to an agreement whereby he consented that what he said "could" be considered offensive by a Muslim guard.

Needless to say, Nanny insisted on making him go through the security check and full search again.

How petty and pathetic!

Gatwick airport are now looking into the matter!

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

Prat of The Week - Karl Turner MP

Congratulations to Karl Turner MP, for winning this week's "Prat of The Week" Award.

For why has he been thusly honoured?

For his sickbag inducing appearance on Channel 4 News last night, in which he bemoaned Jeremy Clarkson's infamous appearance on "The One Show".

Turner kept repeatedly saying that Clarkson should not only apologise, for saying that public sector strikers should be shot, but that he should apologise to all the children who would have seen the show.

What have children got to do with this?

Turner has been infected with Nanny's "Won't someone think of the children?" virus, and deems that all adult actions/discussions in the world must be adjusted to take into account children's reactions.

This mantra is of course bollocks, as we live in an adult world!

Additionally, his notion that children who may have seen the show went to bed fearful that their parents would be taken out onto the street and shot shows that he has zero understanding of how children think or their grasp of who Clarkson is.

It was a completely absurd argument to make, and nauseatingly repetitive.

Karl Turner, well deserving "Prat 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, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Auntie Suffers Sense of Humour Failure

Unsurprisingly I see that Nanny's best chum, Auntie, suffered a major sense of humour failure over Jeremy Clarkson's comments on "The One Show" in which he said that he would have public sector strikers shot.

Auntie issued an apology, and has withdrawn the show from the BBCi Player.

Censorship Auntie?

Are we not allowed to watch the show and make our own minds up?

Never mind, here is the clip (out of context), before judging it you should also be aware that he prefaced the comments by asserting that he liked the strikers, as the industrial action meant there was no traffic on the roads.

He then went on to say that he had to be balanced as he worked for Auntie, at which point he talked about having them shot.

Could it be that he was having a dig at Auntie's pc attitude as much as at the strikers?

UPDATE

Seemingly Unison (according to Auntie) is "to take urgent legal advice over "appalling" comments made by TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson".

Oh by the way, where was Unison when Ken Livingstone suggested that George Osborne should be hanged?


FURTHER UPDATE

Auntie now reports the following quote from Jeremy Clarkson:

"I didn’t for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously – as I believe is clear if they’re seen in context.

If the BBC and I have caused any offence, I’m quite happy to apologise for it alongside them."






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 Dangers of Crosses

I am not in the slightest way religious, I do not believe in god etc. However, so long as people do not try to force their beliefs down my throat, it is an individual's right to follow whatever religion he/she wishes.

Therefore I question the reaction of Wakefiled and District Housing (WDH) to Colin Atkinson's 8 inch cross, that he has displayed on the dashboard of his company vehicle for the last 15 years.

WDH received a complaint from a tenant, who demanded that he remove it for fear it could offend people or suggest that the company favoured Christians.

WDH asked Mr Atkinson to remove it, then called him to a disciplinary hearing after he refused to remove it.

It should be noted that it is not WDH policy to ban religious/political iconography; employees of other faiths are permitted to wear headdresses and turbans, and Mr Atkinson's manager has a poster of Che Guevara on his office wall.

However, following representations from various religious groups (including Muslims, Sikh, Christian, Hindu etc) WDH has decided that commonsense is better than "procedural correctness" and has allowed Mr Atkinson to continue to display his cross.

An absurd and stressful waste of time and energy!

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 Dangers of Brainstorming

Well done to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council for proving that their existence is futile. They have decreed that the term "brainstorming" is illegal, and replaced it with the catchy phrase "thought showers".

Officials Tunbridge Wells Borough Council fear that "brainstorm" might offend epileptics or the mentally ill.

What complete bollocks!

It is clear the the word used in context is nothing to do with derogatory remarks against those who are ill.

Margaret Thomas, of the National Society for Epilepsy, said:

"Brainstorming is a clear and descriptive phrase.

Alternatives such as "thought shower" or "blue-sky thinking" are ambiguous to say the least.

Any implication that the word "brainstorming" is offensive to epileptics takes political correctness too far."

A council spokesman said:

"We take diversity awareness very seriously. The majority of staff have taken part in training and been asked to use the term 'thought showers'."

Farking morons!

What a waste of space and money Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is! Get rid of 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 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 Dummy

Nanny's strict rules about racial/sexual diversity don't just apply to people, they apply to dummies too.

In Nanny's world we are all equal, even the dummies.

Thus it has come to pass that the police mascot, known as Steve, has been labelled by Nanny's lickspittles as being too male and white.

PSCO Steve was created by the Metropolitan Police to visit primary schools. Unfortunately Steve is male and white. Nanny hates white males, because they represent a part of society that she cannot understand and will not accept.

Therefore the Met has been ordered to spend £15K of our money replacing Steve with non male non white alternatives.

The much "respected" and "popular" head of the Met, Sir Ian Blair said:

"These characters will be more representative

of London's population and the diverse range of police personnel."

FYI, the original PCSO Steve costume was based on a real person (Sutton borough police community support officer Stephen King). Unfortunately Nanny hates reality, and prefers instead to create and live in a fictional world.

Pc Geoff Parker, who works in Islington, thinks that the whole idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"One of the things that is damaging our job

and our relations with the community is this

constant overbearing political correctness.

We seem to be taking the issue to the extreme,

and pandering to every whim and gripe.

We need to take a sensible approach to this

and stop over-reacting."

A foolish waste of money and effort, but when did Nanny ever worry about wasting money?

Prats of The Week

A little late in the week, but it is time to award my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to all those tossers who complained to the BBC about a wee incident on Top Gear.

Jeremy Clarkson and his co-presenter, James May, managed to offend some interfering busybodies with too much time on their hands, by lighting up a couple of pipes on air during Top Gear.

Oh my goodness...the horror...the humanity!!!

The astute amongst you will be quick to point out that, under Nanny's new anti smoking laws, such behaviour is verboten.

Seemingly the mere sight of actors, "personalities" etc smoking would immediately cause the whole country to become addicted to tobacco..yes, we are apparently (in Nanny's eyes at least) really that thick!

Now here's the real laugh though, Clarkson and May weren't smoking "evil" tobacco...they were smoking "good" herbal tobacco. Therefore they were not breaking Nanny's laws.

Needless to say the interfering busybodies in this country, who have nothing better to do with their time than to stick their noses in where they don't belong, have chosen to ignore the facts.

The anti-smoking charity Action for Smoking on Health (Ash), have demanded an apology from the BBC.

Who are they to demand?

What gives them moral prescience over the rest of us?

Why should one single issue group be in a position to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not, do?

Have they really got nothing better to do with their lives?

Amanda Sandford, spokeswoman for the charity, shrilly squawked:

"Smoking in a studio is illegal.

Anything that causes smoke is prohibited.

We would hope that programme-makers make

some form of apology.

It was meant to be a fairly light-hearted

part of the programme, but the law is the law

and it's not appropriate for the BBC,

especially for a programme that's very

popular and seen by a lot of young people,

to be openly flouting the law."

Just to remind you all, they were smoking herbal tobacco...it is not dangerous and not illegal.

Facts of course do not matter to ASH.

The arrogance of ASH is beyond belief, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

Please drop them a note, with my love, to this address ASH

Layabouts with too much time on their hands, putting their noses into other people's business are a curse upon this nation; that's exactly how Nazi Germany started!

Don't take my word for it, ask Basil:

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

Prats of The Week

Congratulations to Durham City Council, for winning this week's prestigious "Prats of The Week" award. It seems that in the main only councils ever win this award these days, that says a lot about the "quality" of lour local councils.

Anyhoo, Durham City Council have decided that a local businessman's choice of name for his business is racist and would cause offence.

Fair enough, maybe....

Except for one small fly, well actually some very large elephants, in their oinkment.

-The business is a Chinese restaurant

-The name of the business is the Fat Buddha

-The owner of the business is Chinese

-The owner of the business is in fact Buddhist.

Eddie Fung will open a £1.3M in Durham next month, creating 60 jobs.

Not so fast Mr Fung...you had reckoned without the local council screwing things up.

Cue stage left, Tracey Ingle, the city council's head of cultural services.

Ingle has demanded that Mr Fung change the name because it was "provocative".

Mr Fung quite rightly thinks that the council is talking bollocks:

"I cannot believe that this woman

should go to so much time and trouble

to take issue over an inoffensive name like Fat Buddha.

No Buddhist is going to be offended by this.

The fat Buddha is a symbol of health and happiness.

It is political correctness gone mad."

A spokesman for the Buddhist Society weighed in, also with the view that Ingle was talking bollocks:

"Buddhists regard the fat Buddha as lucky.

To suggest this is offensive is to misunderstand the faith.

Buddhists don't take offence at anything

because to do so doesn't follow Buddhist teachings."

Ingle wrote to Mr Fung:

"To use the name of a major religion's deity

in your restaurant brand runs contrary to

this city's reputation as a place of equality

and respect for others' views and religious beliefs.

The generic descriptive adjective of "fat"

is not in itself a derogatory term when applied

generally the name implies an Eastern offer [sic]

as it is associated with a religion that

grew from Asian countries.

It does not, however, offer vegetarian

cuisine solely nor does it refer to Buddhist belief systems.

The name is provocative."

What the fark is this woman talking about???

Durham City Council came to her defence:

"The department felt the name was inappropriate

in a city founded on faith.

We don't want to offend anyone because

of the different faiths that come to the city.

The council operates a strict non-discriminatory

equal-opportunities and diversity policy across the board."

Who gave the council the right to dictate to people in this manner in the first place??

Councils need to be put very firmly and quickly back in their place by the people; they have grown far too cocky (can I use the word cocky here?).

Ingle dug herself further into the sh*t:

"I stand by the letter,

which asked the restaurant owners to rename the place.

That is where we are now.

We have taken every reasonable step

and I have contacted the company director

and set out my concerns.

The restaurant is in a very prominent

position and it does have an impact

on the reputation of the city.

I have expressed a view as head of cultural

services in dealing with the culture of the city."

Errmmm it simply is not the council's place to dictate to people in this manner.

The Buddhists are not offended.

White middle class do gooders should keep their farking noses out of matters that they don't understand.

Durham City Council and Ingle, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

BTW Ingle actually keeps a blog (not very up to date), but feel free to pop over and post a few messages; it looks like she could do with some.

-Ingle's Blog

Feel free to drop Durham City Council a line, to tell them that they have won the award, via this link Prats.

Prats of The Week

It's Monday morning folks, and you know that that means don't you?

Yes, that right, it's time once again for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week's award goes to...yes, you've a guessed it....a local council!

How terribly predictable.

Isn't it about time that these failed bodies were put out of our misery once and for all, and a totally new system devised for local governance that is efficient, cost effective and accountable?

FYI, re "accountable" see what my local council (Croydon) has been up to with a property developer (CATARENA)

Anyhoo, I digress, the winners this week are two councils Blackburn and Darwen Council, who recently moved to smash a sinister counterfeit note operation that had been uncovered in Blackburn and Darwen.

Tow stores in the the towns had been discovered holding large stocks of counterfeit notes.

Very vigilant of the councils, I hear you say.

Unfortunately, there is one small fly in their oinkment. The notes were five, £10, £20 and £50, and were sold at four for a pound.

So far so good.

But.......The notes had the Queen's head replaced with a variety of pictures including Dr Who, David Beckham, Winnie the Pooh to Elvis and the Beatles.

Ahah!

Can you see the problem here?

Yes, that's right, the notes were novelty notes not counterfeits.

That didn't deter Nanny, her chums in the trading standards department insisted that the cash' could be mistaken for real money; and that it was a breach of the law to re-produce bank notes without the permission of the Bank of England.

The owner of store in Darwen from when they were taken, the Mega Pound Store, said there was no way it could be mistaken for real cash and that the "funny money" had been popular with children.

Quote:

"It's just funny money.

You can easily tell the difference

between these novelty notes and real ones.

We bought them in good faith and

they were a cracking line.

The kids loved them.

It's just political correctness gone mad.

There's no point arguing because

I am not going to get them back.

The guy I bought them from can't understand

why they are illegal."

Trading standards officers are still investigating the source of the notes, and are yet to decide whether to take further action.

Potty!

Surely there are more important issues to address?

Congrats to Blackburn and Darwen Council for their well deserved award!

Nanny Bans, Then Unbans Pigs

Nanny is a tortured soul, she frets 24 hours a day about the offence that may be given to every single person living in Britain by even the most harmless of remark or action.

In Nanny's world it is always better, and easier, to ban something; lest it cause offence, rather than to allow freedom of speech and freedom of action.

Why?

In my view there are two main reasons for this approach:

1 Nanny fears freedom of thought and action, as of course they undermine her rule

2 Nanny is intellectually lazy and doesn't have the time or ability to justify "controversial" actions, therefore she takes the easy option and bans things.

Here is a particularly fine example of Nanny stupidity, concerning a simple school festival that turned into a battle between common sense and utter stupidity.

Honley Junior School in West Yorkshire was to perform the Roald Dahl story of Little Red Riding Hood and the three little pigs. However, Nanny didn't approve of this and instructed the school to substitute puppies for pigs.

Why?

Isn't it obvious?

Nanny decided that some of the Muslim children singing about pigs would be embarrassed.

Can anyone tell me, at what stage did Britain become an Islamic Kalifate?

Needless to say, there has been a right old hoo ha about this senseless decision, and Kirklees Council has stepped in and authorised the use of pigs in the show.

As ever with deranged decisions, the order to ban the pigs was made by a committee. You see folks in committees no one ever has to take responsibility for acts of utter stupidity, and as such the dimmest and most spiteful of people on the committee manage to get their views acted upon.

Gill Goodswen, who is one of the organisers of the Kirklees Primary Music festival behind the changes, said:

"We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural.

It was felt it would be more responsible

not to use the three little pigs."

She said the committee had to consider the feelings of children who would be singing along, not just the performers.

"We feared that some Muslim children wouldn't sing along

to the words about pigs.

We didn't want to take that risk.

If changing a few words avoids offence

then we will do so."

Feeble minded people like this, who don't stand up for common sense, allow bullies and extremists to pervert our way of life; she should be reomved from office...PERIOD!

Mohammed Imran, of the nearby Hanfia Mosque and Educational Institute, said that Islam does not ban the mentioning of pigs.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said:

"My view is that the people responsible for this

are completely bonkers. It is the type of political correctness

which makes people's blood boil.

As usual it is done in the name of ethnic minorities

but it is perpetrated by white, middle class,

do-gooders with a guilt complex

and far too much time on their hands."

Kirklees council education spokesman, Jim Dodds, stepped up to the mark (to his credit) and said the idea was bollocks:

"There is something barmy going on here

and it has happened on my watch.

I can tell you now that the three little pigs

will be back into the school musical festival.

The decision (to ban the pigs)

was made by well-meaning people -

it was the wrong decision,

so let's stick with the traditions."

Good for him!

The festival is due to take place in June.

Re "well meaning people", these people should not be allowed out on their own, they cause more trouble and division in society than enough; because they spend their lives looking for fault in everything around them they are sad losers, willing to do Nanny's dirty work.

Convince a little man that he is performing a great task for humanity, and he will walk through fire for you.

Nanny Bans PC

Nanny has managed to get her knickers into a bit of a twist the other week.

Oh dear!

It seems that all the rules and edicts that she has been issuing are becoming a little bit contradictory, and causing Nanny to hang herself on her own petard.

How sad!

Kirklees metropolitan borough council found this out to their cost earlier this month, when they tried to issue training document for their employees in which the term "political correctness" was banned.

Unfortunately the document has had to be withdrawn, as it is too politically correct!

So, the document bans you from saying the phrase "politically correct". However, the document itself has been banned because it is too politically correct.

Errm...got that?

The 44 page policy book, entitled "Equality Essentials", was drawn up as a guide for the council's 18,000 staff in West Yorkshire.

As befitting Nanny's Orwellian view of the world, certain words were banned as a matter of course; chairman, fireman and policeman because they exclude women, and "ethnic" because it was not felt to be "appropriately descriptive".

You know the routine, the same old shit that is used by councils, quangos and other crappy useless pseudo state "organs" to try to control people!

Remember folks, as Orwell warned (and as I keep reminding you), when the state controls the language, and your ability to express yourself, it also controls your ability to think for yourself.

The hapless employees of the council, or should I say employees of the taxpayer, were also instructed to come up with at least 10 things they could do on a daily basis to make colleagues feel better.

By the way the document was produced by officials for the former Lib-Dem/Green coalition, that previously controlled the council, so it is hardly surprising that it is a waste of space.

Guess what folks?

They used a 1950s study into the social psychology of Nazi Germany, known as Allport's Scale!

Why am I not surprised that the Nazis would somehow or other feature in this story?

Seemingly the good old boys on the council wanted to find out about levels of harassment and bullying in the workplace.

Anyhoo, the document stated:

"Use of the phrase 'political correctness' is at best factual avoidance

and at worst a direct physical attack."

Robert Light, who became council leader after the Conservatives took control in the summer, thought that the whole thing was a load of bollocks and decided to revise the policy.

He said that 99% of the document was common sense, but certain items were "part of a politically correct culture" previously adopted by the authority.

Quote:

"We want to be known as a progressive council not a PC council."

Therefore the document has been banned, on the grounds that it was too politically correct, which in itself is of course a contradiction.

Maybe Nanny has brought us into some weird form of parallel universe where paradoxes can exist simultaneously.

Oooh!

Cue the Twilight Zone Theme!

Pity that the taxpayers of Kirklees had to pay for this pile of shite in the first place.

Will the previous council leaders apologise for wasting the taxpayers' money?

Will they fark!

Nanny Bans Guy Fawkes

As we approach Guy Fawkes night, Nanny does her best to spoil the event by trying to stop people letting off fireworks and holding bonfires.

However, Tower Hamlets council have gone one better, by banning Guy Fawkes night in favour of holding a £75,000 fireworks party celebrating an obscure Indian folk tale.

The knobheads in the council will hold an event called "The Emperor and The Tiger" on November 5.

Tower Hamlets Council held a Guy Fawkes-themed fireworks party last year.

Around 23,000 people turned up at Victoria Park to watch a huge model of the Houses of Parliament burn, marking the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot.

However, rather than repeating a proven success the knobheads in the council say:

"We did Guy Fawkes last year."

The borough will instead celebrate a folk tale from the Bengali community which tells the story of the 'Moghul Emperor, the Wise Man and the Guardian of the Jungle'.

A 12ft long mechanical Bengal Tiger, operated by four people will pace a giant catwalk as fire lights up a 'forest' to the sound of Bangla drummers and dancers.

The PR blurb says:

"The greedy Emperor wants his taxes, and the people must pay."

How very appropriate!

John Midgley, spokesman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said the council's decision would "explode in their faces".

"This is blatantly ridiculous.

It's almost too insane for words.

There's a time and a place for everything and November 5 is for Bonfire Night.

It's time for common sense and for people

to tell bureaucrats that politically correct actions

like these undermine our historic occasions

and harm community relations.

This is a massive own goal."

Evidently knobheads and twats are in charge in Tower Hamlets.

Whom Do You Serve?

Nanny loves to accommodate all views, faiths and political persuasions; so long as she agrees with them that is!

As such, it should come as no surprise to learn that when PC Alexander Omar Basha, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Diplomatic Protection Group, refused to be posted outside of London's Israeli Embassy, because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon on "moral grounds", Nanny bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes and excused him duty.

The only trouble with this "bending" policy (can there be such a thing as a bent police officer?) is that police officers are meant to serve the law:

-NOT THE STATE

-NOT GOD

-NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES

Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Needless to say, now that this incident has become a matter of public knowledge, Nanny has assigned Sir Ian Blair to urgently inquire into the issue.

A senior source in the Metropolitan Police Federation said:

"Officers should not be allowed to pick and choose where they work in this way."

It is ironic that Sir Ian will be investigating this, as many blame him for the culture of political correctness that has infested the Metropolitan Police since he took over in February last year.

PC Nadeem Malik, an executive committee member of the Association of Muslim Police, said:

"There are around 300 Muslim staff working in the Met

and a number of Muslim police working in the diplomatic protection group

who do not have problem covering the Israeli Embassy.

These officers are Londoners, and Met police officers first and foremost."

Exactly, well said!

Ex-Met Flying Squad commander John O'Connor, said:

"This is the beginning of the end for British policing.

If they can allow this,

surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy?

Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches?

Where will it end?

This decision is going to allow officers to act in a discriminating and racist way.

When you join the police, you do so to provide a service to the public.

If you cannot perform those duties, you leave.

The Metropolitan Police are setting a precedent they will come to bitterly regret.

Top brass granted his wish

as they were probably frightened of being accused of racism.

But what they've done is an insult to the Jewish community."

Just in case the Met haven't yet got the message. Police officers are meant to serve the law:

-NOT THE STATE

-NOT GOD

-NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL PREJUDICES

Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Write this down and learn it for prep, I will be testing you on it later!

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking

Nanny Knows Best has been up and running for almost two years now, during this time I have written many articles about Nanny's nasty little rules and absurd political correctness.

Given Nanny's daily output of rules and regulations there is a danger that one becomes somewhat "numb", for want of a better word, to Nanny and her rules. As such, sometimes, even I have to step back and read a few times what I have written before the absurdity (no, I don't mean that I write in an absurd fashion!) of it really sinks in.

However, in this particular case my dander was well and truly up before I even set finger to keyboard.

I think it is the combination of the sad little loser being able to stifle artistic creativity, and the fact that a large media organ is playing out Orwell's warning about history being literally airbrushed away that has really got my dander up.

Anyhoo, it seems that in shades of Orwell's 1984, history is being airbrushed away by Turner Broadcasting.

This all started when some sad loser, with nothing better to do than complain, made a complaint to British media regulator Ofcom about the content of a couple of Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Horror of horrors, they showed Tom smoking!

Needless to say, "Disgusted of Pratt's Bottom" or wherever the sad little loser resides took umbridge at this, and told Ofcom that these scenes (scripted back in the 40's) would encourage children to smoke.

Ofcom, following Nanny's mantra that the prejudices of the minority outweigh the commonsense of the majority, immediately sprang into action. Disregarding any form of commonsense they contacted Turner Broadcasting (part of Time Warner) who own the channel (Boomerang) on which the offending cartoons were aired, and asked them to stop showing them.

Turner, showing no backbone whatsoever (this is the result of living and working in the Nanny state), not only complied but are now scouring more than 1,500 classic cartoons including; Tom and Jerry, The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo to edit out scenes that "glamorise" smoking.

Yinka Akindele, spokeswoman for Turner in Europe, said:

"We are going through the entire catalogue.

This is a voluntary step we've taken in light of the changing times."

I have a number of points to make about this nonsense:

1 What about the numerous occasions when Tom and Jerry do immense damage to each other with pots, pans, guns, explosives etc? Are these not also a danger to "innocent" children?

2 Smoking was de rigeur in the 40's and 50's. The cartoons are a reflection of the social mores of the day. To pretend otherwise and airbrush them in this "Nazi/Soviet like" manner, is to deny our own history and to lie to the children. Is this the way we want to raise children, with a lie?

3 Many other characters from history smoke, real and imaginary; Popeye, Churchill etc. Should we airbrush them too?

4 Why does the prejudiced view of one sad loser carry more weight with Nanny and her acolytes, than the unspoken views of the majority?

5 Given the fact that, in Nanny's world, the views of the minority carry more weight than that of the majority I would ask you top drop Turner and Ofcom a line to the effect that:

"I was appalled to learn that you are airbrushing historical cartoons to comply with the prejudiced views of one individual, who has a grudge against smoking.

I would note that your actions are depriving children of a true and accurate historical perspective of society in the 1940's and 50's, and as such your actions constitute a breach of the rules that require impartial and accurate broadcasting.

I would also note that by taking these actions, as a result of the complaint of only one person, you are in effect liable to accusations of being biased and prejudice; ie you are guilty of discrimination.

In view of this I would like to raise a formal complaint with you about this matter, and request that you investigate and reconsider your actions.

I would note, that since you have taken these actions based purely on one complaint, you are obliged to respond to my complaint with the same attention to detail and thoroughness.

I will, depending on your response, consider taking the matter further."

Here are some useful addresses for you to send the above to:

Offcom - graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk

Investor Relations Time Warner - ir@timewarner.com

Turner
Phone 404.827.1700
Address: 1 CNN Center
100 International Blvd.
Atlanta GA 30348
USA

Boomerang - toon.pressoffice@turner.com

Time Warner Board
c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
USA

Don't let 1984 happen because of apathy.

Nanny Bans Shoulders

You know how these days when having your passport photo taken, you are meant to look face on into the camera and not smile?

These rules are all part of Nanny's extra security measures to guard us from the "crescent of evil", that she believes threatens us. Smiling, side ways pictures are apparently a security threat.

Anyhoo, Nanny has come up with another issue with regard to passport photos; that of bare shoulders.

She has banned them.

What?!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say that word on a website?)

Yes, bare shoulders; apparently they are offensive to Muslim countries.

Specifically, bare shoulders of five year old girls.

That at least is what the Sheffield Post Office clerk told Jane Edwards (mother of five year old Hannah) as she presented Hannah's bare shouldered photo for a passport renewal.

The photo was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

The family were told by the jobsworth clerk that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

Seemingly, if the clerk was to be believed, she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered.

Mrs Edwards said:

"I was incensed.

I went back home and checked the form.

Nowhere did it say anything about covering up shoulders.

If it had, I would have done so, but it all seems so unnecessary.

This is quite ridiculous,

I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected.

It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness.

It is a total over-reaction.

How can the shoulders of a five-year-old girl offend anyone?

It's not as if anything else was showing,

the dress she wore was sleeveless,

but it has a high neck."

Seemingly though the Post Office has it wrong, a spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said that it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

Quote:

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it,

this picture should have been absolutely fine.

If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

The Post Office obviously has its rules and we can't comment on that.

We are aware of a case in the past where an error was made involving similar circumstances,

although I don't know the exact details.

Staff should be aware of the rules."

We shouldn't be so hard on the Post Office, it is used by Nanny as a sort of day care centre these days for the elderly, insane, drunk and unemployed. The staff there have enough to worry about.

Newsflash From The Fuehrer Bunker

Bliary Poppins has released the following urgent newsflash.

It has come to my attention that there has been speculation over the news that I am to fly the Flag of St George over the Number 10 Fuehrer Bunker, on England World Cup match days.

People have speculated that this is a sign that I fully support the concept of English patriotism, even though I spend most of my time outside of the UK, and is a deliberate slight to those who practice political correctness.

I must inform you now, nothing could be further from the truth.

The sole reason that the flag will be flown is to annoy the grumpy old Scottish git who lives next door.

Heil the Pope!

Bliary Poppins

Message Ends

Nanny Bans White Police Officers

It seems that the concepts of political correctness are becoming embedded in some police forces, despite what you may have read about racist emails in the Merseyside police.

Unfortunately, Nanny can take the concept of "PC" a little too far at times. Her chums in the Gloucester Constabulary have been reported to the Commission for Racial Equality, over accusations that it has discriminated against 109 white male job applicants during a recent recruitment drive.

The police claim that the decision was part of its programme to boost the number of minority ethnic officers:

"Because of statutory and Governmental requirements, the decision was taken to give priority to females and applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds."

Gloucestershire Constabulary believe that its recruitment profile for officers must represent the ethnic mix of the community, and therefore from the total number of 301 applicants they received, only 192 could be sent to the police officer assessment centre.

Assistant Chief Constable Michael Matthews said:

"It is essential in a democratic policing environment to ensure that under-represented groups are prioritised in our recruitment drives.

This 'positive action'

will undoubtedly mean disappointment for others

who fall into the categories we never have difficulty recruiting from.

However, this is the only realistic way of ensuring we maintain a diverse workforce that reflects the diverse communities we serve."

Up to a point there is some logic in what he says. However, would not the people of Gloucestershire be best served by having the best qulaity officers on the beat, irrespective of their race and sex?

Nanny Bans Christians

Nanny's nutters in Birmingham never cease to amaze me. Usually it is the council doing something daft, such as calling Christmas "Wintervall"; now Birmingham University Students' Union, keen not to be left out of Nanny's nonsense, has thrown its hat into the ring.

The Students' Union has frozen the assets of the Evangelical Christian Union, and banned the Christian Union from holding meetings at Birmingham University.

Why?

It seems that the Christian Union has refused membership to non Christians.

Seemingly, in the small world that the Students' Union inhabit, this is discrimination.

Wiser souls might point out that this is just common sense, after all why would a non Christian wish to join a Christian society?

What possible added value to either party would there be from such an occurrence?

Anyhoo, common sense never really plays a part in Nanny's thinking nor in the thinking of her trolls and goblins.

Birmingham University's Student Union Guild has demanded that the Evangelical Christian Union (ECU) amend its constitution to allow people of all faiths to become members and, this is the killer point, sit on its leadership body.

Needless to say the Christians think that this idea is bollocks, and have refused, although I am sure that they put it in a far more polite way!

In retaliation the Students' Union have frozen ECU's assets of £5,500, and blocked it from using student union facilities until it complies.

ECU has been around for 76 years, and has no intention of turning the other cheek (I'm on form today folks!), it has threatened legal action to gain access to its funds ahead of a major religious awareness drive.

Andy Weatherley, a staff worker for the ECU, said:

"Christian unions should be permitted to restrict membership to only those people who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

It is a fundamental right of any organisation to be able to include in its membership only those who abide by the ethos and focus of the organisation.

We believe this to be true for all organisations within the student union, not just religious or ethnic ones."

Pod Bhogal, communications director for the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship - an affiliation of Christian societies - said:

"In all our years of working with hundreds of higher education establishments, this action by Birmingham's guild is unique.

It is over-the-top and looks like political correctness gone mad.

We would not dream of telling a Muslim group or a political society how to elect their leaders or who could or could not become a member.

That's entirely a matter to them, based on their own faith principles. The same applies to a Christian Union."

The guild believes that ECU must open its executive positions to people of all faiths.

Another weighty problem that the guild is wrestling with, in respect of ECU, are references in the constitution of ECU to "men" and "women".

Seemingly these references discriminate against transsexuals.

Birmingham University's Student Guild claims that it is merely enforcing the 1994 Education Act, which states student societies have to be open to all.

So why has it taken them 12 years to get round to doing this then?

I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye.

The good news folks is that one day some of these young men and women (sorry, "persons") will be in positions of power and authority in this country, something to look forward to eh?