Nanny Bans The Money Lenders

The BBC reported the other day that payday loan adverts have been banned from billboards and bus stops by Plymouth City Council, while Cheshire East Council has banned access to their websites from its computers.

Whilst it is true that payday loan companies offer small loans over short periods at remarkably high interest rates (APR's running into 1000's of percent), it should be remembered that the loans are available to people classified by mainstream "respected" banks as being high risk (eg low income, poor credit history with the likelihood of not being able to pay them back).

By denying such people access to a regulated, albeit high rate of interest, loan market Nanny is in effect pushing them into the hands of the loan sharks who are not regulated and who break legs in order to extract their debts.

People do not merrily skip and dance to these companies because they have nothing better to do, they borrow from them because they have literally run out of cash (by all means feel free to lecture them on the concept of "fiscal prudence" etc) and their only alternative is a loan shark.

Nanny is perfectly at liberty to ban payday loan companies, as and when she has in place a loan system that works for people whom the mainstream banks won't touch with a bargepole.

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

Prats of The Week - Plymouth City Council

Well done Plymouth City Council for winning this week's "Prats of The Week" Award.

Russell Burt, aka the "Owl Man", had been walking his feathered friends around Plymouth on his shoulder for almost 10 years without any mishaps.

However, the lump heads in the council recently banned him from doing so, lest the owls "run amok".

Has anyone ever seen an owl "run amok"?

How often do I get to use the word "amok"?

I really must use it more often!

Anyhoo, there was a public outcry and Mr Burt received overwhelming support for his owl walking. The council were trashed in the media, and by local residents.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, the council back tracked (because they are a bunch of spineless knobheads, who hadn't any real justification for banning the owl walking) and have now allowed Mr Burt to walk his owls (aside from near busy roads).

Plymouth City Council, well deserving Prats of The Week!

I believe they are a Tory council, yes?

By the way, how come owls can be banned but pit bulls can't?

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Bin Brother - Show Me Your Papers

Oh dear, there has been a veritable slurry of stories this week about eco fascist councils and Nanny's "jobsworths" imposing high handed draconian rules and regulations on the time honoured art of waste disposal.

Eh?

I mean, Nanny is sticking her nose into our rubbish bins!

Plymouth council (a Tory one, that should know better) is the latest in a line of councils to don their jackboots, and stomp over people's rubbish bins. The council will be issuing an edict informing the good citizens of Plymouth that families will be forced to name somebody to be in charge of their rubbish, under the council's "zero tolerance" approach to bin collections.

How about a zero tolerance approach to robbery, muggings and scum on the streets?

The hapless individual who "volunteers" to be "Bin Master" faces £100 fines and a criminal record (yes, a criminal record!) if their household puts the wrong rubbish in its wheelie bins, puts them out too soon, or puts them in the wrong place.

Just to remind you...

This is a Tory council!

Plymouth Council is living up to my oft stated belief that local councils are fit for nothing, aside from raising tax and imposing petty unpleasant rules on their local populations, and should be abolished.

The "Bin Master" (or "Mistress") will also be expected to give council officials a breakdown of everyone who lives in their home, together with intimate information including details of medical conditions.

They will even be asked to number babies and toddlers who use disposable nappies.

Think you can avoid this?

The council are threatening to fine people who do not comply with orders from the council.

The "Bin Master/Mistress" must submit their name, their age, and their signature.

Quote:

"If you fail without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement specified in this notice you will be liable on summary conviction to a fine."

One question in the forms is particularly "amusing":

"reasons why a member of your household generates more rubbish than average (eg a medical condition)."

So what happens if people from other families throw their excess rubbish into your bin?

Should we be locking our bins now?

The only way to stop this absurd nonsense is for everyone who receives one of these forms to refuse to fill it in. Only a 100% boycott will show the idiots in the council who really hold the whip hand.

Feel free to tell Plymouth Council what you think of them:

-enquiries@plymouth.gov.uk

I would also recommend that you tell David Cameron too, it's absurd ideas like this that will stop him kicking Nu Labour out of orifice.

Roll back the frontiers of the state, and reclaim your lives and freedom!

-Contact Cameron

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

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:)

Nanny Bans Poles

As you are well aware there is something of an hysterical media campaign going on at the moment concerning the 1 billion immigrants that have entered the UK since the beginning of the year, mainly from East Europe.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has banned poles.

Aha, not that sort of pole though!

Nanny has in fact banned firemens' poles, seemingly they are a health and safety hazard.

Nanny's architectural chums who designed and built a £2.4M new fire station in Greenbank, Plymouth, have excluded the pole; they say that they are following safety guidelines.

Needless to say, the firecrews are a tad pissed off; they now have to run down the stairs instead.

However, Nanny is of the opinion that firefighters could suffer repetitive stress injuries, bad backs, sprained ankles and even chaffing to their hands and thighs if the pole (used to enable a quick response) is used.

Designers of the building in Greenbank, Plymouth, say they are following safety guidelines. But crews are furious.

Station officer Ken Mulville said:

"In 30 years in the brigade, I've seen one or two accidents on poles

compared to tens of accidents with people on stairs.

It takes about a second and a half to slide down a pole

as opposed to 15 or 20 seconds to run down two flights of stairs.

Seconds could be critical when responding to a 999 call."

One firefighter at Greenbank said:

"It's crazy they pay you to plunge into burning buildings but won't risk you on a pole."

Bernard Hughes, chairman of Devon Fire and Rescue Authority, is having none of it:

"There have been a number of injuries to firefighters on poles.

A risk assessment was taken and the decision has been made not to put poles in."

Utter Bollocks!

Nanny's PC View

Nanny has a very rigid view of the world, namely that everything that is stated by "non Nanny bodies" must conform to her rigid belief in pc.

The rules of pc are designed to ensure that no one on the planet can at any time be offended, or discriminated against, by the actions or words of another.

Now anyone with the slightest understanding/knowledge of human beings knows that this is of course an impossibility. Humans are a mass of prejudices; racial, sexual, social, political and religious. You name it, and people will either be for or against it.

We are genetically coded to mistrust those that are different, it is a self protection mechanism built into our genes thousands of years ago.

Nonetheless that does not preclude Nanny from legislating against every possible contrivance of prejudice.

An insurance firm, Lifestyle Services Group, has recently fallen foul of Nanny's pc view.

It has been ordered to withdraw a leaflet featuring four black men in a police identity parade, after Plymouth and District Racial Equality Council complained that it implied that black men are criminals.

The advertisement was promoting the firm's identity theft insurance, which aims to protect victims of stolen or forged identity documents such as a passport or driving licence.

The leaflet showed four black men in a parade, with one of the men shorter than the others and a frightened look on his face.

The text read:

"Sometimes you might wish someone had stolen your identity."

Lifestyle Services Group said it had not meant to offend anyone.

The Advertising Standards Authority concluded that by featuring black models, the mailing was seen to reinforce a stereotype that black men are criminals and therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Therefore, are we to assume that black men do not commit criminal acts?

Do we assume that if the advert featured white models, then it would have been approved? Would that then not have offended white people?

Have the ASA not seen the other "offence" in this advert, namely the implication that people of a "short stature" are not able to look after themselves?

It was not Nanny's place to interfere, the market would have decided the issue.

Had the leaflet been deemed to be offensive, then people would have stopped buying the products and Lifestyle Group would have withdrawn the leaflet of their own accord.

Had the market decided that the leaflet was not offensive, then it would not have been withdrawn.

Nanny should have kept her hooter out of this.

As Basil Fawlty once said:

"..people like you, with nothing better to do than putting your noses into other people's business and causing trouble.

Well let me tell you, that's exactly the way that Nazi Germany started!"