Behaviour Management

In Nanny's world she doesn't speak English, she uses a mangled mix of bullshit "management speak" and political/socialist double speak when communicating.

Why?

Simple:

1 She is stupid.

2 She doesn't want people to understand what she is talking about, so she tries to be clever.

3 Her arguments wouldn't stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny if they were presented in English.

Such is the case for her stand wrt "behaviour management".

What pray tell is "behaviour management"?

In English, it is called smacking/chastising children when they behave like little shits.

David and Heather Bowen from Taunton have found to their cost that Nanny does not approve of "behaviour management".

The Bowens are foster parents who have been banned by Nanny from fostering, after they refused to stop smacking their natural child.

Nanny's adoption panel asked the Bowens to reconsider using physical discipline towards their daughter Emma, aged nine.

They refused, and have been blacklisted (that's a non word too these days isn't it?) over their "behaviour management".

Mr Bowen said:

"I am a parent governor at a local school, my wife works for the school parent teacher association, has been a special needs careers advisor and now works in the school. We both assist with children's work at our local church.

Based on the evidence presented to the council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law."

Linda Barnett, head of children's services at Somerset County Council, said:

"In assessing parents' suitability for fostering we take into account a range of factors which we gather from extensive assessment and discussion with the potential carers.

In common with most other local authorities, Somerset has a foster carer's agreement which describes our belief about parenting.

Where carers have a very strong personal belief that differs from the foster carer agreement, it is potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.

Mr and Mrs Bowen have lodged an appeal and we are in discussion with them about the hearing of that appeal."

It's not for the state to dictate to people what beliefs they may hold.

Little wonder that there is a shortage of good foster homes, if Nanny is so fussy about only hiring those with socio political beliefs that match her own.

Little wonder that "yoof" is so disaffected these days, as it needs boundaries. Nanny keeps removing the boundaries, what are kids and parents meant to do?

Could Nanny answer that please?

Nanny Hates Smacking

Funny how Nanny, at times, can be a tad hypocritical isn't it?

Last month Nanny's Children's Commissioner for England, Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green, announced that he had begun preparing a dossier for the United Nations, to back his case that parents who smack their children are abusing their human rights.

Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green says that parents must be banned outright from smacking. In his view existing laws fail to protect children from harm, and he intends to submit a report to the UN by this autumn.

Prof Sir Al Aynsley-Green wants to ban parents completely from smacking.

Quite how this will be enforced, is beyond me. Child's word against parents perhaps?

All rather embarassing for Bliary Poppins, who admitted in an interview in 2006 that he had smacked both his elder sons.

As Bliary rightly said:

"I think everybody knows the difference

between smacking a kid and abusing a child."

In other words, exercise common sense and trust the judgement of the parent.

Nanny is Mother Nanny is Father

I wonder if Nanny is beginning to lose her marbles?

Blairy Poppins has laid out plans for social intervention, reminiscent of those Victorian quacks who thought that you could judge a man's character by reading the bumps on his head.

In a nutshell (that is a most appropriate word for this plan) Nanny (Blairy) has said that it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.

Visions of genetic monitoring and selection spring to mind here.

Anyhoo, in Nanny's mind it is possible for the state to prevent babies born into "high risk families" becoming problem teenagers of the future.

Quite who decides what a "high risk" family is I have no idea. Seemingly, in Nanny's "new order", people will not be given a choice about "accepting" state aid; state aid will be compulsory. Bliar said that teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.

Blair went on to say that action could even be taken "pre-birth".

Blairy Poppins said:

"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early

then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional,

and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society

and actually a threat to themselves."

Sanctions will be imposed on parents who refused to take advice. I assume if the sanctions don't work, then these "refuseniks" will be carpet bombed into submission, just like Bliar does with all his other enemies?

Nanny's plan has been put together with the help of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point; it covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit (defined as those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes).

Nanny says that there was no point "pussy-footing", she wants compulsory 12 week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.

Ah, Nanny's favourite word..."COMPULSORY".

The trouble with Nanny's approach to "dysfunctional", let us call it what it really is, scum behaviour is that she does not see that it is her own interventions that are causing it.

Society as a whole has managed throughout the centuries to "manage" and "keep a lid" on scum; simple techniques employed by local communities worked:

• Scum would be "saucepan banged" out of town (local residents would gather outside of a scum house, and bang saucepans lids etc until the scum left).



• Those who behaved so abominably and so out of control that they did not find work, did not eat properly and as a consequence had little energy to breed like rabbits, or indeed to live; ie they died.



• Peer pressure in local communities ensured that anti social behaviour was soon brought to task, as the appropriate punishments were meted out to those who crossed the line.

The state has taken away all of those checks and balances, and in effect caused the problems that we are told are so common place today:

• State benefits and state housing means that the worst and most objectionable people can live and function, without the need to raise a finger.



• Tower blocks and government housing policy have ripped away the fabric of local communities.



• The no smacking ban imposed by the state on teachers and parents have removed an effective means of control over offspring.



• The state has infused some of the population with a "victim" mentality. Believe that your are the victim of injustice, and you most assuredly will be the victim.

In short, state intervention has brought about this problem, proposing more intervention will in effect exacerbate the situation.

I would also make this point, the path proposed by the Prime Minister (if followed) will lead us to genetic monitoring and enforced sterilisations/birth control. This is not the path for a civilised society to follow.

The "solution" to this problem is to lessen state intervention and to cut off the benefits of those who behave badly.

Crime and Punishment

Which crime is worse?

• Deliberately poisoning your adopted child, by force-feeding him salt?



• Or smacking your child so that he/she develops a small bruise?

Answer:

Neither, according to Nanny.

Nanny believes that both crimes are equally dreadful, and consequently you will receive 5 years if convicted of either of the above.

Another well balanced, and well thought through, piece of legislation from Nanny!

Nannying Nanny

Nanny, as we all know, loves to tell people how to live their lives.

She never tires of haranguing us about our eating habits, our drinking habits, our smoking and our sex lives.

However, it has come to this site’s attention that Nanny has taken her eyes off the ball recently.

Maybe the burdens of Nannying an entire country are becoming too much for her?

You see ladies and gentlemen, one of Nanny’s special friends has been ignoring Nanny’s advice about sex (can I use the word sex in public?).

I won’t embarrass the poor chap by naming him here; that would smack of trial without jury, which is something that we don’t do in Britain.

However, Nanny’s chum has been having a bit of “rumpy pumpy” with a married lady. Something that Nanny doesn’t really approve of, as it goes against her strict religious beliefs.

Anyhoo, Nanny’s chum clean forgot to use a contraceptive; and inevitably there was a baby. No, my mistake, there were in fact two pregnancies during the relationship.

Remarkably careless of this person!

Now this may strike you as a little odd, given the fact that Nanny and her chums are always lecturing teenagers about having sex “responsibly”. Teenage pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases, are an anathema to Nanny; her shrill voice repeatedly reminds hormone fuelled adolescents to use a condom.

Unfortunately Nanny’s middle aged friend ignored her advice, and look where it got him.

Not a very good example to set the kids, is it Nanny?

Therefore this site, in the interests of setting a good example to the children, would like to offer Nanny and her friends a small piece of advice.

If you are going to shag someone else’s wife, for heavens sake use a condom!

Nanny's Monster Database

Those of you who may be thinking that Nanny’s ID card scheme is “no big deal”, may have a change of heart when reading this.

As noted in an earlier article on this site, Nanny’s Loyalty Programme, Nanny is very impressed with the loyalty card schemes used by the private sector. So much so, in fact, that she is working with the private sector to determine how to use ID cards to monitor her “charges” commercial transactions.

Her masterplan is to create a central database, which would store citizens’ major transactions with both government and business.

Her plan is outlined in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which was quietly released with David “trial without jury” Blunkett’s ID cards Bill published this week. The RIA says that the ID card Bill allows the National Identity Register (NIR) to record when, and from whom, any checks on the database take place.

The RIA then goes on to give examples of database access, including:

• Banks and other finance firms combating money laundering and identity fraud



• Employers checking a job applicant's immigration status



• Retailers protecting against credit card fraud

So much for the idea that the data stored would be used only for state security measures (a sinister enough purpose).

In addition to granting seemingly unlimited access rights to the database, Nanny is working on using chip-and-PIN technology for checking ID cards at point of sale.

Nanny will make on line checks whenever anyone makes a “larger than normal transaction”. Precisely how will she know if the transaction is larger than normal?

Mike Rodd, external relations director at the British Computer Society, noted:

“The potential to connect and collate information about people that may be commercially sensitive will make the population at large very unhappy…

To create this huge database of information starts smacking of some sort of authoritarian state. This could really cause an outrage…”

Nanny may in fact be creating a monster, which would be beyond even her power to control. Professor Jim Norton, a senior policy advisor at the Institute of Directors, says the government would be inundated with data.

“Recording every high value transaction doesn't sound like a great idea to me…

..The idea of having a huge database and sucking vast amounts of information into it seems to me to be remarkably naive on one hand, and a potential major burden on business on the other..”

As usual with Nanny, she seeks to involve herself with the minutiae of peoples’ lives.

Whatever your views on an ID card scheme per se, it is very clear that Nanny cannot be trusted to run it.

Resistance Is Futile

Nanny is getting a little testy these days, about people constantly criticising her for interfering in their lives.

What a shame!

In fact she has become so annoyed that she has sent her “well respected” apparatchik, Enver Hodge, to tell the British people to “shut up”.

Enver Hodge went on the airwaves today to defend Nanny, and to speak up for the "unsung virtues" of the nanny state.

Dear old Enver has had, you may recall, quite a colourful past life; running a bankrupt and corrupt council.



In the glory days of the 80’s and 90’s Enver was involved with Islington Council, and its childcare policy. In Islington a number of children, in Nanny’s care, were abused by some 32 members of staff; yet Hodge did not act. Indeed when the Evening Standard started to report the issue in 1992, she accused it of “gutter journalism”.

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

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

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

With credentials like that, Nanny knew that Enver was the ideal person to lecture parents on how to bring up their children. Indeed Nanny lived in the same street in Islington as Enver Hodge, they were special friends.

Now Enver is back, and has unveiled her “splendid” new plan to tell parents how to bring up their children.

Enver’s department has published a booklet today, which will be given to all new parents, outlining Nanny’s preferred child rearing techniques.

Nanny offers some very worthy advice, such as; how to read a book with a child, and warning parents not to let children watch too much TV.

Enver became rather testy during her media appearance; noting that Nanny is tired of the barrage of attacks over her moves to restrict the right to smack children, smoke in public and eat fatty foods.

Quote:

"I want to celebrate the unsung virtues of state intervention on behalf of families, and I want to expose the contradictions in the position of the Right. There's an element of 'nimbyism' in our attitude to the nanny state. It's all right to put speed bumps outside our front doors to slow down traffic and enhance our property values..

..But we resent the nanny state speed camera catching us as we are late for work and breaking the speed limit..

..The Right, who relish attacks on the nanny state, are very ready to impose their moral values. It is the Right who are constantly telling people how to live their lives.."

She finished her tirade by noting that eventually everyone will agree with Nanny; ie Nanny will simply wear us down, until all opposition is extinguished.

Sounds like the refrain of the Borg “resistance is futile”, and we all know what happened to them don’t we children?

The Rise of The Bottom Inspectors

Nanny, although a strict disciplinarian herself, tried to outlaw parents smacking their own children this week.

However, her plans came a little unstuck when MP’s in the House of Commons voted to allow “reasonable chastisement” of children to continue; so long as there were no visible marks.

Should there be a visible mark on the child’s posterior, the parents will have been deemed to have broken the law.

Needless to say, Nanny knows that this “fine piece of legislation” is of course unworkable.

Precisely how will Nanny’s snoopers and spies know if there are marks on children? The police, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a nonsensical and unenforceable piece of legislation.

However, do not despair, Nanny has a plan.

Nanny remembers reading the British satirical comic Viz in her youth. One storyline that featured regularly in this fine publication, was that of Britain being ruled by a Gestapo like authority known as “The Bottom Inspectors”.

Their mission was to ensure that peoples’ bottoms, have you noticed that it’s always bottoms with the Brits, were up to the standards of the “Bottom Reich”.

Viz unknowingly, but presciently, had provided Nanny with the solution to her problem.

Nanny will form an elite body of men and women, known as “The Bottom Inspectors”. They will, like all other organs of the nanny state in the UK, poke their noses into the very private aspects of peoples’ lives; namely, their bottoms.

Should you wish to join “The Bottom Inspectors” please send your CV, and a brief summary of why you want to join, to anthonyblair@gmail.com