Fags

I see that Nanny's ongoing war against the "scourge" of smoking continues apace.

Andy Burnham, the health secretary, recently revealed plans to halve the number of smokers in the UK by 2020 (that will severely dent Nanny's tax revenues!).

How will this be achieved?

- Nanny intends to legislate to make it illegal to smoke in public doorways and possibly in public open spaces (such as parks).

- Nanny intends to make social workers lecture people in their own homes about the "evils" of smoking in their own homes.

- Nanny intends to eliminate all forms of product differentiation, by insisting that fag packets be printed in an anonymous grey colour without any form of branding.

Here's why this is all bollocks:

1 Smoking in public parks etc does not pose a health risk to others. A far greater health risk is posed by fumes from cars and lorries.

2 Banning smoking in parks etc would be unenforceable, unless Nanny creates a whole new "elite" force of jobsworths (whose only function is to go round fining smokers for smoking a perfectly legal product, that has already been taxed).

3 What people eat, drink and smoke in their own homes is their business. Social workers have more than enough on their plate, cleaning up Nanny's feral society, without adding "smoking enforcement officer" to their titles.

4 Creating a "grey" brand will simply make the product more alluring (as is makes it seem even more "forbidden"). Grey will add a "cool/stylish" image to fags.

Why not go one step further and ban fag packets altogether?

Why not sell fags in small plastic bags, or wraps?

After all, that branding procedure hasn't made cocaine the number one clubbing drug of choice has it?

5 Remove the branding, and the market will be further swamped with counterfeits.

6 Politicians are the largest (in every sense of the word) substance abusers on the planet. They are not in a position to lecture us on what is good/bad for us.

All in all a very stupid set of suggestions, from a very stupid government.

Let people smoke themselves to death, before they grow old and demented and thus absorb excess scarce resources in Nanny's appalling elderly care system.

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

Nanny's Child Snatchers

I see that Nanny has resorted to using the full apparatus of the state to enforce her child centric policies, if this report (see below) in the Telegraph of the other day is accurate. I have reproduced it in full as, quite frankly, I initially assumed that they were writing about a third world dictatorship rather than the UK.

- Since when did the state start "sectioning" people for being "overprotective" of their children?

- Why are social workers allowed to behave in the same manner as the Gestapo?

- Why was Mr Jones' wife arrested, and the children snatched by the state?

- Why was the chief magistrate allowed to act as magistrate, given that he was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which Mr Jones was being detained?

- Why is ZaNuLabour still in office?

It is the most sickening story of state abuse of power that I have read for quite sometime, and wonder how long it will be before Nanny uses the powers of the state to start "sectioning" other people for alleged "delusions" (eg that the state is corrupt)?

The Telegraph:

"One of the most disturbing features of life in modern Britain has been the extraordinary powers given to social workers to seize children from their parents, too often – when those powers are abused – supported by the police and family courts. What makes this still more alarming is the legal bar on reporting these episodes, supposedly to protect the children, which again too often works to protect the social workers themselves at the expense of the children.

Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column.

Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest.

He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.

Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was "sectioned", he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.

On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here.

Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. The voluminous dossier setting out this extraordinary sequence of events not only includes lengthy statements from Mr and Mrs Jones but copies of detailed statements by the social worker and policewoman most closely involved in the case (along with a good deal more circumstantial evidence).

The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections. The only harm done to the children is their very evident unhappiness at being separated from their parents.

It must be hoped that the court this week recognises how grotesquely this tragic case has been blown out of all proportion, and rules that a loving family should immediately be reunited."

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

Nanny's Child Snatchers - Nottingham City Council

Emulating the SS, Nottingham City Council have taken it upon themselves to snatch a child away from her mother because, in Nottingham City Council's eyes, the mother is too stupid to look after the child.

Welcome to ZaNuLabour Britain, where the state dictates who may or may not bring up their own children!

Rachel (24), who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.

Is Rachel really that thick?

According to a psychiatrist Rachel has no learning difficulties and "good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range".

Her daughter was born prematurely and Nanny's "officials" decided that Rachel didn't have the brains to cope with her complex medical needs, as such the baby was "fostered out".

It should be noted that the medical issue has now been resolved, the baby now needs little or no day-to-day medical care.

So why the fark is Nanny still taking the child away?

There is a rather nasty added twist to this sad story, Rachel's attempts thus far to fight Nanny have been scuppered by the fact that her case was taken over by the official solicitor.

Guess who the official solicitor works for?

Yes, that's right, Nanny!

Nanny brought her own man in because Nanny decided that Rachel wasn't bright enough to instruct her own solicitor.

Good game this isn't it?

Nanny skews the result in her favour by putting her own man in the defence team.

Can you guess what Rachel's (sorry, Nanny's) solicitor did?

Yes, that's right, he declined to contest the council's adoption application, despite the fact that Rachel wanted to fight it.

This sounds more like some third world dictatorship, rather than a "democratic" first world country.

Does Nanny not see how bad this looks?

Answer: she does, but she doesn't care!

After the psychiatrist's assessment of Rachel, the court acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. However, it has refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.

Rachel is now going to the European Court to fight this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be more than handful of slackjawed, dribbling, knuckle scrapping morons in this country who breed like rabbits and are allowed to keep their children (even though they allow them to roam the streets like packs of feral vermin).

There have also been a good few cases of appalling cruelty inflicted upon children (eg baby P), yet Nanny stood idly by. In this particular case Nanny is not even pretending that Rachel will deliberately harm her child.

Given the above obvious contradictions in state policy, why have the SS in Nottingham City Council acted in this way?

Nanny's behaviour in this instance is pretty loathsome as far as I can see. My gut tells me that there is something else here that Nanny does not want disclosed, ie Nanny is covering something up that will damage Nanny (not Rachel).

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

Odious!

Not content with taking children into care, Nanny has now started snatching elderly people as well.

This story, reproduced in full from The Telegraph, highlights the plight of Betty Figg the 86 year old mother of Rosalind Figg. Betty was snatched from her daughter's home by Nanny's social services and police, just two days after Rosalind took her mother out of a care home in order to better look after her at home.

Whether the care home was providing better care than Rosalind could do is one issue. However, the manner of Nanny's snatch and grab raid was odious to say the least. Police arrived with a battering ram, and Betty was taken out in a distressed state in a wheelchair with a blanket over her head.

Would Nanny care to explain to us how she thinks that this snatch and grab raid, and the manner in which it was performed, was in the best interests of an 86 year old woman?

This is, to my view, one of the most odious actions that Nanny has taken that has ever been reported on this site.

Here is the article in full:

"Rosalind Figg had removed her 86-year-old mother Betty, who has dementia, from the care home she had lived in since August.

She hoped to look after her at her own house in Coventry and spent months adapting it for her needs, creating a downstairs bedroom complete with an alarm that would go off if she got up in the night and wheelchair ramps outside.

However as The Daily Telegraph reported, just two days after bringing her home on Saturday, social services backed up by police officers with a battering ram took her back to the care home over fears that her daughter would not be able to support her adequately.

Mrs Figg was taken from her daughter's house in a wheelchair and is now back in her room at Butts Croft House, which costs her family £2,000 a month.

Her daughter, 55, will visit solicitors to find out what her legal rights are and find out how she can bring her mother home again.

She said: "I haven't had any contact with the council since this happened and I am still determined to bring my mother home."

Miss Figg insisted she did not regret her decision to remove her mother from the care home.

She said: "She was sitting there like a cabbage, there was no interaction and she wasn't doing anything.

"You could see in two days living with me how much better she was."

Staff at the care home in Corley, Coventry, refused to comment and its owner was unavailable.

Its registered directors are Dr Koneru Prasad, 59, and his wife Dr Usha Koneru , 52.

The married couple are also GPs at a surgery in Peterborough, and run a charity, called Heal, that provides medical care to poor children in India.

Colin Green, director of community services at Coventry City Council, said the local authority, in conjunction with the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, invoked its powers under the Mental Health Act to obtain a warrant to take Mrs Figg back into care.

Social services decided she needed to be in a specialist home because they were concerned that the high level of care she required might not be met by her daughter and her partner.

He said: "If someone needs caring for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we have to look at what additional support is there and whether one person can realistically offer that level of care.

"There is a lot of personal care management as well as the dispensation of often complex medication.

"We were never satisfied that it was in Mrs Figg's best interests to live with her daughter."

He said Butts Croft was a "very good care home" and said the appointment of an independent advocate for Mrs Figg would ensure that her needs and her desire where to live would be fully catered for.

He added that Mrs Figg's situation would continue to be assessed, adding: "We certainly hope there would be continued dialogue with the family."

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

Fat Attack

Nanny has two great obsessions:

1 Obesity

2 Children (her acolytes are forever shrilly screeching "think of the children!")

Combine the two obsessions, and you have a deadly and poisonous cocktail.

Nanny and her chums in from our much "respected" local authorities (The Local Government Association - LGA) have let it be known that "dangerously overweight" children will have to be taken from their parents and put into care.

Errmm...isn't that kind of a Nazi type of action? The Nazis in occupied countries took children of "Germanic appearance" back to Germany for "Germanification".

Didn't we send people to their deaths to fight against this sort of thing over 60 years ago?

The LGA has predicted that social services teams would have to take drastic action to improve the health of seriously overweight children. In the view of the Gestapo from the LGA, very "fat" children are victims of "parental neglect".

In the view of the LGA, based on their "logic", social services would have to intervene "more and more" with obese children. The LGA also stated that councils would have to take action against parents who put their children's health at risk, and take the fattest into "care".

David Rogers, the LGA spokesman on public health, said:

"Councils are increasingly having to consider taking action where parents are putting children's health in real danger.

Councils would step in to deal with an undernourished or neglected child, so should a case with a morbidly obese child be different?

If parents place children at risk through bad diet and lack of exercise is it right for a council to keep the child's health under review?

It is vital that councils, primary care trusts and the NHS work with parents to ensure children don't end up dangerously overweight in the first place.

There needs to be a national debate about the extent to which it is acceptable for local authorities to take action in cases where the children's welfare is in jeopardy."

Precisely how will this help the children?

The psychological damage to the child, as he/she is forcefully removed from his/her parents, would massively outweigh any short term possible benefit of weight reduction.

The morbidly obese tend to use food as a "comfort", increase their stress levels by snatching them from their parents and they will simply eat more.

How can people who live in a democracy and claim to believe in a democracy, even contemplate such action?

This proposal stinks!

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's Secret Child Snatchers

Were I to tell you that there is a country in the world where people can have their children taken away from them by the state, without a public hearing and where the protagonists are instructed by the state not to talk publicly about it to even their MP; what would you think?

You would, I assume, think that I was talking about some far off foreign country.

Unfortunately, if today's piece in The Times is anything to go by, this "foreign country" is in fact Britain.

Here is an extract:

"A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret.

The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates.

A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up."

This is patently wrong, aside from the damage being done to the family and the children, people cannot have confidence in either the state or the law if the state and its lackeys act in secret.