In a move that proves the government has officially run out of real problems to solve, bureaucrats have decided that your kids can’t be trusted to brush their own teeth. Yes, you read that right: supervised teeth brushing is now a thing, courtesy of the overpaid busybodies who think they know better than you how to raise your own children. Welcome to the nanny state’s latest obsession—dental micromanagement.
Picture this: a gaggle of government-approved toothbrush monitors, armed with clipboards and sanctimonious grins, hovering over five-year-olds like drill sergeants at boot camp. “Up, down, circles—don’t miss the molars, Timmy!” Meanwhile, parents—those incompetent fools who’ve somehow kept their kids alive this long—are relegated to the sidelines, deemed unfit to oversee something as complex as a two-minute scrub with a plastic stick and some paste. It’s not just insulting; it’s a parody of governance.
The justification? “Public health.” Apparently, cavities are the new plague, and the state must swoop in to save the day because, clearly, no one thought to teach kids dental hygiene before 2025. Forget the fact that tooth decay rates have been dropping for decades thanks to fluoride, better diets, and—shockingly—parents doing their jobs. No, the government insists we need a taxpayer-funded army of molar minders to ensure little Johnny doesn’t sneak a half-assed brush past the system. What’s next? Supervised handwashing? Mandatory flossing quotas?
This isn’t about health—it’s about control. The same clowns who can’t fix potholes or keep bridges from collapsing now want to stick their noses (and probably their unwashed hands) into your bathroom routine. They’re not content with regulating your guns, your gas stoves, or your light bulbs—now they’re after your kid’s toothbrush. It’s the ultimate power grab: if they can dictate something as mundane as brushing, what’s off-limits?
And let’s talk cost. Every one of these dental despots needs a salary, benefits, and probably a shiny badge that says “Tooth Fairy Enforcement Division.” Add in the training programs—because you can’t just trust any schmuck to wield a timer and a stern look—and the inevitable “oversight committees” to oversee the overseers. Who pays for this? You do, sucker. That’s right, your tax dollars, already stretched thin by inflation and endless government bloat, are now funding a toothbrush gestapo while schools still can’t afford books.
The real kicker? Kids aren’t even that bad at brushing. Sure, some smear toothpaste around like it’s finger paint, but most figure it out with a little parental nudge. Studies—like the ones the government conveniently ignores—show that basic education and access to dental care do the trick. But why solve a problem efficiently when you can turn it into a bloated bureaucracy instead? This isn’t prevention; it’s performance art for politicians who want to look like they’re “doing something.”
Then there’s the creep factor. Do you really want some stranger leaning over your kid, peering into their mouth, barking orders? In an age where parents are already paranoid about who’s around their children, the state thinks it’s a grand idea to insert itself into one of the most personal daily routines. Call it what it is: invasive. Next, they’ll be installing cameras in your kitchen to make sure you’re cutting the crusts off sandwiches correctly.
The irony is, this is the same government that lectures us about “empowerment” and “independence.” Yet here they are, treating kids like incapable drones and parents like negligent morons. If you want to teach responsibility, let kids brush their damn teeth and deal with the consequences—a dentist visit or two never killed anyone. But no, the nanny state prefers coddling over competence, control over common sense.
So, parents, brace yourselves. Hide your toothbrushes, lock your bathrooms, and tell your kids to smile pretty—Big Brother’s coming for their pearly whites. And when the inevitable rebellion hits—because nothing says “teen angst” like a government-mandated hygiene routine—don’t say we didn’t warn you. In the meantime, maybe we should all just gargle some whiskey and call it a day. At least that’s still legal.
As per Professor Philip James, Honorary Professor of Nutrition at the
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and past President World
Obesity Federation, quoted in the Telegraph:
"We need to make sure that use of fruit juices and the concept of
sugar-containing treats for children are not only no longer promoted, but
explicitly seen as unhelpful."
How ironic that fruit juices, still being promoted by Nanny as part of her ludicrous "five a day" policy, are now being demonised!
Wrt tooth decay caused by sugar laden juices etc, if you must guzzle these juices by the gallon, then drink them with a straw (so the juice doesn't go over your teeth) have some cheese (unless Nanny has banned that as well) afterwards to neutralise the acid.
Regarding giving kids sugar laden shite, that is down to good/bad parenting. A good parent rations the sweet shite for special occasions only, a bad one uses sweet shite as a "pacifier" to keep its brats quiet.
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
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
I am more than a little gemused to see that Nanny is twisting herself into all sorts of knots over the dangers of sugar (eg cupcakes vs cocaine), and her insistence that we feed kids fruit juice etc.
It would appear, and no one with half a brain should be in the least bit surprised about this, that some juice drinks contain more acid than vinegar.
Dr Kathy Harley, dean of the dental faculty at the Royal College of Surgeons,
told the Sunday Telegraph that drinks such as smoothies contain a lethal combination of acid and sugar (this of course does terribly damage to the teeth).
Dr Harley said that a healthier option would be to give kids a
glass of water and a handful of chocolate buttons!
She went on to say that Nanny's "five a day" advice (wrt fruit) should in fact be restricted to a "once a week
treat".
Now I would like to offer some commonsense advice here, namely that if the kids were given milk and cheese after they had just consumed the fruit juice/fruit, then the acidity levels in the mouth would be neutralised. However, as we all know, Nanny has told us that milk and cheese are bad for us.
Maybe then a spoonful of salt, to counteract the sugar and kill the bacteria?
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
It is often noted on this site that Nanny's rules, regulations and risk averse predilections have had a detrimental effect on the young.
This is true.
However, I would also venture to suggest that those over the age of 40 have also been weakened by Nanny as well.
Take this harmless example of what happened in my gym/leisure club the other day.
Having been brought up properly and having attended a sensible school (where you were made to brush your teeth with carbolic soap and use a Brillo pad to wash your armpits - only kidding folks:)) I happen to enjoy ice cold showers in between sessions in the sauna (it is actually very good for the immune system, as it raises the white cell count).
Therefore I adjust the thermostat accordingly (it's not difficult, one merely turns it clockwise).
I was therefore greatly gemused to enter the changing rooms post sauna the other day to hear one bloke (in his 50's) moaning that "someone keeps leaving the showers on cold".
I cheerily said "Oh that's me".
To which he replied "Would you mind in future return them to the hot setting".
Am I missing something here?
1 Do people not follow the advice taught to them by their mums, and learned from real life, that you never enter a bath or shower without first testing the temperature (lest you scald or shock yourself)?
2 Are people incapable of turning a thermostat counter clockwise?
3 Maybe I should ask this guy to please turn the shower to the cold setting, when he has finished, so that I don't have to waste 10 seconds of my life adjusting it?
This, by the way, is the same club where I have been asked by someone (in her 20's) how to turn the egg timer (in the sauna) over, where many people regularly leave showers running (without turning them off) because they are lazy/selfish and where one couple left the door to the sauna open whilst they were using it because it was too hot!
Nanny corrupts and weakens all ages, not just the young!
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
Saturday night being a rather quiet one this weekend, Eva is visiting her grandson in Stockholm, I decided to "educate" myself and watch a gemusing BBC documentary (presumably aimed at discouraging people under 30 from taking drugs) "How Do Drugs Work?".
The subject being cocaine, the documentary followed a few characters around as they happily snorted coke at various times/venues (eg at a party, in a pub car park, in the street etc).
It gave a potted (pardon the pun) history of coke, seemingly it was the medical "cure all" of the late 19th century; being used as an anaesthetic, headache cure, haemorrhoid cure and even put into tooth paste (that would certainly encourage people to brush their teeth more regularly!).
Anyhoo, as we all know, during the Edwardian era the "morality movement" took centre stage in the UK and USA. The USA banned all drugs and booze (thus creating the modern day mafia), whilst the UK stopped short of banning booze but did ban drugs.
Has this worked?
Ermmm....not at all, seemingly around 1.5M people snort coke in the UK (even leading politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have admitted/refused to deny that they have used it).
Aside from following a few users about their daily business, the programme also showed the police in part of Kent testing people entering nightclubs for contact with the drug (a skin "swatch" can tell if the person has touched it in the last 24 hours).
This seemingly rather pointless testing of people (without reasonable grounds for suspicion of possession) did not catch many people with the drug on them, but did identify that nearly all the people going clubbing had been in contact with the drug in the last 24 hours.
A valuable use of police resources!
Anyhoo, a list of the effects of the drug was duly rattled off during the course of the programme:
- it elevates mood - it increases self confidence - it increases sexual desire (although, just like booze, it can cause erectile floppiness) - it increases the heat rate - it increases blood pressure - it can cause heart attacks and strokes - people feel "down" when the rug wears off - it damages the nasal cavities (if taken regularly) - it can be addictive (although it does not cause the same withdrawal symptoms as other class A drugs)
Now, aside from the nasal cavity issues unless you get a lot of champagne bubbles up your nose), does the above list not sound awfully familiar?
Think about it?
Yes, that's right, the list is also applicable to alcohol. Although, it should be noted that alcohol is very fattening, whilst cocaine is not.
Is it therefore not a trifle odd (dare I say hypocritical) that drugs are illegal, yet booze (which, if misused, can also be extremely harmful) is legal? In theory, possession of a small amount of cocaine (even solely for personal use) can attract a prison sentence of several years (unless you are the likes of Paris Hilton).
Is there not something really very wrong here, where 1.5 million people cheerfully disregard the law and our leading politicians have taken/still take the stuff, where we still have a law in place (that is clearly failing) brought about by the past actions of the now long dead "morality movement"?
Is it not time that the law was brought into line with reality?
Pleasure is a short-term reward for doing what your body wants. It is largely about fulfilling basic human needs.
We do many things in life, including eating, having sex, gambling and risk taking, because doing them results in our brains being flooded by feel-good dopamine
Pleasure is vital for our survival - without it we wouldn't eat or have sex, and would soon die out as a species.
Nanny's drugs policy is a shambles, and is destined to fail. Using the law to enforce certain people's views on "morality" never works in the long run.
Do remember loyal readers that our government, that continues to advocate the current drugs policy, is made up of a number of highly placed people who have used (and maybe continue to use) several illegal drugs (not "just" whacky backy).
Factoids
1 The semi civil war in Mexico over drugs, that is now spilling over into the USA, will eventually force legislators there to legalise drugs in order to cut the legs off the criminal drugs lords who are destroying the country.
2 Leading politicians on both sides of the Atlantic (a President and a Prime Minister) have admitted to, or have almost admitted to, taking a variety on illegal substances. Yet they have managed to lead fulfilling, non self destructive lives. How is they seek to maintain a ban on substances that they have taken?
3 Drugs finance terrorist economies, eg Afghanistan. Legalise drugs and the terrorist economy is decapitated.
I say again, without any lack of clarity or fudging of the issue, drugs should be legalised.
Once legalised, they can be taxed and the public properly educated as to their effects.
The legalisation will bring about the end of the stranglehold that the criminal gangs currently have on many of the run down estates in this country. The ending of their supply of easy money will remove their power, kudos and "bling"; their power over others will end.
That surely is a good thing?
Is it not ironic that those who would most strongly resist the legalisation of drugs are those who currently make money of them?
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
As we know, Nanny is dead keen to start wars in foreign countries on the pretext of introducing "democracy".
A "noble" thought I suppose, if it weren't for a few inconvenient issues eg:
- people get maimed and killed
- you cannot impose democracy with the barrel of a gun
- not every country in the world wants our version of "democracy"
- the financial cost of these wars is crippling
- these wars are suffering from mission creep, as a result of lousy/dishonest political "leadership" from Brown and his toadies
- wrt Afghanistan, if we really are to stand a chance of "democratising" this country (and by the way, I don't think we have a cat's chance in hell - we got our arses kicked in Victorian times there, and the Russians suffered a similar fate at the hands of the US funded Taliban in the 1980's), then we are going to be there for 40 years or more
- once maimed our soldiers don't even get decent treatment, viz Nanny's recent attempt to reduce compensation payments
- the loyalty of our troops is being severely tested, as an unthinking uncaring and thoroughly despicable government sends them on missions without adequate support/kit/equipment etc
In view of the above I heartily endorse the "Send In Your Uniform To Brown" Campaign as per ARRSE:
"This is a protest, driven by the constant betrayals of this government, including ignoring the pleas of Service chiefs for life-saving resources, sending personnel to battle with inadequate or unsafe equipment and vehicles, and this latest kick in the teeth for injured veterans."
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
My thanks to Curmudgeon for alerting us to this story of utter Twattery (ooh...David Cameron's "banned" word!) from the supermarket aisles of Tesco.
Roy Downie, who is disabled, was attempting to buy a bottle of wine at Tesco Portsmouth. He was with his 16 year old daughter (Holly), who helps him carry shopping, because he needs assistance to get it back to his car.
The staff at Tesco refused to serve Mr Downie, because (yes, that's right) they decreed that he may be buying the wine for his daughter.
Mr Downie had to go back to the store, later on his own and buy the wine, and carry it back in the bag between his teeth.
No member of staff from Tesco bothered to help him.
Boycott Tesco!
Tesco, well deserving of my rare but highly prestigious "Knobheaded Twats of The Millennium" Award.
Here's a couple of email addresses, where you can tell them what you think of them:
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 Health and Safety Gestapo have got their teeth into the gentlemanly sport of football. It seems that Nanny is rather worried about footballers wearing jewellery.
The FA have banned not just major league players from wearing jewellery but also amateur footballers too.
Previously players could wear rings and earrings as long as they were taped up. Now they are required to remove all jewellery, including rings (even if they are wearing gloves).
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
My thanks to Dixon of Dock Green who alerted me to this article on the Liberal Democrat site.
I publish below unedited.
Now is this doesn't tell you that Nanny has been lying through her teeth to us, over her plans for the DNA database, what will?
We still have two more years of this bunch of fascists in office (whoever ends up being PM), it never ceases to amaze me how the Labour Party (which claims to be "for the people") always ends up acting like fascists.
The Home office has been allowing private companies access to the DNA database for commercial reasons, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.
The information, revealed in response to Freedom of Information requests, shows how:
Up to May of this year, the Home Office approved 25 applications for research projects using DNA profiles from the DNA database
5 are from private companies - Three from LGC and two from Orchid Cellmark
In some of the research projects, full details are not disclosed because of FOI s43. This allows companies to not give details because it would harm their commercial interests.
No one whose DNA is being used in these projects has given their consent.
Innocent people are on the database, and their DNA will have been included in the research.
The police, many of whose officers have added themselves to the DNA database voluntarily, rejected a request for their DNA samples to be used in a research project.
Liberal Democrat MP, Jenny Willott said:
"For nearly a decade, the Home Office has been secretly approving controversial research projects using profiles from the DNA database.
No consent was ever sought from the people involved, many of whom have never been charged or convicted of any offence.
It is outrageous that people's DNA has on five occasions been passed to private companies to pursue their own commercial interests.
The 25 projects that have been approved by ministers include some sinister explorations into ethnic profiling.
It is appalling that these Big Brother practices have been allowed to go on unchecked for so long and with extremely limited ethical standards.
Unless the Government comes clean about exactly what they are using profiles for, this highly dubious ethical practice of dishing DNA out for research must be suspended immediately."
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
In keeping with the spirit of the day, you will not be surprised to learn that Nanny has banned a parade of schoolchildren through Bradford to mark St George's Day.
Nanny cites "health and safety" as the reason for banning the parade through an area that saw race riots seven years ago.
Police and the local council told organisers a few days ago that the parade could not go ahead as planned, for "health and safety reasons".
They offered them a shorter route that avoided two streets at the centre of the race riots in 2001, and an alternative date for the event on July 1.
Is Nanny saying that there are areas in Britain where people cannot walk safely, and are denied free right of passage?
Are there "no go" areas in Britain now?
How ridiculous to offer 1st July as a date for a St George's Day parade!
A parade of Schoolchildren can hardly be equated to a parade of Mosley's blackshirts, how can that be deemed to be inflammatory?
The organisers were forced to call the event, at which 10,000 people had been expected, off.
The Rev Tony Tooby, the chairman of governors of St Philips Primary School, said:
"We wanted the route to include where some of the riots had taken place to educate young people.
The police and council just kept telling us the reason for their objection was 'health and safety'. They proposed another route which was ridiculously short. The march would have been over before it began."
Kris Hopkins, the council's leader, claim they had not banned the parade:
"Given the involvement of 1,500 children, including six and seven-year-olds, we suggested a slightly safer route.
We've got a responsibility to look after our children."
Isn't the responsibility to look after the children that of the parents and the school, where does the council get off thinking it needs to interfere?
The council are lying through their teeth.
Churchill wrote:
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word,which means more to me than any other.
That word is Engalnd."
Happy St George's Day everyone, if you are allowed to celebrate it!
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 Knows Best now contains 958 articles detailing the evils of the Nanny state, the very first article I wrote on the 18th of September 2004 about Nanny's campaign against salt was entitled "Sid The Slug".
Why this little history lesson?
Today I now have incontrovertible proof that Nanny, in her campaign against salt, was talking a load of bollocks.
Salt is, in fact, good for you.
Yesterday I had to go to the dentist, as one of my teeth had shattered and lost a filling (in fact two other fillings had also been lost a few years ago...but I have an aversion to dentists, needles and having tools poked into my mouth, so I have chickened out until now).
However, I took the bull by the horns yesterday and gritted my teeth (what was left of them) and duly proceeded (via a pub) to the dentist.
I was expecting to be told that there was decay in at least two of the teeth that had lost the fillings.
Guess what?
Not a sign of decay!
Why was this?
Simple, as my dentist explained, were I cursed with a sweet tooth then I would be riddled with decay. However, dear readers, I am not sweet toothed I consume a diet based on flesh and salt. It is that diet of flesh and salt that in fact has saved my teeth.
Salt is good!
I would in fact point out that many years ago, when I was a small child, my mum would buy blocks of sea salt (12 inches, by 4 inches, by 4 inches) wrapped in blue paper. She would give me the task of shaving them down with a knife (ooh, aren't knives dangerous), and whilst doing so I would always take a chunk and crunch on it..I like salt.
Indeed my grandfather, on my mum's side of the family, always had a few packets of salt in his pocket which he would munch on. He died aged 84 or so.
Salt is good for you!
Nanny's campaign against salt is therefore founded on nothing but flaky science and a lack of research.
FYI, those looking for a first class dentist in the Croydon area should try bluedental (Eva and I are very impressed with them)....and no, they haven't paid me for giving them a free plug.
Those of you with long memories may recall that I wrote about Nanny spying on your dustbins (trash cans) a wee while ago (February 2005). Nanny set up the scheme, last year, in my home town of Croydon. Seewww.croydoniscrap.com for more about this borough.
Well Nanny never gives up, once she has the "bit between her teeth".
Now it seems that, without notifying anybody, Nanny has installed electronic monitoring equipment on over 500,000 dustbins to report back on our refuse habits.
The bin spies are located in the lids of "wheelie bins", and have been manufactured in Germany. The spy communicates with transceivers and sensors installed on the collecting lorry, and allows the reporting back of statistics for how full each property's bin is and how much the rubbish weighs.
It goes without saying, that the data collected will be used by Nanny to find a new way of taxing us...on top of the already despised and abhorrent council tax.
Look under the lid of wheelie bins, if you find an electronic spy...well...I leave it to you to decide what action to take!
As we all know Nanny has, over the years, bombarded us with "facts" and advice about what we should and shouldn't eat.
The trouble is, her advice keeps changing; for example:
We used to be told to drink at least a pint of milk every day, for strong bones and healthy teeth; now we are told that milk contains unhealthy levels of fat.
Butter and cheese were good sources of protein and vitamin D, now of course they fall under the fat embargo.
Eggs, great a few years ago; then first comes Eggwina, and next cholesterol.
Meat, once an excellent source of protein; now an evil source of fat.
Smoking, this was (300 years ago) taught to children by the state as a means of purifying and cleaning the lungs. Now, well you know the story now!
Booze, some doctors prescribe drinking in moderation, others council against it.
Beef was once the meat of choice, then along comes a mad cow and all hell breaks loose.
Carrots were meant to help you see in the dark, this of course was bollocks. The "seeing in the dark myth" was a piece of propaganda put out in the war designed to make the Germans think that our success at shooting down their bombers was due to better night vision, when in fact it was down to radar (which was classified secret at the time).
Confusing isn't it?
This brings us on to fish, oily fish to be precise. Once we were told by Nanny that oily fish, such as salmon, was good for our bodies and brains. Now it seems that advice may be bollocks.
Analysis of recent trials has found little evidence that eating fish, or taking fish oil capsules, cuts the risk of dying of heart disease, stroke or cancer.
The analysis indicates that it is difficult to show clear benefits. The better the quality of the trial, the lower the apparent benefit.
The findings are published in the British Medical Journal online by a team led by Lee Hooper, of the University of East Anglia.
Why do the findings differ from what was considered to be the perceived wisdom of eating oily fish?
A study by Dr Michal Burr, of the University of Cardiff, found that fish oil may have a short-term benefit, but a long-term disbenefit; because it contains traces of toxic methyl mercury as a contaminant.
The conclusion that we, the punters in the street, must draw from these results is that Nanny and her minions are prone to base their advice and edicts on heresay rather than on irrefutable scientific fact.
A very dangerous policy indeed.
As such the best course of action must be to ignore what Nanny tells you, and eat/drink/smoke in whatever way that makes you feel at ease with yourself.
Nanny's obsession with svelte waistlines shows no sign of abating. She has issued yet another edict about how unbelievably fat we are becoming, and yet again is trying to interfere in our eating habits.
This time she is targeting school children. In a spectacularly naive move, Nanny is instructing schools to stop selling junk food and instead make children eat seeds.
Yes that will work!
As Samuel Johnson once said:
"A small boy in search of vitals is an abomination".
The thought of Nanny trying to satisfy young appetites with a handful of seeds is really beyond a joke. Unless the seeds were coconuts, I really don't think that this latest "initiative" will suck-seed (get it?..come on folks I'm really trying here!).
Anyhoo, Nanny's friends in the School Food Trust (SFT) have issued draft guidelines that say nuts, seeds and yoghurt drinks should replace crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks in tuck shops.
Nanny is going to introduce laws to stop children eating sweets and chocolate, that will be among the toughest in the world.
Ironically this new "initiative" comes just days after the Audit Commission attacked Nanny for her indecision and lack of leadership, over the implementation of measures to curb child obesity.
Nanny will ban crisps (which, by the way, are a very good source of vitamin c), but for some strange reason will allow cakes and biscuits. Erm aren't cakes and biscuits fattening and bad for the teeth?
Nanny's chum Dame Suzi Leather, chairman of the SFT, said that the rules, to be introduced from September, were necessary because children were eating too much sugar, fat and salt with "little or no nutritional value".
Quote:
"They [the new rules] cannot succeed if pupils are surrounded with chocolate, crisps and drinks that fill them up with sugar and fat during the school day.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that when these products are removed, behaviour improves and this could also have implications for better learning."
There you are folks, Nanny makes up rules based on anecdotes, not scientific fact!
Dame Suzi is not just content with banning vending machines and altering tuck shop menus, she is also going to poke her nose into children's lunchboxs. Nanny will issue lunchbox guidelines, telling parents of what should be included in a healthy diet.
Not her business!
Now here is why all of these rules will fall down:
1 Children are given large sums of pocket money each week by their parents. The children use this to buy "banned food" off school premises. My local store, owned by my friend Karim, is awash with kids buying Jamaican patties, chocolate and crisps when there is a school break.
2 The majority of a child's calorie intake takes place outside of school.
3 The poor diet of children is largely down to the muck being fed to them by their parents. How does Nanny intend to deal with that?
4 It is not the state's job to regulate what people eat. If parents are too stupid or lazy to feed their children properly, the responsibility for their children's ill health rests with them, not with the state.
5 When I was a child I ate a full breakfast, school lunch, dinner and a supper; all of this was washed down with 3 pints of milk a day. I am now 43, in excellent health and indeed am slim and "athletic" (yes ladies it's true:)).
5 These people did not become great British icons by eating nuts and seeds:
What a pathetic nation of wimps we are becoming under Nanny's rule.
It seems that the latest threat to civilisation as we know it, turns out to be from the humble meatball.
Yes, I said meatball!
Stow-on-the-Wold primary has banned meatballs from the lunch menus.
Why?
Nanny's lackey, head teacher Rebecca Scutt, is worried that the "precious little angels" under her "loving" care may choke on them.
Mrs Scutt said risks occurred when kids tried to eat meatballs in one gulp.
She conceded:
"Meatballs are popular.
Children love them because they're tasty, in tomato sauce and don't look like meat but they do gobble them down."
Excuse my language, but farking hell!
Has no one ever told the little brats to chew their food?
That's why we have teeth!
As I understandsand it, the good people of Italy have been brought up on meatballs for generations; yet precisely how many thousands of their children die each year from meatballs?
You are as likely to choke on a meatball, as you are any other piece of solid food. The solution, when viewed from Nanny's perpsective would be to simply get us to eat only baby food that has been pulped.
Mrs Scutt should be relieved of her job ASAP, she is clearly not capable of teaching children the concepts of responsiblity and risk awareness.
This Nanny nonsense will simply breed even more self centred, spoilt, lazy, good for nothings.
Doesn't that count as child abuse?
God knows we have enough of them already.
Those of you who fancy a succulent meatball should visit the "Accountants Can Cook" section of my site (see right hand menu). There I have a most unctuous recipe for perfect meatballs...yum!
This week's Prat of The Week Award goes to one of Nanny's henchmen, Terry White, from the Labour Communications Unit.
White has decreed, in an email to Allan Murray a member of the public, that sports fans who wave the flag of Saint George are racist.
This follows on from a comment made by an ex-minister, Gisela Stuart (German born), who claimed that the rise of Englishness is a threat to democracy.
Mr Murray had written to Nanny saying:
"Why is it that as a party you dislike the English so much?
I am fed up to the back teeth with Labour's endless dumbing down of the English.
The Labour Party are trying to wipe England off the UK map."
White responded in a rant worthy of Nanny herself:
"England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past.
It is a fact that the right and extreme right in Britain cloak themselves in the English flag, the cross of St George and claim to be the true representatives of the English.
Wherever there is hooligan behaviour, usually linked to extreme right-wing political groups eg, at football matches here and abroad, it is the flag of St George that is displayed."
Utter....wait for it....bollocks!
Nanny is using the tired old argument that we should be guilty for our past, and to atone we must never mention our nationality again (except by way of shame).
Piffle and balderdash!
You can no more undo your past, than you can disinvent the wheel.
Yet Nanny is more than happy to encourage "racial awareness", and a yearning for separate identities, by encouraging devolution in Scotland and Wales. I won't even begin to discuss the Smooth Talking Bar Steward's shambolic attempt at a Northern Regional Assembly!
When you start to unpick the fabric of a United Kingdom, that took many centuries of bloodshed and toil to unite, you will get a backlash.
Nanny has realised that she may have spoken out of turn here, and has done what comes naturally to her; she has disowned White. A Labour spokesman said:
"We cannot condone these comments and they in no way represent the views of the Party. We apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."
Too late, you have exposed your warped thinking to the world; now suffer the consequences.
Those of you who wish to tell White and Nanny what you think of them, can contact them at the following address:
Terry White The Labour Party 16 Old Queen Street London SW1H 9HP
It's funny how things that we have taken as being harmless over the years, can take on a new and dangerous form once Nanny has got her teeth into them.
One such innocent object, now classified by Nanny as dangerous, is tinsel.
Gill Pyatt, a headmistress at an unnamed school (if anyone knows the name of the school, please can you let me know), has banned her pupils from wearing tinsel in their hair at Christmas after a student accidentally scratched her eyeball.
However, according to the rumour mill, Ms Pyatt plans to ban all Christmas celebrations at the school.
According to Metro, some parents claimed that they were told Christmas would not be marked at all this year because of the large number of Muslim pupils.