I see Nanny's chums National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE - often featured on this site) have got their knickers in a twist about how fat we are.
Their solution is hardly earth shattering, exercise more by turning off the TV and having TV free days. Oh, and for good measure, cut down on drinks with sugar and takeaways.
Sigh, has Nanny not been saying this many times before?
Why does NICE think that regurgitating the bleeding obvious will make a sea change in people's behaviour.
Oh, I know, they need to justify their existence and the funding that they receive!
Anyhoo, that aside, recommending TV free days is somewhat 1980's. NICE appear to be oblivious to the fact that many people now watch "TV" via their computers and mobile devices. Given that they are so out of touch with how people live in the 21st century, how one earth can they be trusted to give us advice?
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
My compliments to The Horror Channel for taking us back to a pre Nanny era of TV, wherein things that are now forbidden to be shown were shown liberally.
Specifically I refer to the six episodes of Doctor Who from the late seventies, entitled "The Talons of Weng Chiang" starring Tom Baker.
In these episodes one could see:
- The eating of a joint of meat without cutlery and plates
- Various drugged ladies in their undergarments
- A working girl pointing out that she had finished for the evening
- Copious drinking of beer, wine and spirits
- Industrial quantities of tobacco smoked (both cigars and pipes)
- A detailed explanation by Leela of how to stab a man in the heart
- A visit to an opium den
- A Chinese gentleman (played by John Bennett an English actor) smoking an opium pipe
- An explanation by the above gentleman that the opium made him feel better, on account of the fact that his leg had been chewed off by a giant rat
They don't make kids' programmes like that anymore, and even if they did Auntie (the BBC) would never dare show 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
I am hugely gemused to see Auntie squirming on the ropes over the Jamaica Inn fiasco, wherein the actors have mumbled their lines so appallingly that millions of viewers have given up trying to watch the series as they cannot hear/understand what the hell is being said.
Initially Auntie blamed technical aspects of the recording, which she claimed she would fix. However, Auntie has finally been forced to come clean and admit that it's down to the actors mumbling their lines and the directors simply not manning up to them to tell them to act better!
Ben Stephenson, the head of drama commissioning, is quoted by the Telegraph:
“I think actors
being clear is one part of it.
My understanding of the complaints about Jamaica Inn was more complex than
that, so I think it’s probably not right to single out that, but clearly we
want actors to speak clearly.
Of course we want them to give brilliant performances and you’ve got to
respect that, but if no one can understand what they’re saying, then there’s
a problem.”
No shit!?
This farce highlights one of the many problems with Auntie, namely that she looks after her own interests and those of her "staff" before those of her "customers" (ie the licence fee payers).
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
My thanks to a loyal reader from Canada who has a alerted me to some Canadian Nanny nonsense (courtesy of the National Post) regarding porn shown on AOV Adult Movie Channel, XXX Action Clips and Maleflixxx (Canadian TV channels), it seems that not enough of the porn is Canadian.
Nanny's chums from the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) have been up all night watching bucket loads of porn, and have decreed that there are insufficient levels of Canadian-made
pornography (the threshold is 35%) plus what is shown has not been close-captioned. As such, the CRTC has issued a reprimand to the three TV channels.
Incidentally, under standard CRTC policy, Canadian channels must also cater to the
blind by offering “Audio Description,” a service in which narrators
describe “graphics that appear on the screen.”
I see......erm thoughts and comments on how that would work anyone??
Good to know that Nanny spends taxpayers' money on watching porn.
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 indeed a strange and confused society that we live in, on the one hand certain tabloids (that can be freely purchased by all ages) happily display bare boobs and barely concealed cleavages with gay abandon.
However, when the breakfast show Lorraine had the "temerity" to do a feature on breast cancer; wherein a topless lady was taken through the self examination technique by Dr Hillary Jones, all hell broke loose.
The Telegraph reported that a spokeswoman from pressure group Mediawatch UK, which campaigns for family
values in the media (cancer affects many families does it not?), said such broadcasts could be "problematic".
"Whilst there was nothing sexual or lascivious about the
examination, this kind of thing can be problematic.
There probably should have been a warning beforehand, as there may have
been young children watching and it might have upset them a bit."
Twitter, unsurprisingly, also went OTT one user
writing:
"I know they are talking about breast cancer awareness on
Lorraine, but are they actually allowed to have someone half naked on TV at
9am??"
Another wrote:
"Boobs on telly at this time. Mental stuff on Lorraine."
Get over yourselves folks, society will not collapse nor will childrens' morals be corrupted because of this.
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
In November 2012 I wrote about "Incurious" George Entwistle, who helped Auntie out of a jam by resigning from his job as Director General of the BBC after a mere 8 weeks in the position.
Auntie was so touched and overcome with gratitude that she awarded him a
full year's salary of £450,000, on top of his £877,000 pension pot as a
leaving present. Oddly enough Auntie's own headlines on that morning neglect to mention the pension pot.
That's a leaving present of £1.3M!
Anyhoo, here we are in September 2013 and Nanny has finally woken up to the fact that maybe this payoff and others were a tad OTT. As such, the "great and the good" from the BBC and the BBC Trust were summoned to Parliament yesterday for a wee chat with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) over the issue of executive payoffs.
It was a "jolly" affair indeed as the BBC's high command ended up blaming each other for the mess, and refusing to acknowledge that in the real world (outwith banking) people are held accountable for payoffs to ex execs.
The Telegraph reports that during three hours of intense questioning by MPs, former Director-General Mark
Thompson and Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, repeatedly
contradicted each other about the payoffs of up to £1million.
Thompson accused the BBC Trust of making “misleading” and “damaging”
comments, while the chairman of the BBC Trust said he had been accused of "having
misled the committee on something I never knew".
One BBC non-executive director claimed the pay-offs had been "value for
money", while another said that they were "eye-watering" and
part of a culture of extravagance at the corporation.
Margaret Hodge, chairman of PAC,
described the appearance by the BBC executives as "grossly unedifying"
and said it could only “damage the standing and reputation" of
the BBC.
“At the best I think what we have seen is incompetence, a lack of central
control, a failure to communicate. At its worse we may have seen people
covering their backs by being less than open.”
Nothing new there then in Nanny's and Auntie's world!
Nice to see our licence fees being so "wisely" used!
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 loyal readers know, those who curry favour with Nanny and who become her favourites are looked after by Nanny.
Such is also the case with those who curry favour with Nanny's best chum, Auntie.
Step forward "Incurious" George Entwistle, who helped Auntie out of a jam by resigning from his job as Director General of the BBC after a mere 8 weeks in the position.
Auntie was so touched and overcome with gratitude that she awarded him a full year's salary of £450,000, on top of his £877,000 pension pot as a leaving present. Oddly enough Auntie's own headlines this morning neglect to mention the pension pot.
That's a leaving present of £1.3M!
You see folks, if you are friends with Nanny and Auntie you can do very well for yourselves!
This is of course at variance with the experience of those who are not chums with Nanny/Auntie. For example, during my "illustrious" lifetime to date I have been made redundant twice; from jobs in which I have spent considerably longer than 8 weeks, yet I do not recall being given a pension pot and a year's salary as a leaving present.
The difference of course being that Auntie is using taxpayers' money to fund the payoff.
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 was gemused to read that Nanny's chums in Channel 4 managed to tie themselves in knots the other day, whilst trying to work out if they should be pc or unoffensive.
The result being that they were too pc and ended up offending a section of our community.
What did Nanny's chums in Channel 4 do?
They banned the word "gay" from a lunchtime episode of the Simpsons, because they deemed that it was not suitable for a daytime audience.
The Telegraph reports that line was cut from a 1994 episode called "Homer Loves Flanders"
which aired just before 1pm last Sunday.
In the episode Homer Simpson goes to an American football match with his
God-fearing neighbour Ned Flanders but is initially embarrassed to be seen
with him.
The pair bond and Homer yells: "I want everyone to know that this is Ned
Flanders ... my friend!"
His workmates Lenny and Carl overhear him and
Lenny says: "What d'he say?"
Originally Carl replies: "I dunno. Somethin' about being gay."
Channel 4 claim that the cut was made by an overly
cautious compliance checker.
As far as I am aware "gay" can refer to something/someone being cheerful, or a person who is homosexual or a thing/event that is deemed to be rubbish.
As with any word or phrase, context is the key to determining whether that word or phrase is intended to be offensive.
It is clear that in this case the word was not used in an offensive manner, yet Channel 4 by censoring it managed to give the impression that being gay is offensive/wrong.
Beware the power of censors who impose their own views of morality on the rest of us!
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 has been discussed many times on this site before, one of Nanny's tricks that she uses to divert people's attention from what she is up to is to fill the nation's TV screens with unrelenting mind sapping shite.
The TV schedules are stuffed to the gunnels with programmes exalting the "virtues" of Z list celebrities, whose only claim to "fame" is being "famous" and coloured orange. Alongside the vapid orgy of celebrity trivia comes a veritable smorgasbord of "reality" TV shows (usually scripted) that claim to portray "real" people in "real" life situations.
Recently joining the list of dross is "Desperate Scousewives" (allegedly featuring "real" people, who happen to be orange, living in Liverpool).
Now, here is where it all gets rather confusing for a simple chap like me. I have not seen the show, however I came upon a review of the first episode. Apparently one key scene within that episode was an earnest discussion about the necessity of having an "anal bleach".
Yes, you did read that correctly!
Aside from the fact that there is a remarkably obvious question, namely:
"What the fark would anyone want to bleach their anus for in the first place?"
There is also a interesting contradiction with Nanny's strict rules of health and safety.
As we all know, Nanny has for years been warning us about the dangers of drinking bleach. Indeed bleach bottles, aside from having copious warnings about the dangers of imbibing the stuff, are now fitted with such stubborn anti child caps that even a fit adult sometimes has trouble opening the damn things.
Yet here is a Nanny approved mind numbing programme (designed to keep us docile), proactively encouraging the use of bleach on one's bottom.
Call me old fashioned, but if it is dangerous to drink bleach surely it is just as dangerous to squirt a bottle of Domestos up one's bottom?
Please could Nanny issue some much needed guidance on this most pressing of health and safety issues?
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 was settling down to watch Thunderbirds on Syfy yesterday morning to be astonished to hear the Syfy warn me that "the following programme contains scenes of violence".
It's Thunderbirds for farks sake, not a Steven Seagal movie!
In the episode I watched (indeed in all episodes) the central characters smoked (even on planes) and drank. I am surprised Nanny didn't warn me about that too!
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
Poor Beyonce, all she wanted to do was advertise "her" perfume "Heat". However, Nanny's chums from our old "friends" the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are not best pleased with her TV advert (watch it above).
As per usual with these things, a handful of people watched the advert and chose to be offended by it. I suspect that the people who tend to complain to ASA are in fact a hard core of "professional complainers", who deliberately seek out material that is "offensive" to them.
Anyhoo, the basis of their complaint this time was that the advert was shown during the day and had been seen by some children. Nanny's shrill screech:
"Won't someone think of the children?"
was exalted throughout the land.
ASA deemed that the advert is "sexually provocative", and "unsuitable to be seen by young children".
ASA have forbidden it from being shown before 7.30pm.
ASA said, and I have to say I am suppressing a snigger or two at the pomposity and nonsense within this:
"Beyonce's body movements and the camera's prolonged focus on shots of her dress slipping away to partially expose her breasts created a sexually provocative ad that was unsuitable to be seen by young children.
We considered that the ad should not have been shown before 7.30pm due to the sexually provocative nature of the imagery."
Here's why the ruling is bollocks:
1 ASA are somewhat out of touch with the "modern wired" age. Kids can access, and in fact do, far more lurid scenes on the internet.
2 Could it be that ASA, by commenting on the advert in this way, has now encouraged a whole host of kids to try to watch this "naughty" advert?
3 Could it be that those who created the advert had hoped that the handful of regular "professional complainers" would in fact complain, thus giving the advert and product greater publicity and making the video go "viral" on the web (eg I have posted the video here on my site)? ASA, I think, have fallen into a trap here.
I can't see the problem with the advert myself.
All I see is a lady wearing the sort of dress, usually worn by women (though I do live in Brighton:)), that is commonplace at parties and clubs any day of the week. (It does seem though that the airconditioning on the film set has broken down, as she looks a little hot).
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
