TUC Backs Down

On Tuesday I wrote about the TUC selling T shirts celebrating the future death of Lady Thatcher:

"I assume therefore she will be sending the Rozzers to Brighton to discuss with the "brothers" at the TUC their association with an organisation that is flogging T shirts celebrating the future death of Lady Thatcher?

It is quite pathetic that the TUC is still fighting battles that ended over 20 years ago and bizarre that an elderly lady, in fragile health, still scares the hell out of the "brothers"! "

As ever, when a media storm erupts, those who find themselves trying to defend the indefensible back down.

Thus it should come as no surprise to learn that the T shirts have now been withdrawn, and that Brighton council claim that they never knew about it until the media broke the news and Brendan Barber (TUC Chairman - who will receive a £100K golden goodbye when he retires this year) has rushed to condemn them as “completely inappropriate”; I assume he was worried about losing his £100K payoff.

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

TUC Dances On Elderly Lady's Grave

As loyal readers know, Nanny is normally quick to send in the Rozzers when a hapless moron makes "joke" on twitter about someone dying or tweets an insulting comment about various media "personalities".

I assume therefore she will be sending the Rozzers to Brighton to discuss with the "brothers" at the TUC their association with an organisation that is flogging T shirts celebrating the future death of Lady Thatcher?

It is quite pathetic that the TUC is still fighting battles that ended over 20 years ago and bizarre that an elderly lady, in fragile health, still scares the hell out of the "brothers"!

Feel free to ask Nanny to conduct an in investigation into this.

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Knobheads - Unison

Congratulations to Unison (the UK's largest public sector union) for showing the world how to excel at knobheadery.

Almost 5 years ago four hard left trade unionists became somewhat irked at how Unison was being run, and decided to publish a satirical leaflet which used an image of the three wise monkeys (hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil).

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, one member of the 15 member ruling committee of Unison decided that the image was racist.

The group of four, as they were not intending in any way to be racists, apologised profusely for inadvertently causing offence.

Was an apology enough for Unison?

No!

It then began a full scale investigation, and banned the four from holding office.

Almost five years later, at the costs of £200K in legal fees, an Employment Appeal Tribunal (at the tribunal, Unison insisted the leaflet was racist) ruled in favour of the four and criticised the union’s reaction.

I wonder if the members of Unison are best pleased with their union subs being wasted on this knobheadery?

 

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Madness - Nanny Whines Back

Greetings loyal readers from a snow covered Stockholm.

I will keep this article relatively brief, as I am using the world's slowest pc.

Anyhoo, I see that despite the wise words of the Information Commissioner (that parents taking photos of their kids' Nativity plays is not an illegal act) Nanny's drones (as I predicted) are whining back.

Certain teachers and union bods have tried to claim that the advice given is not actually correct.

For why?

It seems that these bans have been put in place because of advice given by our "respected" local councils. In other words, Nanny's drones are attempting to blame another deprtment of Nanny.

Be that as it may this is spurious reasoning:

1 Councils have no business dicatating to parents what they may/may not photograph.

2 Councils talk claptrap.

3 Advice from councils and idiotic bans such as this should be ignored.

Stick a hearty two fingers up to Nanny this Christmas!

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Beware The Dinosaur

Oh dear, someone seems to have reanimated one of Nanny's chums from the world of the dinosaurs long since thought to have become extinct.

Those of you with long memories will recall the "heady" days of the 1960's and 70's (I am still so young, that I can barely recall that period) when the "brothers" in the TUC held sway over this country, and did a fine job of almost destroying it.

In the 1980's Maggie Thatcher, with the support of general public who were revolted by the excesses of the TUC, more or less killed the unions off.

Unfortunately, there are still some old fossils who haven't quite realised that their day is long since gone. The TUC recently made a bold attempt to capture the headlines by calling for a boycott of Lonely Planet guidebooks.

I am sure that resulted in a downturn of sales of literally one or two.

What was the crime of Lonely Planet, in the eyes of the "brothers" at the TUC bunker?

Seemingly the Lonely Planet have the temerity to publish a guide about Burma. The TUC does not approve of Burma, therefore it wants Lonely Plant to stop writing about it.

Ah the good old Nanny ideal of censorship and dictating what is fit to read!

I wonder what gives the dinosaurs in the TUC the right to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not read?

The "brothers" say that travel to Burma is unethical, and helps prop up the military government.

The TUC, Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist have launched an online petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the book.

New Internationalist co-editor, Chris Brazier, went into full moralising mode:

"Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime.

The Lonely Planet guide to Burma should be immediately withdrawn."

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber also waded in:

"The very existence of a travel guide to Burma encourages people to visit a country they might not otherwise consider."


"Where first you burn books, next you will burn people."

Where do they get these people from?

Needles to say, the TUC by raising Burma as a possible travel destination have doubtless increased the number of bookings there.

I can think of many other places in the world where there are "issues", surely if the TUC is going to try to show moral integrity it must ban travel to all of those places too?

Let me see now..hmmm..some argue the following places are not very nice:

- China has been ticked off for censorship etc
- USA does waterboarding, invading other countries and rendition
- Various Asian economies use low cost labour (well below TUC approved minimum wages)
- Cuba is a bit dodgy
- Saudi Arabia etc have "issues" wrt their treatment of women
- Russia appears to be lurching to a one party state
- Africa is most certainly riddled with "issues"

Will the "brothers" in the TUC be banning travel books that write about those places too?

Will they be banning people and TUC members from travelling there?

No...I thought not!

TUC influence and power in this country was destroyed because it was arrogant, corrupt and dictatorial.

We live in a free society (almost), it is up to the individual to decide where he/she goes and what he/she reads/buys. The TUC has no right to interfere, or to dictate in that decision making process.

However, this call for a boycott has served one valuable purpose. It is nice to see the "brothers" reminding us, by this very ignorant call for a boycott, why they have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Will someone please put them out of our misery once and for all?

Contemptible and Loathsome

One of the worst aspects of living in the Nanny state is the fact that Nanny's bad habits are adopted by many other people, as they seek to blame others for their own failings or simple bad luck.

Here is, in my view, a text book example of how Nanny is negatively impacting the behaviour of people living in this country.

Mr and Mrs Boardman (in their eighties) who live in Lincolnshire called paramedics last year when Mrs Boardman, who has heart trouble, fell ill.

When one of the ambulance workers (a technician) went to collect a stretcher from the ambulance, he fell over in the Boardmans' driveway.

Can you guess what is happening now?

Yes, that's right, this person (I have thought of using various fine Anglo Saxon words to describe him, but am containing myself) now wants to sue them.

The Boardmans have received a letter from his solicitors saying that he is seeking damages for personal injury.

The East Midlands Ambulance Service appear to be washing their hands of the matter, and claim that he is pursuing the matter in his own right. This implies that his work insurance policy does not cover this claim, which in itself speaks volumes about the credibility of the claim in the first place (ignoring the fact that he is trying to claim off the Boardmans).

Unsurprisingly neither the technician nor his solicitors were available for comment, too shame faced I would imagine.

However, the letter from his solicitor to the Boardmans says that the technician fell when the couple's security light flickered out.

Needless to say this disgraceful and contemptible claim is causing the Boardmans a lot of stress. Jim Boardman said:

"I think it's morally wrong.

There are other side issues to be considered... people could be reluctant to call the public services and it brings into disrepute an organisation which I've got the greatest admiration for."

Now, if you didn't think that this was bad enough, read what Unison (The Public Sector union) has to say on the matter!

Carol Brown from Unison said:

"I can't comment on this specific case because I don't know if this worker is one of our members but if our members are injured during work then of course the union would support them.

I can understand people finding it hard to believe but of course if someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

Read this bit again:

"If someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

BOLLOCKS!

No they don't!

This is the very essence of Nanny in her worst form.

Accidents happen; sometimes because of negligence, sometimes because of people's own stupidity and sometimes because of sheer bad luck.

Using accidents as an excuse to screw people for money is contemptible.

The union are loathsome scumbags for condoning this kind of morally reprehensible behaviour.

Are we now to assume that all emergency services will first have to conduct a risk assessment of a caller and their home, before they will attend an incident or emergency?

Mark my words, that is where this is leading.

Needless to say, the Boardmans say they are now reluctant to call the emergency services.

Nanny has destroyed our society!

Guns Are Good

Ever since time began, small boys have played with toy weapons; whether they were toy clubs, bows and arrows, swords, guns or ray guns.

I myself used to have a fine collection of bows and arrows, swords, a machine gun, a rifle and various cap guns.

These days, Nanny's chums in nursery schools etc try to feminise boys by forbidding such "nasty" little games as "war" and "cops and robbers" etc.

Now Nanny herself has stepped in, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families has said that staff should resist a "natural instinct" to stop such play.

It says role playing helps create the right conditions for boys' learning, and could help them become more engaged in education in the future.

The guidance (entitled Confident, Capable and Creative: Supporting Boys' Achievements) says "practitioners" often find boys' chosen type of play "more difficult to understand and value than that of girls".

Boys regularly use "images and ideas gleaned from the media" as starting points in play, the advice says, which "may involve characters with special powers or weapons".

Quite!

Needless to say, the dinosaurs in the teaching unions are behind the times as ever.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT teachers' union, said:

"I think this is a clear example

of gender stereotyping.

I do not think schools should be encouraging

boys to play with toy weapons."

When will the teachers' union ever learn?

The Unanswered Question III

The long running farce that is HMRC, continues in much the same vein as a slow motion car crash.

Today's unanswered questions:

-Why were 6 other data discs lost?

-Why were data discs being sent to third parties?

-Why did it take so long for HMRC to admit that they were lost?

-Why were the police not informed earlier?

-Why is "apathy" on the part of the employees (the excuse of the unions) an acceptable excuse for incompetence and possible criminal behaviour?

HMRC: A Gordon Brown Production.

Nanny Bans English Party

You know how Nanny has something of thing against the English?

Part of this problem possibly is due to the fact that a large swathe of the government is in fact Scottish. Nothing wrong with that, were it not for the fact that Scotland is pushing for independence and that English MP's don't have a say in the running of the Scottish parliament.

By the way, has anyone ever heard Smiler Brown use the word "English"?

I haven't!

Anyhoo, Nanny's little trainee minions in the School for Oriental African Studies (SOAS) did Nanny's work for her the other week, by banning one of their students from holding a party.

Tim McLellan, university rugby captain, was accused of racism because he had the temerity to put up posters advertising an "English party" (in the sense of a social event, not a political party).

The thought police were down upon Tim like a ton of bricks, he was forced to send an email the entire student body, saying he had not intended to upset or alienate anyone.

The idea behind the event was to poke fun at the many SOAS events based on multicultural themes.

Quote:

"The aim of the poster was not to alienate or discriminate,

but rather to express that this party was,

unlike most SOAS events,

going to have a mainstream vibe."

Unfortunately for Tim, Nanny and her student lackeys don't posses a sense of humour and hate it when others make fun of them.

Clare Solomon, SOAS students' union co-president, said the rugby club had apologised after a number of students complained they felt the poster alienated certain groups from the party.

Quote:

"Offensive terms are used so frequently

that they become internalised and,

therefore, people who use them are

often unaware of the implications behind the word."

Could someone please remind this young lady (ooh..she won't like that phrase!) that the word "English" is not racist or offensive.

Plastic Policemen

Good morning everyone, a nice bright and cheerful start to the week!

I see that one of our "respected" and "far sighted" neolithic union movements (Unison - the public sector union) is getting its knickers in a twist over Nanny's plastic policemen....sorry I mean "Police Community Support Officers" (PCSOs).

These are Nanny's answer to crime and the shortage of properly trained policemen on the beat, and are used by local councils to enforce all manner of help "initiatives" and petty rules.

Seemingly Unison believes that the PCSO's would do their jobs much better, if they wore the same uniforms as police officers. Unison has the view that people simply don't respect PCSO's as much as they should...well, what can I say?

Three things on this point of "respect", it's not so much "disrespect" but a lack of trust that is the issue here:

1 PCSO's are not the police, they are paid volunteers who are given some basic training and a uniform (similar to the police) to wear.

2 They are used by local councils for the enforcement of the council's rules on littering, anti social behaviour and whatever else the council has a bee in its bonnet over.

3 They are Nanny's response to the shortage of real policemen on the beat, and as such are a fudge.

The reality is that the British people do not like to see non professionals wandering around in a uniform, telling them what to do.

Anyhoo, such matters do not concern Unison; they have very helpfully suggested designs for a new uniform for PCSO's.

The police are none too happy about this idea, as the Police Federation rightly points out the idea is "dangerous and ill conceived"; as it would confuse people into thinking the PCSO's have the same powers as police officers, they don't...which is another very good reason why people don't quite trust them.

By the way, there are now 15,000 PCSOs patrolling the streets of England and Wales. That's a lot of "volunteers" in uniform!

The chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry, thinks that the idea is bollocks, noting that it would serve:

"no greater purpose than fooling

the public into thinking there are

more officers on the beat than in reality there are".

That is exactly why Nanny created the PCSO's in the first place!

As Ms Berry said, hitting the nail firmly on the head:

"They're not police officers,

so they should be distinct and

they should be different

otherwise there are expectations placed

on the PCSOs that maybe they don't have the powers,

the equipment or the experience to deal with.

And, likewise, there's confusion for the public,

who are expecting the PCSOs to do something."

The last line is the best point, all we have with PCSO's is nothing more than some more of Nanny's spin in physical form. Once you look very hard at what they actually do, you realise that they can't do very much.

Yet we pay for them!

Nanny Bans Flags

Last month, Nanny got her kerrr....nickers into something of a twist again over the contentious issue of flags.

One of Nanny's "respected" local councils, South Derbyshire District Council, decreed that Robert Hicking could not fly some flags from the roof of his house.

Isn't funny how Nanny uses local councils to enforce her petty rules and regulations?

Could it be that local councils are akin to dog shit (in the way it attracts flies), and that councils just attract petty minded interfering jobsworths?

Anyhoo, Mr Hicking was told that his flags were banned because they "could be seen as advertising".

What were these flags then?

Nothing more harmful than the flags of his local football team, Derby County.

Correct me if I am wrong, but during the world cup did not countless people fly the Cross of St George from various poles and erections?

Why are South Derbyshire District Council so sensitive about the flag of their own football team?

Mr Hicking now plans to fly the flag of St George and the Union Jack instead.

A spokeswoman for South Derbyshire District Council said:

"It's against the town and country planning

regulations to fly a flag that contains an advertisement

and a football club flag would be considered

to fall into that category."

I bet no one actually asked a qualified lawyer about this, and that this phrase "would be considered" is being used as a catch all by some bureaucrat who has nothing better to do than to stop people living their lives.

Nanny and her local councils hate individuality.

The Trouble With Chairs

Those of you with long memories may recall that I wrote about Greater Manchester fire service's rather strange chair edict last year.

You don't?

Oh well, let me refresh your memory.

Lats year Nanny's chums in the Greater Manchester Fire Service drew up a four-page safety manual, to instruct crews on how to sit in a reclining chair.

The story, as the old saying goes, doesn't end there...dear me no!

On the normal 15-hour night shift, firemen are allotted time to rest between emergencies and running through their training drills.

They are allowed to have a rest for up to three hours, but they are not allowed to go to sleep...errrr work that one out?

Those who work for the Greater Manchester fire service have been instructed that they can only rest in prescribed reclining chairs, only after they have been trained to use them of course.

It doesn't stop there.

It would seem that 3 "very naughty", but highly experienced firemen, are facing disciplinary action.

What was their crime?

Being drunk on duty?

No!

Being unfit to perform their duties?

No!

Being bolshy?

No!

Their crime was...wait for it...wait for it..."involvement in the use of unauthorised rest facilities".

The "naughty three" found it to be more to sleep on the hard station floor, than on one of Nanny's £400 reclining chairs.

Nanny's fire chiefs are looking into claims that the "naughty three" defied orders to rest only on the £400 reclining chairs, which were installed as a replacements for beds in Greater Manchester's 41 fire stations last year.

They are accused of breaking regulations, by deciding it was more comfortable to use their own sleeping bags and bed down on the floor.

Not unsurprisingly the unions have described the policy as ridiculous, saying their members are being treated like children.

When the chairs were installed the firemen were also told that they could only use specially issued blankets, not their own bedding.

The "naughty three", including a watch commander, were found to have breached the reclining chair orders after a locker inspection found sleeping bags stashed away.

Director of human resources, Anita Wainwright, said...seemingly with a straight face:

"Risk-assessed facilities have been provided

for rest only, not sleep.

However, if a firefighter were to doze off on the

rest facilities provided, a common sense approach is adopted."

"Risk assessed facilities"????

Whenever I hear the "risk assessment" phrase, I instinctively reach for my sick bag.

Why can't Nanny call a spade a spade?

Patronising Bullshit!

The firemen note that the chairs are not comfortable for a proper rest.

One is quoted as saying:

"This is bureaucracy gone barmy

We cannot use pillows on the chairs

and we cannot use our own blankets.

Airline blankets have been issued instead.

We do not mind being assessed on performance,

but being spied on like this leaves a nasty taste."

One day, Nanny's own house might burn down...who will rush to rescue her then?

Nanny Bans Pirates

Thirteen men on a dead man's chest,

Joh Hoh Hoh and a Bottle of Rum!

Or so the old saying goes.

Britain's wealth is based on the actions of pirates (state sponsored mercenaries who attacked Spanish galleons and colonies), such as Sir Walter Raleigh et al.

Yet now we see Nanny has decided to deny her own past, and ban pirates.

Out...bloody...rageous!

This is what six year old Morgan Smith (Capt Morgan was a pirate too!) found to his cost a wee while ago.

Morgan was getting ready for his sixth birthday party, and the hoisting of a pirate flag in the garden for the event (Morgan likes pirates).

The flag pole was duly erected (can I say erected on this site?), and the skull and cross bones run up the pole in the back garden. Morgan and his parents then waited for the day of the party, when his chums would turn up in eye patches wielding plastic cutlasses.

Unfortunately they reckoned without the intervention of the evil Stafford Borough Council.

For you see ladies and gentlemen, Stafford Borough Council is a local council; and we all know that local councils add zero value to the local community.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise to learn that Stafford Borough Council had something to say about the pirate flag.

Council officials branded the skull and crossbones flag "unneighbourly", and banned Morgan's parents Richard and Sharon from flying it.

It seems that the jobsworths in the council ordered Morgan's parents to apply for planning permission at a cost of £75 (have you noticed that local councils never miss a trick when it comes to screwing money out of their constituents?), and then they have to undertake an assessment of the 5ft by 4ft flag's "impact" on the surrounding area of Stone, Staffordshire.

As Morgan's dad said, citing the reality of the situation:

"It's not as though I'm building a huge extension

which will blight the neighbourhood.

It's a child's pirate flag."

Egg...zact....lee!!!

It's a flag for a child's party for fark's sake, it's not a permanent erection!

I will repeat, for the benefit of the morons from Stafford Borough Council.

It's a flag for a child's party for fark's sake, it's not a permanent erection!

Can I say erection here???

Ironically the family have flown the Union Jack or a St George's flag on the 18ft-high flagstaff at their detached home without a problem. Yet some SOB neighbour, clearly with nothing else in his/her life to do, complained to the council about the Jolly Roger.

It's people like that, who report on every little thing to the state, that enable Nanny to remain in power.

Mr Smith said:

"When the lady from the council came to see me

she said that it was no problem flying

any of the other flags,

it was the Jolly Roger that was of concern."

Councillor Richard Stevens (Lib Dem...that figures!) said the council had objected to the flag because:

"it was unneighbourly

and could open the doors for all kinds of flags".

Errmmmm...ever heard of using common sense, councillor, and taking each case on its own merits?

Silly me, common sense, what was I thinking of?

He's a councillor for fark's sake!

A Stafford Borough Council spokesman, with no sense of irony or pomposity, said:

"A planning application has been made for a Jolly Roger flag

to be flown at a property in Stone.

The application is currently under review

and will include planning officers looking

at the impact the flag has on the area,

with the decision expected by the end of this month.

Legislation requires planning approval

before it can be flown from the flagpole."

Do these people ever listen to, or read, what they say?

Don't they see how ridiculous they are?

Does this council have nothing better to do or spend the tax payers' money on???

Drop the council an email here, telling them what you think of them

- customerContactCentre@staffordbc.gov.uk

Drop councillor Steven a note here: prstevens@staffordbc.gov.uk

FYI, the Jolly Roger dates back to the 1700s when pirates would fly it to make their victims surrender readily.

I would also remind you, this being the 25th anniversary of the Falklands's victory, that the Jolly Roger was flown by H.M.S. Conqueror, the sub that sank the Belgrano, when she returned to Britain (as is the tradition of subs when they have successfully executed a kill).

Would Nanny have banned that too???

Nanny Bans Music

How does that old expression go?

"Music soothes the savage beast..."

or something like that.

Anyhoo, whilst music may sooth the savage beast it does not sooth Nanny. In fact she is so annoyed by music, that she is seeking to have it played more quietly.

Our old friends in Nanny's Health and Safety department have decided that music is way too dangerous, and are seeking to implement certain health and safety rules.

Whenever I hear the phrase "health and safety" I instinctively reach for the sick bag.

I digress, Nanny has decided to tell orchestras to stop playing too many noisy pieces in a performance. The Control of Noise at Work regulations came into force last year, and cap daily or weekly average exposure to 85 decibels.

The music and entertainment industry was given two more years to implement the new rules.

A working group, including the Association of British Orchestras, the English National Opera, the Royal Opera House, Equity, the Health and Safety Executive and the Musicians Union, is now apparently discussing how the guidelines could apply.

Aside from playing less noisy pieces, orchestras may be told to supply earplugs to the performers.

Quite how the players are meant to perform at their best, if they are wearing earplugs is beyond me. That being said, Beethoven was deaf when he composed "Ode To Joy" (rather a noisy piece).

What baout pop concerts then?

Aren't they a tad noisy too?

Liz Forbes, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra's concerts director, is unimpressed:

"Very few concerts use earplugs.

They're not ideal for hearing the ensemble

and what colleagues are doing."

Somewhat over the top wouldn't you say?

So let's give two fingers to Nanny, and let rip at full volume with this version of the Ode To Joy.

It will also put you in the right frame of mind, and banish those Monday morning blues".

Click here: Ode To Joy and give someone the horn this morning!

Nanny Exposed

It is somewhat ironic that Nanny, who has imposed upon us the highest number of CCTV cameras per head of the population in the world, is a wee bit miffed when the cameras are turned on the consequences of her work.

However, maybe that is not so surprising, as Nanny is a tad hypocritical.

Anyhoo, Angela Mason, a former supply teacher from Swiss Cottage found this out to her cost; when she went undercover to expose unruly behaviour in schools in North London, for the Channel 5 documentary Classroom Chaos.

Mrs Mason ended up at a hearing in Birmingham recently, accused of unacceptable professional conduct by the General Teaching Council - the professional body which regulates teachers.

Ms Mason said:

"Teaching is not my profession -

I left it 30 years ago but I still feel

strongly about it. I believe there is a major

public policy issue to do with pupils in

classrooms and poor behaviour.

I'm standing up for the supply teachers and

other teachers who have to endure this every day."

The dispute has its roots way back in 2004, when Mrs Mason took the footage using a hidden camera.

When the programme was aired in 2005, many viewers including teachers and politicians were outraged at the levels of indiscipline in the country's schools.

Needless to say, that most forward "thinking" and "selfless" body of teachers- The National Union of Teachers (NUT...how appropriate!)- didn't like it. They said it was 'underhand', because the film was made without the school's permission.

My partner, Eva, used to work as a supply teacher in the UK; she tells me that because OFSTED inspectors et al had to warn schools of inspections, special arrnagments were made. Seemingly, unruly and troublesome children were kept out of school on inspection days and extra supply teachers were drafted in so as to make the school look vaguely professional.

What was it Bliar said in 1997?

-Educashun!
-Educashun!
-Educashun!

Clive Rawlings, appearing on behalf of Mrs Mason, said:

"Angela Mason is merely the messenger

and we submit that you should not shoot the messenger."

The hearing is now adjourned until 18 June.

Nanny likes to watch but doesn't like us to watch.

Nanny Bans Rescue

The good old boys in Nanny's health and safety Gestapo have been up to their old tricks again.

This time they have decreed that a trained rescue professional (a fireman to be precise) should not have attempted to rescue someone from drowning, because it was too dangerous!!!

Tam Brown, a professional fireman (trained to rescue people), has found himself on the wrong end of Nanny's sticky pole (a lousy metaphor, I know...but it's Monday morning...give me a break!) and is now subject to an internal investigation by Tayside Fire and Rescue because he breached safety rules during the rescue in the River Tay in Perth.

Mr Brown spent eight minutes in the cold water, as he dragged a 20 year old woman to safety. Unfortunately, Nanny believes that he had acted improperly by risking his life.

Mr Brown has 15 years' experience as a fireman, and quite rightly was hailed as a hero by the woman's family. However, Tayside Fire and Rescue said that he had broken the brigade's "standing instructions" on safety procedures.

Kind of odd that isn't it?

I thought that those who joined the fire service did so because they wanted to help save lives.

Mr Brown said:

"I was expected to watch that young girl die in front of me.

As a father and a caring human being,

I couldn't live with myself if I'd had to do that."

He went on to say:

"We had seconds to act. The girl was losing consciousness.

We had one harness, so I put that on and went

down 20ft on a safety line, grabbed her and held

her out of the water. My colleagues tried to pull

us towards steps, but the current was so bad and

the rope was pulled so hard it snapped.

My own life hung in the balance as I swam

for the steps with her in my arms.

But we got there and were pulled out.

I was in the water for eight minutes and it

was heart-stoppingly cold, but we saved her."

Unfortunately the rules say that fire crew should instead have tried to haul the woman out using poles and ropes.

Aha...there is one fly in Nanny's oinkment here.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right, Stephen Hunter, chief fire officer of Tayside Fire and Rescue, admitted that fire engines in Perth were not equipped with the correct poles and ropes!

However, let us not be deterred by facts and reality, Nanny insists that Mr Brown should have used the non existent pole.

Therefore, Mr Brown must be punished for his lamentable action.

As Stephen Hunter so "eloquently" put it:

"Firefighter safety is of paramount importance to us.

Although our duties include rescues from flooding,

there is no statutory obligation to carry out

rescues from moving water.

We know they broke procedure because

we know he went into the water.

We are investigating exactly what happened,

and once that is concluded we will consider

what action is necessary.

That could include disciplinary action."

Steve Hill, chairman of the Perth branch of the Fire Brigades Union, is not too impressed with Nanny:

"Not one senior officer has congratulated Tam

or the other officers who attended that night.

They should be elated they saved a life but are

traumatised that they face disciplinary action instead.

Contradicting an order can lead to dismissal.

If Tam hadn't gone in, the public might have

tried to save her and we could have ended up

with several dead."

Nanny claims that she wishes to minimise (or eliminate) risk, in reality all she cares about is having her petty and odious rules followed.

Nanny Bans Welsh

I couldn't but help snigger when I read about Nanny banning the speaking of Welsh by telephone operators. Given that majority of people who live in Wales can't speak Welsh, it always seems to me an absurd waste of time and money that Nanny insists on dual language road signs and speakers in government offices etc.

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided that the speaking of Welsh could damage the vocal chords. Therefore union officials have succeeded in persuading the Vale of Glamorgan council to ban the traditional greetings "bore da" - meaning "good morning" - and "prynhawn da" - meaning "good afternoon".

The argument runs along the lines that as the workers first language is English, they could harm themselves trying to pronounce the phrases. They added the ban was in keeping with Health and Safety Executive's recommendation that call centre workers limit their phone time to preserve their vocal chords.

What a load of bollocks!

How can anyone take these people seriously if they waste their time and energy on such an absurd issue?

Needless to say, the local Plaid Cymru Councillor Steffan Williams was up in arms.

Quote:

"I can't see how saying 'bore da'

will do people in a call centre any harm."

He then shot his credibility in the gonads by claiming that it was an infringement of human rights...bollocks!

Nanny Bans Photos

In Nanny's world we are all equal.

However, owing to Nanny's dislike of what she perceives to be "unfair" advantages (eg sex, age, looks, race, religion, class, education etc), Nanny tries to skew the rules in order to ensure that some are more equal than others.

Rather Orwellian wouldn't you say?

This habit of Nanny's, to try to distort (sorry "level") the playing field, ignores a fundamental principle of genetic and social evolution; namely, we are all different and gifted with our own specific sets of good/bad attributes which affect the way that we interact with others and how others perceive us.

That's life, get over it!

Anyhoo, Nanny takes her rule bending to some extraordinarily silly lengths at times; I wonder if she ever stops to think how ridiculous she appears?

No, of course she doesn't.

However, I digress, one recent example of Nanny's obsession with the unattainable goal of "equality" was aptly demonstrated by her lackeys in the University and College Union (UCU).

UCU recently held an election, for the UCU general secretary, members of its board of trustees and special committees. However, the officials of UCU became worried that voters may be influenced by a candidate's looks (for good or bad).

Can you guess what happened next?

Yes, that's right, UCU banned the 100 candidates from including their photos with the official details of their policies etc.

Kate Heasman, UCU equality officer (why do we need jobs such as this?), said:

"Photos are a distraction and we should

not be basing decisions on how people look."

Herein lies the problem, Nanny doesn't get that there is a world of difference between what we "should do" and the real world where what we "actually do" rules.

Needless to say some members believe that this policy is utter bollocks.

Fawzi Ibrahim, a lecturer at the College of North London, said that UCU is "out of touch with reality".

Much like the Neo Cons in the US, Nanny lives in a make believe world where her view of the world and her rules dominate; conveniently ignoring the actuality of human interaction (for good or bad).

Wasting Your Money

The regulars amongst you will know that I am an FCA and auditor, with a few years' experience of working in multi nationals around the world.

One of the many things that I have learned, aside from always going to the loo before a meeting and drying my hands afterwards, is that bonuses should be used to reward good results and exceptional performance.

Bonuses should not be used to reward failure.

Therefore I have to ask the question, why the hell have the staff at the Child Support Agency Staff (CSA) been paid over £25M in bonuses; given that the CSA is a total load of old bollocks!

Even Bliary Poppins herself has said that the organ is not "fit for purpose".

In 2002-03 £11M was paid in the form of bonuses, and £4M was paid last year (when John Hutton the Work and Pensions Secretary announced that the CSA was to be scrapped).

The CSA has a backlog of nearly 240,000 cases, and more than £3.5 billion of uncollected debts on its books.

Around one in five calculations or assessments are inaccurate, and it currently takes around 36 weeks to deal with new applications.

CSA staff admitted entering inaccurate information about families into the agency's computer system, and redirecting calls to answer phones.

Well done lads!

Needless to say Nanny's Department for Work and Pensions think the bonuses are great.

Quote:

"The bonus scheme, agreed by the unions, rewards the hard work of individuals.

CSA staff are, of course, eligible to be recognised in this way.

The CSA's well documented problems stem from the design of the system

introduced in 1993, but staff should not be punished for them."

Sorry, but have I totally misunderstood my last 20 years in business, aren't salaries meant to reward people for their work?

Money well spent!

There you go folks, in Nanny's world lousy work gets rewarded, especially when it's you and I that are paying for it!

Hugh, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub

Ah the good old days, when Trumpton had a fire service that the world looked up to. No problem was too big or small for the lad's from the fire service to attend to.

Sadly, that was but a fantasy!

Nanny's health and safety Gestapo in Humberside has stuck its interfering nose into the work of the real fire service, and is considering the banning of ladders.

Yes, you did read that correctly...ladders!

Funny that, I thought that it was kind of an occupational hazard for firemen to shin up and down ladders.

Not in Nanny's' world!

You see folks, one of the services that firemen perform is that of installing smoke alarms in people's houses.

I did not know that before this...even I learn new things each day...and I'm a genius (so my Mum says!).

Anyhoo, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo are worried that the firemen might fall off the step ladder when they are installing the fire alarm. Therefore they wish a moveable platform to be used instead.

Now the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is having to review its policy on step ladders, after Nanny's chums from the Fire Brigades Union pointed out that a 6ft stepladder may contravene the Health and Safety Executive Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Needless to say, the health and safety Gestapo are only too willing to validate their existence, and have agreed to review this.

As one fireman said:

"Where will this end?

Will we still be able to carry a rescued person down a ladder,

or enter a burning building, without the HSA on our back?"

Don't worry, it would be a breach of the health and safety regulations for you to carry the HSE on your back!