Vegetables Cause Cancer

I am gemused to see that, according research in the USA, long term vegetarianism can lead to genetic mutations which raise the risk of heart disease and cancer.

Populations who have had a primarily vegetarian diet for generations were found to be far more likely to carry DNA which makes them susceptible to inflammation.

That rather knocks on the head the perceived "wisdom" of the "experts", who have been telling us that meat eating causes cancer, and rather undermines Nanny's "five a day" advice!

Seemingly nothing is safe to eat!
 

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

Fried Vegetables Are Good For You

I am gemused to read that, contrary to all previous advice from Nanny, the healthiest way to cook vegetables is to fry them (not boil them).

That, at least, is according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Granada and published in Food Chemistry magazine.

Frying improves antioxidant capacity and increases the amount of phenolic compounds, which help to prevent conditions such as diabetes and cancer.

The research does note that you should only use olive oil.

However, I say, what's the harm in using lard?

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

Nanny Offers Immortality

I see that despite the fact that Nanny's 5 a day propaganda has been shown to be bollocks, Nanny's chums from University College London have conducted a study that claims to show that we will live longer if we ate 7 portions of fruit and veg a day.

Oddly enough, Nanny herself insists that 5 a day is still adequate.

The study of 65,226 men and women indicated the more fruit and vegetables people ate, the less likely they were to die - at any given age.

Read that again, in effect Nanny's chums are saying if you eat 7 a day you won't die!

Shurely shome mishtake!

Irrespective of that rather ludicrous claim, the research itself appears to be massively flawed.

For why?

Other lifestyle factors, such as not smoking or drinking excessively, may have accounted for the drop in mortality, not just fruit and veg consumption.

More to the point, as Prof Tom Sanders, at the School of Medicine, King's College London, said it was "already known" that people who said they ate lots of fruit and vegetables were health conscious, educated and better-off. He is quoted by the BBC:

"You cannot extrapolate from this kind of information to make sensible pronouncements about what people should eat."

In other words the conclusions are bollocks!

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

Come Squeeze My Cox's Orange Pippins

I am ungemused to see that Nanny, in her quest for maximum health and safety, has taken steps to erode yet another part our national culture and heritage.

This time Nanny has taken umbrage at the cries of market traders.

For why?

Nanny is concerned that traders who yell their wares and prices to passing punters may damage the hearing of those around them.

The result?

Nanny's chums from North Lincolnshire council have banned stallholders at Scunthorpe Market from shouting about their lovely pears etc etc.

The Mail reports that greengrocer Simon Stanley has been banned from the market and given a £1,000 legal fee for breaking the rule. Others have also faced the threat of bans and legal fees.

It seems that the council is using a new charter as the bedrock for its "right" to ban the cries of market traders.

There is one wee problem with the charter, it was imposed without discussion on the traders and not one of them has signed it; ie the council has turned dictator.

Councils are the enemies of the people!

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

Nanny's Retrospective Rules

I was "gemused" to read a story in the Telegraph a few days ago about a "typically British" dispute between an allotment holder (Michael Rock) and his local council (Hastings), over the thorny issue as to whether he should be allowed to grow fruit trees instead of vegetables on his plot.

Nanny contends that fruit trees are not a productive use of a "scarce resource" (ie the allotment), and that if Mr Rock does not want to use the plot productively then he should vacate it.

On the face of it, the council has a point; allotments are a scarce resource and there are waiting lists of years for many of them. However, Mr Rock argues that he used to grow veg etc but that much of the produce was wasted and he instead wanted to use it for fruit in order to make jam.

Now, here we come to the crux of the matter, if he had signed an agreement when he first took over the plot that he could only grow certain produce then the council has a prima facie case for throwing him off the plot if he has broken the rules.

Question: did he sign such an agreement?

Answer: No (the original agreement contained no such restriction).

The council are trying to force him to now sign an agreement that would be applied retrospectively, preventing him from growing fruit, thus on signing he would be in breach of the agreement.

Mr Rock, not unreasonably, refuses to sign.

As the the National Allotment Society says:

“In our mind the spirit of allotment gardening is that it’s a communal activity which everybody can enjoy; it’s a hobby, at the end of the day.

We do understand the reasons for tenancy agreements, but would always advise councils not to impose them retrospectively. Allotment gardening is something people do in their spare time and it’s important that rules are imposed in the spirit of fairness.” 

Sadly Nanny doesn't do "fairness"!

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

The Joy Of Vegetables

I am gemused to see that Euro Nanny has chosen to lecture us about our fruit and vegetable eating habits.

Seemingly, if "scientific research" (carried out by the European Food Information Council - EUFIC) is to be believed, the average Brit does not eat enough vegetables. In fact Euro Nanny places us 14th in a league table of 19 vegetable eating EU nations.

Britons eat 258g  of fruit and vegetables a day, compared with a European average of 386g.

EUFIC then go on to bemoan the fact that we are placing ourselves at a greater risk of caner, diabetes and all the other modern plagues that Nanny likes to frighten us with.

So, should we be worried?

Errmm..no not at all, for you see EUFIC then go on to admit that there are a few problems with the data that it used for its "research":

1 The definition of fruit and vegetables varies between countries, eg some nations do not include potatoes or fruit juice.

2 EUFIC used data from various governments to compile its report, therefore the data itself cannot be comparable or necessarily reliable.

In other words the "research" is bollocks.

Given the above caveat, why precisely did they bother to conduct the "research" and publish their "findings" in the first place?

Another fine example of Nanny using dodgy "research" to justify her prejudices and policies!

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

Prats of The Week - Councils

Ooh err missus!

Tis time methinks to award another of my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to our "beloved" and "respected" local councils in general.

For why?

Well my old muckers it seems that, despite the recession and the new age of austerity, councils across the land cannot resist spending bucket loads of our hard earned cash on worthless shite.

A Freedom of Information request has brought to light oodles of daft expenditures (is that English?) eg:

- Hillingdon paid RADA £2,700 to give a Cabinet Member "executive coaching" sessions
- Lewisham spent £300 on a "using social media" day for one person
- Kensington and Chelsea and Brent spent money (at "no cost" to the taxpayer) on in-house Blackberry courses for councillors
 - Ealing sent someone to Chichester for a "Fruit and Vegetables in Public Gardens" conference
 - Kingston-upon-Thames spent money on an internally-run "key fob training seminar"
 - Richmond sent someone to Cardiff for a training course on sex licensing establishments etc

I dare say that were we and the councils earning bucketloads of cash (and a portion of that bucketload was put away for a rainy day) then spending money on such courses etc may be beneficial (or at least harmless) in a growing economy. However, we are in a recession and during the times of plenty Broon and his chums in the councils never put anything away for today's rainy day.


Therefore I would conclude that councils simply do not get it wrt the financial state that we are in.


Councils are the enemies of the people, and well deserving Pats of The Week!




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

Dodgy Science II

I see that the "great debate" about Nanny's advice to eat "five portions of fruit and veg a day" continues to "rage".

A European "study" now concludes that we should eat eight portions a day.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Heart study claims to show that people who eat at least eight portions of fruit and vegetables a day have a 22% lower risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease (IHD), than those who consumed fewer than three portions a day.

Pretty convincing eh?

Well not really, the study also notes (almost reluctantly) that a higher fruit and vegetable intake occurs among people with other healthy eating habits and lifestyles.

Oh yes?

Oddly enough these factors may also account for the lower risk of dying from IHD!

In other words, if you eat a balanced diet and take sensible exercise (ie don't destroy yourselves by living as a potato and eating only shite) then you will probably be more healthy.

Were do I apply for my grant to conduct similar "research" that will come to that conclusion?

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

Dodgy Science

On December 1st I wrote that the "five a day" advice about eating five portions of fruit and veg a day was bollocks.

Now, some 16 days later, Nanny's chums from Oxford University research write that that was in fact bollocks. They claim that a "staggering" 33,000 lives could be saved a year in Britain if everybody ate five pieces of fruit and vegetables a day and stuck to recommended guidelines for salt, fat and fibre.

Snort!

More bollocks I suspect for sadly, as we know, Nanny likes to mould "facts" to fit her own agenda.

Additionally, out of a population of 60 million 33K is but a pin prick (given that this doubtless includes a vast number of people whose deaths have but merely been postponed for a wee while, and who have been condemned to live a little longer in pain and discomfort).

Eat, drink and exercise in a sensible manner (listen to your body, not Nanny) and allow yourselves indulgences. That is the key to a healthy happy life.

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

Five A Day - Bollocks!

It transpires that the advice drummed into our heads over the years by Nanny, to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day is in fact bollocks.

BTW, what exactly is a "portion"?

Anyhoo, as with all of Nanny's advice it was based on flaky "science"; ie no rigorous research had been conducted before she happily dispensed the advice.

The British Journal of Cancer reports that official guidelines on eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may not have a substantial effect on cancer.

Scientists now "believe" (please note that we are still in "belief" mode) that the risk (please note we are talking "risk" here, not the same as saying "definite") of developing cancer is much more related to how much you eat and drink, rather than what you eat.

Factoid: during the Second World War, the British government told the people to eat more carrots on the false pretext that it would help them see in the dark. The reality was that there was a glut of carrots, and the government wanted us to bulk up our food intake with them.

The "good news", from Nanny's perspective, is that the current "belief" is that high levels of booze and fags increase the chances of cancer. This of course will give Nanny every opportunity to lecture us about how much we smoke and drink.

Here's the reality of this research.

We are now living longer than we have ever done before, hence cancer has a greater chance of developing.

Like it or not, the longer you live the greater the chance of developing cancer. There is a very strong link (in a large number of cases) between the way the body works and its interaction with background radiation (emanating from the earth and the sun); ie once you have had your "lifetime's limit" of background radiation your body is less well equipped to deal with cancerous cells.

Like it or not the older you are, the greater the risk of developing cancer (it's an odds thing).

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

Nanny Takes Offence

It seems that Nanny takes offence very easily these days.

So what? You may ejaculate (can I say "ejaculate"?).

Well my loyal readers, just ask the unnamed IT boss who was arrested in November by police for an email sent by one of his staff to Rother District Council wrt a planning appeal by a "traveller".

The "offensive" email contained the phrase:

"It's the 'do as you likey' attitude that I am against."

"Likey" rhymes with "pikey", and the council deemed that enough to tell Hastings police. Note, the "traveller" who is bringing the planning appeal did not complain about the email.

The police duly obliged the council and arrested the unnamed man (believing it was he who sent the email), held him for 4 hours took his DNA, his fingerprints, his/his wife's computers etc. It then transpired that the hapless detainee had not sent the email, but one of his staff (Paul Osmond) did.

Despite this, according to the Mail, police will be holding the DNA of the innocent man indefinitely.

Mr Osmond was then arrested and bailed. However, he has now been told that there would be no further police action.

Time and money well spent then!

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

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

Nanny Unbans Dairy

Those of you of a certain age (mid 40's and beyond) will doubtless recall the health advice of the era when we were kiddy winkies, about the benefits of drinking milk and eating dairy products.

Indeed, the state even gave children free milk each day in school. Government cuts in the early 70's put paid to the free milk, but the advice about the benefits of consuming dairy products continued.

NB: Historical note, contrary to the popular myth of the time, Maggie Thatcher was not the person responsible for cutting free school milk (she had to implement the policy); it was Ted Heath who ordered it to be cut.

Anyhoo, up to the age of around 14 or so I was consuming around 3 pints of milk a day at home and look at me now!

As time moved on Nanny, in her infinite wisdom, took advice from so called "medical experts" who decreed that milk and dairy products were in fact bad for people.

The "Butchers' profession" has a higher than average percentage of people who are substance abusers (ie booze, fags and drugs). Quite why Nanny is so enthralled with their advice, everytime they change their mind about something, I don't know (remember they used to be very keen on bleeding people).

Anyhoo, plus ca change, the Butchers' profession has now decreed that dairy products are in fact good for children. Children who eat plenty of dairy foods such as milk and cheese can expect to live longer, according to a study by the University of Bristol and Australia's Queensland Institute of Medical Research.

Despite dairy containing artery furring fat and cholesterol, high consumption does not raise the heart disease risk!

I could have told Nanny that!

Needless to say not everyone wants to accept this, Joanne Murphy of The Stroke Association said:

"This is an interesting study, but we need to take a further look to really assess the benefits of milk in reducing the chances of dying from stroke.

In the meantime, we advise parents to opt for a diet rich in fruit and vegetables and low in saturated fat and salt for the overall health of their children."

Piffle!

As I have often said on this site, fat is good for you. A car engine without oil seizes up. The same applies to the human body, fat in the veins helps the blood flow more easily;)

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

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

Dig For Victory - Flowers Banned

In Brown's Bankrupt Britain things have hit a new low, and are clearly much worse than I had realised.

Nanny, in the shape of Rogerstone Community Council, has now decreed that only food should be grown on their allotments.

Edith Avery (89 years old) found this out to her cost as, despite having used her allotment for 30 years, the council have told her that they will take away her allotment.

For why?

Finding it now a bit of a struggle to grow vegetables, Mrs Avery has started to grow flowers instead. The council, deeming that we are now facing "war time conditions" (I guess), have forbidden this and want to allocate her allotment space to others who will grow only vegetables.

All well and good, given the enormous demand for allotments (maybe), except for one large fly in Nanny's oinkment. It seems that there are many plots that are completely neglected and untended.

Why not forcibly remove these first?

The council are (as expected) trying to duck out of discussing this, council chairman Andrew Cooksey said he did not want to comment directly, but would be discussing the matter with the clerk.

The clerk, of course, is on holiday!

As ever, Nanny's local councils act without thinking and pick the easiest targets on which to impose their arbitrary rules.

Why shouldn'y Mrs Avery be allowed to grow flowers?

We are not at war are we?

Or is there something Nanny has yet to tell us?

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

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

The F Word

I see that Gordon Ramsay has succumbed to the dark side of Nanny, and is advocating fining restaurants for serving non seasonal produce.

He told the BBC that fruit and vegetables should be locally-sourced, and only on menus when in season.

Ramsay claims that he has already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce.

He says it would cut carbon emissions, as less food would be imported and also lead to improved standards of cooking.

Quote:

"There should be stringent laws, licensing laws, to make sure produce is only used in season and season only."

How very Nannylike of him!

Here's why he is talking bollocks:

1 We live in a free market economy, we can buy and sell what we wish.

2 If there was not a market for out of season produce, then it wouldn't be sold.

3 If the costs of supplying the produce (eg airline fuel) rise, then so does the cost of the produce on the shelves or in the restaurant. The consumer will make a buy decision based on that price, it is not up to the state.

4 We have, as an island nation, been importing exotic food and spices for centuries. Using Ramsay's "logic", we would never have imported the potato, pepper, spices etc.

5 Locally sourced food can be just as badly cooked as imported food.

6 As an island we depend on importing some food, even during the war (when the entire country was on ration) we still needed to import food.

7 Locally sourced food, being transported by a large number of small trucks from a large number of local farms, can be just as damaging to the environment as using one plane and one super sized truck to transport a container to a supermarket.

8 Define "local" and "seasonal", as already noted there are foods that we consider to be "native" yet were only brought here by our intrepid ancestors who travelled the globe.

9 Don't give Brown another means by which to raise taxes.

10 Tax foreign produce and people will buy less, thus impacting the living standards of the impoverished farmers who grow the stuff.

11 Ramsay cooks with olive oil, that's "foreign" isn't it? Will his restaurants be fined too?

12 If I pickle something in the summer, then eat it in the winter, am I breaking Ramsay's "seasonal law"?

It seems to be a very "F U" and stupid method of thinking.

I will continue to buy what I want, when I want it.

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

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

Dig For Victory

Britain is a tiny island, with a very large/excessive population (people per square mile) of around 60 million.

Feeding this population requires a well developed set of trade routes with the rest of the world, and the maximisation of agricultural output on British soil.

When crisis hits, such as in the last war (when our population was only 40 million), we have serious trouble feeding ourselves. During these times of crisis every available piece of land is turned over to producing food. Thus it was that allotments, a modest piece of land allocated to local town dwellers for vegetable and flower growing, really came into their own.

Dig For Victory!

Needless to say Nanny, because she is into organic "cafe latte" couscous ethically sourced at twice the price type shit, doesn't give a stuff about the humble allotment with its spuds and caulis.

Therefore local councils, such as the Parish Council of West Monkton Somerset, are free to "bugger up" yet another aspect of British life.

The council has demanded that local allotment holders take out millions of pounds of public liability insurance, thus forcing them to abandon their allotments.

The hapless allotment holders in West Monkton have been told to pay for protection in case someone trips over a turnip, or slips on a slug, and sues for compensation.

West Monkton is not alone in demanding money with menaces, other local authorities have been advised to follow suit.

The cost to local allotment holders, who rent their plots at £10 per annum, is an additional £400 per annum!

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens, thinks that the demand for money with menaces is a load of old bollocks:

"It's ridiculous.

It makes it not worth having an allotment.

The average plot holder can produce about £500 worth of food.

If they have to pay up to £400 in insurance,

plus the £50 cost of seeds and tools on top

there is no point in having an allotment.

A lot of people, particularly the retired

or those on low incomes, could not afford to pay

the extra cost of insurance.

A lot people would just give up.

It could mean the end of the Great British allotment.

We are at a time when demand for allotments is

at its highest since the Second World War."

Britain has an estimated 330,000 allotments which, if each charged £400, would rake in £132M per annum for the money grabbing councils/insurance companies.

As David Hampsey, of the National Vegetable Society, rightly observes:

"It's ridiculous to ask plot holders

to pay up to £400 in insurance.

It's just another way of making money

out of law-abiding citizens."

He has hit the nail on the head, it's another piss take from our ineffective and redundant local councils; who are using it as an excuse to raise more money so that they can afford to pay for their salaries, expense accounts and defined benefit pension funds.

The crisis came to a head the other week when 11 plot holders in West Monkton received letters telling them they must insure themselves against personal injury claims of up to £5M. The parish council clerk, Trish Cavill, said that the town hall was following advice from their insurer Allianz Cornhill.

The letter said each allotment owner must have public liability insurance "with a limited indemnity of no less than five million pounds."

Grower David Almond, allotment holder aged 70, said:

"This is utter nonsense.

The purpose of allotments was to

help poor families grow vegetables.

But it looks like the council wants

to push people out of them."

Needless to say West Monkton Parish Council are quick to blame the compensation culture for the need to insure allotments.

Mrs Cavill said:

"We live in a health and safety conscious age,

and we wanted to clarify the position for allotments.

The parish council's insurance covers the public walkways

and paths on the site but not the allotments themselves.

If someone trips on a bucket on a path,

the council is liable.

But if they trip over a bucket on an allotment,

the allotment holder is liable."

Errmmm...if I have read that correctly she has just said that it is the allotment holder that is liable?

Therefore is it not up to the allotment holder as to whether they take out £5M insurance cover?

Why does the council need to get itself involved in this?

Why does the council seem to think that it is responsible for everything that happens? (answer: because if people stopped to ask what does a local council really need to do, they would see that their council needs to do far less than it claims. We are being conned by our local councils into paying for services we don't want or need).

Reading her response it is clear that this has nothing to do with the council.

Allianz said that the company would advise all councils to urge allotment plot holders to have public liability insurance.

Well of course they would, they stand to earn £132M a year out of it!

Does not anyone in our "respected" local councils ever bother to challenge these money grabbing insurance companies?

Why does the cover need to be £5M? This amount is quoted now for all events and issues connected with local councils.

Why not £1M or £500K?

How accurate are the premiums of £400, taking into account the risks and likelihood of a £5M payout?

An Allianz spokesperson said:

"This type of cover is needed in case

someone gets injured at the allotment

and wants to sue the plot holder."

I refer her to my point above, about it being up to the allotment holder not the council or insurance company to dictate terms.

Seriously, does anyone really trust their council or insurance companies?

It is high time that people stood up to these parasites.

DIG FOR VICTORY!

Fat Myths

Now that we are firmly in 2007, and being bombarded by both the media and Nanny into detoxing and taking diets, it is worth sitting back and considering exactly what constitutes being fat actually means.

Indeed Nanny is so keen on fat issues that she wants to set up a database to monitor every child in the country, including their diet.

Yet some health researchers argue that being overweight is actually beneficial: it's the dieting that kills.

In Septicland, the land that gave us WMD in Iraq, no less a person that the US surgeon general has claimed that obesity is "a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction".

Errmmm...is anyone buying that hyperbole?

Nanny needless to say, as she follows all things American, is eager to jump on the bandwagon. Nanny wants to introduce a £224M "Children's Index".

What the fark is a "Children's Index" then Ken?

I will tell you...

A "Children's Index" is a database of every child in the country, that will chart progress from birth to adulthood and will flag up "concerns" about each child's development.

Two "flags" on a child's record will trigger an official investigation into his or her family.

Interestingly Nanny's Information Commissioner, in a report issued in November, is very critical of the scheme.

Quote:

"Government policy proposes treating all parents

as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children."

Seemingly, one of the proposed danger signs on the Children's Index would be if the child were not eating the Nanny approved amount of fruit and vegetables each day.

Yet there is no scientific evidence to support the fat myths propgated by the media, Nanny and the diet food industry.

• The recently published Health Survey for England, 2004 shows no significant increase in the weight of children in recent years. The Department of Health report found that from 1995 to 2003 there was only a one-pound increase in children's average weight.



• The Thousand Families Study found little connection between overweight children and adult obesity. In the study, four out of five obese people became obese as adults, not as children.



• In the US it is estimated that 10% of high school pupils suffer from eating disorders, brought about by the incessant media message that slim is good and fat is bad.



• In 2004, a World Health Organisation study of British pupils found that overweight children ate sweets less frequently than normal weight children did. Children who ate larger amounts of junk food actually had less chance of being overweight.



• In America there was a rapid increase in the number of overweight people in the early years of this decade. However, that is because the goal posts were moved! The classification of what was "overweight" was reduced from those with a body mass index of 27, to those of 25.



• In 2005 a US Centres for Disease Control study found the lowest death rates among overweight people.



• A 2004 Harvard University study examined 14,000 children, and found that junk food did not lead to obesity.



• 95% of dieters are fatter five years after their diet then when they started to trim.



• The Iowa Women's Health Study and the American Cancer Society study found that weight loss was associated with higher rates of mortality.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is obvious; have it large in 2007, and get well stuffed!

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is Father

The key to any "successful" authoritarian dictatorship is to ensure that the state is involved in every aspect of people's lives.

Sometimes the state will legislate, by force, its involvement; eg banning smoking, health and safety reviews and ethnic quotas etc.

In other areas the state will try to "ingratiate" itself, by first of all undermining people's self confidence and dignity. Once the fundamental bedrock of people's independence has been undermined, Nanny can push her way in and start to lecture us about how we should be living our lives. This makes us reliant on her, and as such gives her the whip hand over us.

One of Nanny's experts in the Machiavellian art of confidence erosion is Nanny's best chum Caroline Flint, so called Minister for Fitness. Ms Flint has issued an edict saying that overweight people should be given lessons in how to eat fruit and vegetables.

Call me old fashioned...

"Ken you're old fashioned!"

...but I thought the principle of eating fruit and veg was easy; you open your mouth, put the fruit/vegetable in your mouth and start to chew.

You know how to chew, don't you?

Anyhoo, in Ms Flint's world, too many Britons are refusing to eat fresh produce because they see it as "scary food."

The reason that some people find it "scary" is that when they were children, they were not forced to eat what was put in front of them; ie they were spoiled and indulged by lazy parents.

Ms Flint wants supermarkets to provide instore demonstrations on how "healthier" food, eg apples and bananas, should be prepared and eaten.

Ms Flint, referred to a seminar where a parent apparently referred to some food as being scary:

"What she was talking about was vegetables she had never seen in her life before.

Here's a fruit you have never seen before.

What do you do with it?

Do you peel it?

Do you boil it?

Do you chop it?".

Ms Flint said the solution was to provide cookery lessons in major stores.

She added:

"If people are calling some of the healthier foods 'scary food'

because they are not sure how to prepare or cook them

it doesn't matter how many times I bang out a leaflet

saying eat this - it is not going to happen."

Three points to the above:

1 It's not the state's role to tell people what to eat.

2 People resent being told by the state what to eat, and will rebel.

3 It is the role of parents to educate their children as to what to eat.

Let the responsibility and consequences of lazy parenting rest with the parents, not with the state. The more that state interferes, the more lazy parents will become and as a result the more reliant society becomes on the state.

Ms Flint also admitted that another problem that Nanny faces is that some people simply don't consider themselves to be obese...well that's their right isn't it?

That observation is as facile as if she were to say that some people don't consider themselves to be ugly, when in fact they are (to some others)...totally subjective.

Quote:

"We have to do it in a way not to stigmatise people.

One of the things you have to think about is sometimes

overweight parents do not recognise their children as being overweight.

If they compare themselves with people who are considerably larger than themselves

they think, 'That's not me I don't have a problem'."

In other words, Nanny will now be upping the volume on her "you are a fat bastard" campaign.

Once everyone feels inadequate, and has had their self confidence undermined, Nanny will "come to the rescue" and make us all dependent on her.

Tuck Off!

Full marks to William Guntrip (13), an enterprising lad who has become rather fed up with Nanny's lectures on healthy eating.

He set up a playground sweet shop to counteract Nanny's 'overpriced health food'.

Master Guntrip was raking in more than £50 a day, selling chocolate bars and fizzy drinks to other pupils at Sponne School Towcester during break times.

Good to see that we are still breeding entrepreneurs in this country.

Unfortunately, Nanny does not approve of individualism or entrepreneurs. The school, which has banned sweets from vending machines and filled the canteen with healthy options, says he will be expelled if he does not shut up shop.

Twats!

William had set up shop after his father, Glyn, promised to give up smoking if he could make £1,000 through his own business.

Master William said:

"I can't believe it;

I don't see what I've done wrong,

it's not illegal.

Even some of the teachers have been buying from me.

The food at lunchtimes is rubbish.

It's all pasta and vegetables, there's no meat.

I don't mind some healthy stuff

but it costs too much money and there's not enough choice.

Now they've taken away all my stock."

I think he should raise the matter of theft of stock with the police, that is after all a criminal offence isn't it?

Feel free to drop the school a line with your thoughts on the matter: Info@sponneschool.northants.sch.uk

Big Brother

1984 was not just the pigment (yes I know!...just me amusing myself with a play on words) of George Orwell's imagination, it seems to be becoming reality.

Nanny has decided to formalise the surveillance of all children, including information on whether they eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The new Big Brother monitoring system comes in the form of a £224M database, which will track all 12 million children in England and Wales from birth.

Nanny expects that the system will go live within two years; given how crappy Nanny is at implementing IT systems, we can safely assume that this deadline will slip somewhat!

The system will require doctors, schools and the police to alert Nanny about a wide range of "concerns". Two warning flags on a child's record could start an investigation.

There will also be a system of targets and performance indicators for children's development. Children's services have been told to work together to make sure that targets are met.

God only knows what they are!

Dr Eileen Munro, of the LSE, is not happy and notes that if a child failed to make progress towards state targets, detailed information would be gathered. That would include subjective judgements such as "Is the parent providing a positive role model?", as well as sensitive information such as a parent's mental health.

Dr Munro said:

"They include consuming five portions of fruit and veg a day,

which I am baffled how they will measure.

The country is moving from

'parents are free to bring children up as they think best

as long as they are not abusive or neglectful'

to a more coercive

'parents must bring children up to conform

to the state's views of what is best'."

Dr Munro makes a very good, and indeed obvious point, how the hell do you measure if children are eating 5 portions of fruit and veg?

Bowel exams maybe?

The Children Act 2004 gave the Government the powers to create the database.

Arch, the children's rights organisation, put it succinctly:

"Government databases have a dreadful record."

Nanny's lackeys in the Department for Education and Skills said:

"Parents and young people will be able to ask to see their data

and make amendments

and will retain full rights under the Data Protection Act."

By then it will be too late, their child will have been carted off by Nanny's child catchers.

Nanny Bans Gardening

Oxford council likes to think of itself as being a good council, all councils have this delusion.

However, they take particular pride in their work in making the community a better place to live in. Indeed, they have even set up a Crime and Nuisance Action Team (CANAcT).

This body seeks out those who would destroy the harmony of the community.

One such person that CANAcT identified as being a clear and present danger to the harmony of Oxford was Malcolm Everton.

Mr Everton lives in a small development of sheltered housing.

Now I can hear you asking what has Mr Everton been up to, that has brought him to the attention of the CANAcT team?

I will tell you, Mr Everton's crime is that of gardening.

Yes, gardening!

Mr Everton became fed up with the dismal conditions of the communal areas of his housing project. He therefore decided to use his initiative and skills, and brighten the place up by doing some gardening.

Now you can see where he went wrong.

You see, in order for Nanny to maintain her control over us she cannot allow people to think for themselves or to act on their own initiative.

Mr Everton has been busy over the past few months; tending plants, clearing weeds, maintaining hanging baskets, cutting grass etc.

This work has been done for free I would add.

Nanny's chums in CANAcT were not amused at this selfless display of initiative and action. They have issued Mr Everton with a notice banning him from:

- mowing the lawn
- making compost
- having bonfires
- painting doors
- growing vegetables

He must also gain approval, in writing, for any future activities.

There was a general uproar from the residents when they heard of this daft ban. Not unreasonably people pointed out that the council ought to be more concerned with weeding out social scum, rather than weeding out a weeder of lawns.

This uproar has not impressed Nanny.

Her spokesman from the council noted that the investigation into Mr Everton's activities have been lengthy and expensive (remember it is the taxpayer who pays though), and that there is a health and safety issue at stake here.

Morons!

The locals each pay £2K a year in council tax; I am sure that they feel that their money is well spent.

Not!