Educashun

Congratulations to David Smith, Nanny's headmaster at Darfield Upperwood Primary School, who proved his value for money by paying cash to his wife and son, going on holiday courtesy of the taxpayer and authorising overtime payments and consultancy fees for himself.

On one trip to London he even bought a suit for himself and his deputy with taxpayers' money.

Nanny's chums in Barnsley council published a report on his conduct, and council chiefs took him "very seriously to task" and expressed their "extreme displeasure".

However, the good news is Smith kept his job; because his motives were "totally honourable".

Such honourable actions included:

• A trip to Salzburg in Austria by Mr Smith and his deputy, to "find out how foreign schools teach foreign languages", cost £2,625, including £1,276 on 'bed and breakfast accommodation' and £270 on taxi fares to and from Stansted airport.



• In May 2003, 16 members of staff attended a 'training event' over three days at the four-star De Vere Belton Woods Hotel in Grantham, Lincolnshire.



• Mr Smith claimed £6,150, which he authorised himself, out of the £9,780 paid for overtime on Beacon projects over three years.

It was only taxpayers' money though.

The Dangers of Light Bulbs

I have written on several occasions about the similarity between Nanny and dear old Auntie (the BBC), they both have this tendency to think that they know better than the ordinary man/woman in the street as to how lives should be led.

Anyhoo good old Auntie has managed yet again to come up with an extravagant way to waste the licence fee, on a particularly daft health and safety "initiative".

Seemingly, in Auntie's world, it is highly dangerous to change a light bulb. Therefore she has banned her precious staff from performing this highly skilled and dangerous task. In future Auntie will be paying an electrician to do this.

The cost?

A mere £10 a bulb...bargain!

Louise Wordsworth, a learning project manager with the BBC, came across the problem first hand.

Quote:

"I called up to ask for a new light bulb

for my desk lamp and was told that this would cost £10.

On telling them I'd buy and replace the bulb myself

(bought for the bargain price of £1 for two bulbs)

I was told that it was against health and safety regulations.

So guess how many BBC colleagues it finally took

to change a light bulb (risking life and limb to do so)?"

They could of course revert to using candles I suppose?

This anti risk attitude by Auntie is kind of surprising given its past record of putting some people (the viewers) in danger, eg do I not recall many years ago a guest on Noel Edmond's show died in some bizarrely daft stunt?

Also, so reports would have you believe, one of the contestants in that fake "reality" show "The Apprentice" has had a history of serious mental problems; is she really suitable for such an intense and demanding show?

But hey, they are only the licence fee payers!

If anyone can give me a reasonably accurate estimate as to the number of light bulbs that are in Auntie's buildings across the UK, I will gladly send them a "Nanny Knows Best" T shirt.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Nanny believes in the principle of leadership by example; in other words she seeks to teach her charges, via example, how they should lead their lives.

One of Nanny's chums in the Lords, Baroness Corston, is leading by example. When she was a lowly commoner and MP she twisted her ankle, or something similar, in the Houses of Parliament in 2003. Now she is claiming an enhanced sickness pension worth up to £24K a year.

However, before there is an out pouring of sorrow and grief for this poor lady, let us not forget that weeks after the 2005 election she was given a peerage and last year claimed £26K in attendance allowances and expenses.

One parliamentary source said:

"Several MPs have been given a higher pension

by saying they cannot carry on as MPs,

only to wash up in another job or the Lords."

Baroness Corston, who used to be a barrister (what is it about this current Labour government that attracts lawyers?), was the first female chairman of the backbench Parliamentary Labour Party group, and was the MP for Bristol East from 1992 until the last Election.

She has attended the Lords on 61 days last year and claimed £26,190 in allowances, made up of £16,890 in daily and overnight allowances and £9,300 in travel and office costs.

Value for money indeed!

The next time you lash out at the person in the street who claims compensation from a local council for tripping up, remember they are taking their cue from our "beloved" leaders.

Nanny Bans Purdah

Nanny is constantly on the look out for things that may offend people, no matter how trivial the issue she strives to ensure that not one person in Britain can ever be offended by anything someone else says or does.

Needless to say, this is an impossible task; as there is bound to be something that offends someone. I, for instance, find Nanny to be highly offensive.

Anyhoo, the latest word that Nanny believes may offend people is "purdah". This has been used by civil servants to describe the period leading up to an election, when politically sensitive announcements should not be made. Unfortunately, in Persian it also means curtain and in the Muslim world it takes two forms; physical segregation of the sexes, and the requirement for women to cover their bodies and conceal their form.

Nanny's chums in the Welsh Assembly have decided that for a non Muslim to use the word in reference to the pre election period is highly offensive to Muslims, therefore it has been banned during the Welsh Assembly election because it might offend Muslims and other religious groups.

An Assembly Government spokeswoman said:

"As the term 'pre-election period' is now

in common usage across the Assembly Government,

we didn't consider it necessary to give

specific guidance for the 2007 Assembly elections.

However, the guidance we issued to staff prior

to the 2005 General Election did contain such a reference.

'Don't use the term "purdah" to describe

the pre-election period. It has a specific meaning

for some religious groups and they may see

its use in this context as unduly flippant and offensive'".

What utter bollocks!

The word is clearly being used in a non offensive way, what rational sane person could find that to be offensive?

Hair Raising

Nanny is very fussy about id photos these days, what with the increased security scares that she keeps foisting on us.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that she takes a dim view of anyone who "looks daft" in a passport photo.

Such was the fate the befell Eden Lurie, when she posed for a passport photo with spiky hair.

Nanny was less than impressed, the photographer told Eden that the photo would be rejected by Nanny's passport office.

Quite right!

Only problem being, that Eden was in fact only 4 months old.

Kate Lurie, Eden's mum, thought the photographic assistant was joking when he pointed to her daughter Eden's three-inch hair in the portrait and said:

"It's too spiky."

Margaret Matwiejew, photo team leader at Prestwich Pharmacy in Manchester, said:

"The Passport Office has gone over the top with its requirements."

Nanny has gone over the top in many of her requirements...sadly no one seems to be willing to stand up to her.

Sorry

Nanny's chums in the Church of England have got themselves into a bit of a state over slavery, which the British Empire abolished 200 years ago.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has suggested that the Church might need to pay reparations, whilst the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has said that an apology is required.

Here's why they are wrong:

• Britain was the first country in the modern world to abolish slavery, we have nothing to apologise for.



• Genetic trees show that there are more than a handful of "white" Brits with African origins; to whom should we apologise, ourselves?



• The Greeks used slaves, the Italians used Greek slaves, the Nazis used European and Jewish slaves, the Americans used African American slaves, the Africans use African slaves, Japan in the last war used sex slaves from China and Korea etc etc. Will they all be apologising too?



• Slavery still exists in the world today. Africans use children to fight in wars and to dig for diamonds, and East European girls are trafficked into Western brothels.



• Africans were selling Africans into slavery long before Britain ever set foot in the place.



• The wealth of the Church of England, and Britain as whole, is in part built on the profits of slavery. An apology cannot undo that.



• The West enjoys cheap goods and foodstuffs manufactured by people in the Far East, living on very very low wages, will we stop buying these goods? To apologise for slavery, yet still consume these goods is hypocritical.

You should no more regret the actions and policies of past centuries than you should regret the invention of gunpowder, the bow and arrow or the atomic bomb. What is done is done, move forward and look to the future.

An apology cannot change the past, and does not address the problems of the present.