The Four Pillars of "Wisdom"

My thanks to a loyal reader, who sent me the above photo of the instructions for use of a bathmat from a Four Pillars Hotel near Oxford.

Those of you with photos of other hotel health and safety idiocy please feel free to send on to me.

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Prats of The Week - BA

As those of my loyal readers who read my other sites know, I am no particular fan of British Airways (BA). Therefore I am delighted to be able to confer upon our "illustrious national carrier" my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Award for their disgraceful treatment of Mirko Fischer.

Mr Fischer, and his pregnant wife, had the misfortune to fly with BA in April 2009. Mrs Fishcer was assigned a middle seat, and Mr Fischer a window seat.

Mrs Fischer asked her husband to swap seats, as it would make her journey less uncomfortable.

No problem?

Alas dear readers you forget one thing, this was a BA flight (run for the convenience of the airline, not the customer).

When the Fischers swapped seats, Mr Fischer placed himself next to a 12 year old boy.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, one the the cabin crew told Mr Fischer to swap back.

For why?

BA do not allow adult males to sit next to unaccompanied children.

For why?

In BA's eyes all males are paedophiles.

Mr Fischer attempted to argue his case, and pointed out that his wife was more comfortable sitting by the window etc.

To no avail.

The staff member informed Mr Fischer that the flight would not take off until he sat where he was told etc etc.

Therefore, in order to get on with the flight, Mr Fischer swapped again with his wife.

On returning to Blighty he wrote to BA asking for an apology. This being BA all he received was the usual mealy mouthed corporate bullshit, that large organisations spew forth to customers who don't swallow hook line and sinker the corporate propaganda that would have them believe that the company gives a fark about the customer (let's face very few large corporations give a fark about the the customer, they only like to say that they do).

Anyhoo, Mr Fischer decided that he wasn't going to roll over and play the corporate bullshit game with BA. He filed a claim at Slough County Court, arguing that the airline's long-standing policy of forbidding men from sitting next to unaccompanied children not only cast the whole male gender in an unsavoury light, but was essentially sex discrimination.

BA is now reported to have admitted sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case, but only in his case, and agreed to pay £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages. Mr Fischer will pay this money to children's charity, and also put some of his own money in as well.

BA have told the BBC that the policy was not discriminatory. However, they also claim that it is now under review.

I understand that Boris Johnson had a similar experience in 2006, despite sitting with his own children at the time.

Mr Johnson wrote in the Telegraph:

"How many paedophiles can there be?

Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?"

Here is some free advice/questions to BA:

1 Not all males are paedophiles.

2 Some women are paedophiles (why does the rule not apply to them as well?).

3 What exactly do you think will happen on a plane full of people, where there are call buttons above every seat?

4 Do you think that making every child afraid of every male adult is a good thing?

BA, well deserving Prats of The Week!

Those of you who wish to debate this issue with Willie Walsh, CEO of BA, feel free to drop him a line willie.walsh@ba.com.

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny Says No!

Back in May I dropped Theresa May a note suggesting that drugs be legalised (referring her to an article I published here).

"Dear Theresa

I refer you to an article that I have written today for my Nanny Knows Best site, on the subject of our failed drugs policy:

http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2010/05/pussycat-pussycat-v-ding-dong-dell.html

"....I say again, without any lack of clarity or fudging of the issue, drugs should be legalised.

Once legalised, they can be taxed and the public properly educated as to their effects.

The legalisation will bring about the end of the stranglehold that the criminal gangs currently have on many of the run down estates in this country. The ending of their supply of easy money will remove their power, kudos and "bling"; their power over others will end.

That surely is a good thing?

Is it not ironic that those who would most strongly resist the legalisation of drugs are those who currently make money of them?...."

Given that I am a middle aged accountant and company director, hardly a criminal or revolutionary, if I can see that the current situation is a shambles and am explicitly calling for the legalisation of drugs why is it that our elected representatives (some of who have taken/continue to take drugs) continue to pursue the same failed policies?

Kind regards

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"

Here is the reply I received today from Richard Mullins (who recently was in a tiz over legal highs being used at music festivals such as Glastonbury).

As can be seen, Nanny has stated very firmly that she will not legalise drugs; stating in a patronising manner "there is good reason" for her actions. I might almost suggest that there is a tone of "shut and and go away" in the reply:)

Funny that, as a voter I thought that I was allowed to express an opinion and ask a question of my elected representatives?

I would note that whenever a politician says "never" in such "final" manner, and states that they have "no intention", then you know that they know that they are on intellectually, factual and morally very shaky ground.

Anyhoo, Nanny's reasoning is a tad "wobbly", here's a few reasons why:

1 She assumes that drug taking equates to addiction, ignoring the fact that there are thousands who use drugs in clubs every Friday and Saturday who are not addicted, nor will ever become addicted.

2 Nanny also ignores the fact that caffeine, fags and booze are also addictive and potentially dangerous drugs; yet they are legal.

3 Nanny is worried that legalisation would "confuse" her healthy living message.

4 I note with a degree of disbelief, that Nanny feels it may be difficult to tax drugs. Since when has the complexity of tax legislation ever stopped her before from taxing something?

5 There is an undercurrent of wishful thinking in Nanny's note that she would very much like to ban booze and fags as well.

6 Nanny states that legalisation would lead to a substantial increase in use. On what empirical evidence is this assertion based?

7 Nanny is worried that if other countries don't follow suit, in legalising drugs, then this country would become a shopping paradise for drugs dealers. Is that not for the customs officials of other countries to worry about?

Is it not ironic that the leader of the "free world" and, allegedly, the leader and chancellor plus others in another country have used class A drugs yet continue to deny others the right to abuse their bodies in the same way?

Drugs were banned in the early 20th century because the "morality movement" managed to gain the upper hand in the legislative process. Had events continued in their favour booze would have also been banned here, as it was in the USA.

We have this hypocritical duality of legislation (legal drugs vs illegal ones) because a single issue pressure group got their way, and the government has not got the political interest nor guts to reverse the situation (bad laws once enacted are very difficult to overturn).

Be warned, if Nanny had her way she would ban booze and fags as well!

This policy is failing and will continue to fail.

"Mr Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM

Reference: T9577/10 28 June 2010



Dear Mr Frost,

Thank you for your email of 29 May to the Home Secretary about the legalisation of controlled drugs. Your email has been passed to the Drug Strategy Unit and I have been asked to reply.

The Government has no intention of legalising the recreational use of any currently controlled drug. Its view is that the drugs subject to our misuse of drugs legislation are controlled for good reasons. Many – like heroin and crack cocaine – are clearly addictive and harmful to health and there is no prospect of the Government authorising their production, supply and possession for that reason. They are and will remain illegal.

Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would also run counter to the Government’s health and education messages. The Government’s educational message – to young people in particular – is that all illegal drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.

The Government’s objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs substantially. If such drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of supply and use, as well as the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, they do help to limit supply and use and deter experimentation.

Those who advocate legalisation suggest that this would reduce a range of harms associated with the illicit control and supply of drugs. But this view tends to take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation; and only takes account of the acquisitive crime that feeds some drug habits, not the crimes committed under the influence of drugs or the drawbacks to a lawful, regulated market. Also, the legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals. Such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

A regulated market for drugs through controlled outlets (e.g. licensed pharmacies) would certainly provide the opportunity for tax revenue. But establishing the level of taxation would be difficult. Setting the price too high would open the door for the illegal markets, while setting it too low could feed that same market. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs which can be substantial and are usually borne by the taxpayer, who needs to be persuaded that the tax is just. Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

Also, it is not clear how such increased access would reduce the incidence of drug taking, if at all. On the contrary, government backing in the form of making controlled drugs readily available might exacerbate the problems and the temptations rather than reduce them. Meanwhile, unilateral action on this or any other government's part would undoubtedly encourage unwanted drug tourism to the country concerned, not least from drug dealers, in the event that there were no similar move to legalise internationally.

The Government understands the arguments for legalising controlled drugs in a regulated way and considers that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. At a time when it is doing much to try to reduce the use of tobacco and misuse of alcohol due to ever greater concerns about their safety, it would be perverse to take the huge gamble with public health that would be involved in legalising currently illegal drugs.

Whilst there will always be calls to legalise, this will not deflect the Government from continuing to focus on its existing multi-faceted approach to drug control. It is committed to reducing drug use and drug harms through targeted actions which have the most impact. In the Government’s view, prevention, education, early intervention, enforcement, treatment and reintegration achieve the best results in addressing the problems of drug addiction, its causes and its impact on crime.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Mullins

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny Misunderstands The Word "Legal"

As people "chill out" at Glastonbury and other festivals, I was gemused to read this week that Nanny's new Minister for Crime Prevention, James Brokenshire, has written to festival organisers asking them to warn people at the dangers of "legal highs".

Letters were also sent to councils and police forces in festival areas.

Brokenshire said:

"We are going to change our drug laws so we can respond quickly to emerging substances by introducing a temporary ban while we seek full scientific advice."

Which part of the word "legal" doesn't he get?

Ban something without evidence?

Surely not???

Nanny really hates the idea of people getting stoned, yet she allows/taxes booze and fags (which are also addictive and dangerous if consumed to excess, as is caffeine).

Oh for a less prissy time when Harrods sold (up to around 1908) "Welcome To London" packs, containing syringes and coke.

I'm not a festival person myself, but I wish those who are (eg Rolf Harris and the Prince of Wales) a "chilled out" time.

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Booze Matters - Nanny Hates The Middle Classes

Oh dear, I see that Nanny has got her beer goggles on again and is using them to have a go at the middle classes.

Nanny's Department for Educashun website (maybe one of the hundreds of useless government sites that our "brave new coalition" is going to shut down?) has published a report that states that there there is a "drinking culture" in some schools dominated by white and middle class pupils.

Shock horror!

It seems that white or non-religious teenagers (what has religion got to do with objecting to booze? Catholics use it in the sacraments) are more likely to drink alcohol.

The study alleges that 55% of young people have tried alcohol by age 14, with girls more likely to do so.

So farking what?

I was given my first sip of beer (barley wine) when I was but a few months old. Children who are brought up with alcohol, in a family setting (eg the French), are more likely to use it "sensibly" than those who are brought up in an atmosphere that gives it the kudos of being "forbidden".

At school I was a founding member of the Oenological Society (wine brewing/drinking). We brewed some real "piss water", but had the right to drink it!

I would also venture to point out that those pubs who have a mix of ages in their customer base are less likely to have bother, than those where only the "young" hang out. The young should be drinking in the presence of the older generation, in order for them to be brought to heel when they start to misbehave.

It's called "responsibility", something that Nanny has tried to denude us of for many ears.

The report, if anyone is interested, says:

"We found that young people who attended schools with a larger proportion of white pupils were more likely to have tried alcohol regardless of their own ethnic group."

Again I ask, so farking what?

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Won't Someone Think of The Children?

Sadly not everyone seems to have realised that ZaNuLabour no longer runs this country, and are still trying to apply that party's discredited social engineering policies.

The core of ZaNaLabour's policies was the "won't someone think of the children?" credo, which was placed at the heart of absolutely everything they did.

Our old "friends" from the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) are still firm believers in the policy, and are demanding that pregnant women (when they book a midwife) be given a carbon monoxide test.

For why?

To determine if they are smokers.

Now we are all aware that smoking during pregancy can cause issues with the foetus. However, so can many other things that expectant mothers do.

Whilst it is easy to let this one slip by, as a non smoker, it is but the slippery slope.

Once NICE have the test results Nanny will then "encourage" the mothers to stop smoking.

The "encouragement" will be made harsher and harsher as time progresses, until it will become mandatory for expectant mothers to quit smoking.

Having conquered the smoking demon, Nanny (NICE) will move on to the drinkers (and demand blood tests for booze).

Once that is done, NICE will demand that pregnant mothers be monitored for their food intake.

Once all of these issues have been neatly dealt with, Nanny will demand that people be given a certificate of "good health" before they try to conceive.

Over reaction?

Variations on this form of state interference in people's breeding habits has been, and is, practised by a number of countries around the world.

Britain is not immune from such policies, as long as quangos such as NICE are allowed to exist.

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries