Nanny Arrests Gollys

Nanny, you will recall, many moons ago banned Gollies on the basis that they were deemed to be racist.

However, sometimes with Nanny simply banning things does not quite give her the "kick" that she used to get in her younger days. Therefore she has to resort to more draconian measures in order to feel the same "rush".

Nanny's chums in the West Mercia police were in need a of a little "rush" themselves recently, evidently arresting criminals doesn't quite provide the same buzz that it used to. Therefore they decided to arrest some Gollies, who were "loitering with intent" in a shop window.

The dolls were seized from the window of a shop on suspicion of causing "alarm, harassment or distress" under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I can't quite see the scenes of "alarm and distress" that a few stuffed toys can have caused, but evidently as the result of one complaint from some sad individual the police felt that they had to act; you know that they always act very quickly when it comes to robberies and other acts of criminality.

The dolls were on display in the window of Pettifer's hardware and general store in Bromyard Herefordshirewhen, owned by Donald Reynolds.

Mr Reynolds feels that the entire event was "a ridiculous farce".

He was having lunch on February 12, when the police called. He was asked to bring a key to the shop, where he found an officer.

Quote:

"He said, 'I've come about the gollies. We've had a complaint they are causing offence'.

I couldn't believe it."

The officer then clambered into the window display and seized the dolls. I would note at this stage that it is perfectly legal to sell Golliwoggs. However, Nanny warned Mr Reynolds that putting them on display could be judged offensive.

Mr Reynolds had bought 100 Golliwoggs in three sizes, and they had been selling like "hot cakes".

Mr Reynolds added:

"When I realised what the police wanted with me that day I thought, this is society gone mad.

When the police said they had received a complaint

I thought I was on Candid Camera."

Needless to say, the police eventually realised that they had acted stupidly, and returned the Gollys.

The police said:

"Officers consulted appropriate partner agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service.

No offences have been identified and the items will be returned.

Suitable advice about the sensitivities of placing such items on display is being provided to the store owner.

West Mercia Constabulary considers the matter to be closed."

Note the phrase "no offences have been identified". In other words they acted without there ever being a breach of the law, but they looked very hard to try to find one!

Can the police, or rather should the police, be able to do that?

Is it their role to act as "thought police"?

I think not!

The police, having given the Gollys a large amount of publicity and drawn everyone's attention to the matter, can now be content in the knowledge that the Gollys will be publicly sold at an auction for charity.

Nanny at her finest!

Nanny Bans Bonking II

Following on from yesterday's article about Nanny banning bonking, there may be some of you who have decided that Nanny's rules have made it simply too difficult to engage in sex with another human being; as such you may have concluded that the only other solution is to "fly solo".

I'm afraid it will not be as simple as that.

Nanny has just released an urgent health advisory notice about the dangers of masturbation, see below.

Sorry folks!

Nanny Bans Bonking

WARNING THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS PHRASES OF A SEXUAL NATURE

Those of you who wish to indulge in the traditional British Saturday night pastime, of having a few drinks then having a bit of rumpy pumpy, may find themselves a little disappointed.

Nanny has decided to interfere in our sex lives, and has issued some guidelines as to what we have to do before indulging in our sexual pecadildos. In fact we will all have to complete some paperwork before we get our legs over in the future.

In Nanny's view we are simply too irresponsible to be allowed to have sex on our own (not literally folks!), in future it will have to be under her strict supervision. I always thought that she had voyeuristic tendencies.



To this end Nanny's chums in the Home Office are launching a £500K publicity campaign telling men to ensure that a woman has consented to sex, lest they be accused of rape.

The campaign will start next week and will feature; radio adverts, ads in men's magazines, stickers on condom machines and posters in pub toilets.

Nanny believes that we are all "confused" about sex, or rather the implications of her Sexual Offences Act 2003.

In other words, Nanny knows that her act if taken literally (which happens all to frequently these days with her daft laws) will cause almighty problems for us mere mortals. Another example of a badly drafted piece of legislation, which we have to suffer.

The act states that the burden to prove consent lies with the man, who has to show that he had taken 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the woman had consented to sex.

In other words, all men are rapists until they prove otherwise.

One of Nanny's troglodytes in the Home Office said:

"Giving consent is active not passive, and it's up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity."

The act also states that a person must have the freedom and capacity to consent to sex, which means that if a woman is drunk she has not the ability to give consent.

Now think about that for minute will you, Nanny is saying that women once they have a few drinks are too stupid and irresponsible to be allowed to make decisions. Nanny says that only the man, even if he himself has had a few, can actually be relied upon to make a rational and informed decision. In a nutshell, Nanny believes that women are not able to look after themselves.

Ladies, may I ask, how do you feel about that?

Are you not capable of looking after yourselves, under normal circumstances, on an evening out?

Don't you think that Nanny is being a tad patronising here?

I would also note that the presumption that the man has to prove that consent was given, means that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has been abandoned.

Nanny really does hate "due process"!

The only, and most effective, way that people can be sure that they will not fall foul of this daft law is for each party to the rumpy pumpy session to sign a waiver before they "get down to it".

I would also note another problem with Nanny's view of sex, what about lesbians and gays?

Who in the coupling there takes the "man's" role of protector of the "weak and feeble" woman in Nanny's distorted and confused view of sex?

The law is a total arse, Nanny has forgotten the fundamental rule governing British society; namely that British people can only have sex when they are pissed out of their brains.

Nanny Bans Parliament

We all know that Nanny has nothing but contempt for Parliament. In her eyes it is an annoying obstacle to her plans for "improving" how we live our lives.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to hear that she is working on ways to usurp Parliament's right to pass laws and debate government Bills.

A couple of weeks ago Nanny proposed a Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws.

Constitutional experts are calling it "The Abolition of Parliament Bill".

The actual title of the Bill is "The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill". This Bill will give ministers the power to alter any law passed by Parliament.

Read that again, and think about what it means!

The only limitations will be that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison, and that it cannot increase taxation.

All other laws can be changed.

The mechanism for change would simply be that a minister proposes an order, then the law is changed.

This means that ministers would not have to debate their proposals, or answer any questions about them; ie Parliament will be by-passed and neutered!

It seems that if the Bill is passed any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and companies, could be reorganised or abolished.

Nanny says that there is nothing to worry about, she claims that the Bill will not be used for "controversial" matters.

Hands up all those who believe that?

Nanny should remember that the purpose of Parliament is to subject ministers and their laws to scrutiny, and to make them accountable for their actions. This ensures that, where there is an effective opposition, the worst excesses of government can be avoided and that the laws passed are workable and reasonable.

However, Nanny doesn't give a stuff for Parliamentary obstacles; she is in a hurry to leave a legacy.

Beware an old woman in a hurry!

Nanny Bans Black Sheep

Nanny is a firm believer in the principle that if she starts moulding a child at a young enough age, then she will have that child for life.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that Nanny seeks to interfere in the education and development of pre school toddlers.

Nanny's best friend Stuart Chamberlain, manager of the Family Centre in Abingdon and the Sure Start centre in Sutton Courtenay Oxfordshire, has decided that traditional nursery rhymes are no longer "PC". As such he has decided to rewrite a few old classics, lest the originals "cause offence" to children.

Ladies and gentlemen I present Chamberlain's version of "Baa Baa Black Sheep"; altogether now:

"Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep..."

Enough of that crap!

It seems that Chamberlain is worried that the word "black" is racist, what a prat! By the way, what the f**k is a rainbow sheep anyway?

Chamberlain justifies his inane idea in an interview with a local newspaper:

"This is fairly standard across nurseries.

We are following stringent equal opportunities rules.

No one should feel pointed out because of their race, gender or anything else."

In addition to black sheep being banned, poor old Humpty Dumpty loses his raison d'etre and no longer has "a great fall"; as Nanny feels that children will be upset by the idea of him falling off a wall.

I would remind Nanny that whilst she saves children from the trauma of an imaginary egg man falling off a wall, the same children are happily subjected to daily diet of violent abusive shit such as EastEnders on the TV.

Which is worse, I wonder?

By the way, in case your wondering, Snow White has lost her seven dwarfs!

Nanny's lackeys in Ofsted, the watchdog which inspects Sure Start centres, confirmed the new policy; it seems that centres are expected to "have regard to anti-discrimination good practice" and that staff should "actively promote equality of opportunity".

The DfES washed their hands of the matter, in true Nanny style, by saying:

"We don't support this approach to the teaching of traditional nursery rhymes,

but any such decision would be taken locally."

In case you are wondering, "Baa Baa Black Sheep" was written in 1744 as a political protest about wool imports; ie it has nothing to do with racism, but of course Nanny is too lazy and too stupid to bother checking that out.

Nanny Comes A Calling

"You'd better watch out

You'd better take care

You'd better check your underwear

Nanny's coming to town

Nanny's coming to call

Nanny's coming to call on you, today.."

Yes folks, up until now Nanny was just someone you read about and had nightmares about.

Now she's coming to town, possibly to a home near you, in person!

Cue the dramatic "DUN DUN DUN!" music.

Nanny has decided that some people really don't know how to behave. Therefore she is going to send in her own battalion of supernannies to the homes of "problem" families.

This is yet another of Nanny's answers to anti social behaviour.

Nanny will send disciplinarians, no jokes about phone box cards and personal services please folks, to impose order on problem households.

Specially trained social workers will use similar techniques to those used by the Channel 4 series "Supernanny", they will be assigned to individual families for up to 15 months.

Nanny's chums in the Home Office say that there will be "no escape" from them, as they spend "morning, noon and night" with parents and their youngsters.

I thought that house arrest was generally only practiced by third world dictatorships?

The nannies will do the job of the parents, and totally take over every aspect of the family's daily lives; they will arrive early each morning to ensure the household is out of bed and youngsters sent to school. Their tasks will include ensuring children are properly fed and dressed, and encouraging layabout parents to find a job.

It really has come to this, that the state is now taking over the role of the parent!


Once that happens, any last vestige of resistance to Nanny will be crushed.

Nanny's little troll, Hazel Blears the Home Office minister, puts it rather "eloquently":

"What makes this project distinctive and different is that a lead person 'grips' the household and the range of services and professionals that are involved with the families."

Case workers will be ordered to do whatever it takes, within the law, to gain access to the family home every morning. They will stay until the young children are put to bed in the evening, and until they are confident the older children are off the streets.

Nanny's Home Office said:

"These workers will be with the family morning, noon and night.

If they have to shout through the letter box and bang on doors to get through the door, that is what they will do."

By the way, this will cost £15,000 per family.

Nanny has forgotten that the reason that families are behaving like this is because the state, by interfering in our daily lives, has taken away people's self responsibility.

To my view there is simpler solution, stop paying benefits to anti social scumbags and run them out of town.

Less than a hundred years ago local communities would take matters into their own hands when a family was considered to be disruptive. The residents would gather outside the house of the nuisance family, and start to bang dustbin lids and shouting until the family got the message and left town; the family would be literally "drummed" out of town.

We do not owe people a living; PERIOD!