Nanny's Troublesome Erection

Dear old Nanny simply adores monuments, much like a pathetic third world dictator there is nothing she likes better than constructing a massive erection in a public place.

These erections serve a useful purpose, in her mind, of taking people's minds off the real issues in life and of reminding her humble charges as to her magnificence.

One such erection, specially commissioned by Nanny to staunch the media hysteria after the death of the Royal fashion icon, is the Diana Memorial Fountain.

You will recall that this £5M erection has had a few "health and safety" issues since it was commissioned.

It should therefore come as no surprise to hear that it has suffered yet another problem.

Tessa Jowell, Britain's "highly respected and financially transparent" culture secretary, has revealed that joints between the building blocks are showing hairline cracks because of subsidence.

This sorry excuse of an erection, which has now come to symbolise all the major failings of Nanny and her lackeys (cost overruns, badly thought out, unnecessary etc), will need further repairs to help it withstand the effects of weathering and subsidence.

Jowell has needless to say played down this latest problem, well she would wouldn't she?

She insists that the fountain is in no danger of falling down. The question is, would you trust a woman who claims that she knew nothing about the mortgage arrangements on her own home to be able to judge the structural integrity of an erection?

There is further good news for this costly fiasco, the inquiry by the public accounts committee, is expected to highlight a catalogue of errors with the project and lambast those responsible.

So far it has cost over £2M more than originally estimated.

Although there is no sign that the stone itself is breaking, cracks have appeared in the joints between some of the 545 blocks of Cornish granite.

Now if they had only used Italian marble, I am sure Nanny with her impeccable Italian connections could have found a good deal on a ship load!

Nanny clearly used cowboy builders and designers in this sorry little project, if she cannot even build a fountain why on earth should we trust her with more important and larger projects?

Self Sacrifice

I suspect that there are some of you who may be feeling that Nanny is all talk and no action.

You probably feel that she claims to care about the ordinary men and women under her charge, yet when it comes to demonstrating that she cares there is precious little action.

Well let me tell you how wrong you are, Nanny does care; and I can prove it.

The recent rise in unemployment has caused Nanny no end of grief and lost sleep, she has wracked her brains trying to work out what she can do to help matters.

Then one of her best friends, David Mills (husband of Tessa Jowell), stepped into the breach. He has single handedly increased the number of jobs available to the unemployed, at quite a cost to himself I would add.

Companies House lists Mills as having five current appointments, but it also notes that he has 46 resigned appointments and 54 dissolved appointments.

Now that's a sacrifice, socialism leading by example!

Do Unto Others

Funny that Nanny's Attorney General got so miffed about having his phone conversation recorded by Sir Ian Blair, the Head of the Metropolitan Police.

After all, Nanny is quite happy to monitor the conversations and comings and goings of us mere mortals!

Nanny Bans Plaster

Nanny has a morbid fear of risk, now that would be all well and good if she kept that to herself; unfortunately, she doesn't, and insists on imposing her zero risk policy on all and sundry.

There are a number of problems with a zero risk society, which I refer to as "The Immutable Laws of The Universe":

• It is impossible to achieve a state of zero risk



• The costs of trying to achieve zero risk are truly staggering, and are simply not economically viable



• Struggle gives life meaning



• Profit is the reward for risk.
  
  We live in a capitalist society, and rely on companies and individuals to earn money to make the economy work and grow. Without this growth we would still all be festering in caves.
  
  Zero risk means zero profit, which in turn means that no one would go into business and the economy would grind to a halt

Unfortunately Nanny hasn't grasped these immutable laws of the universe yet!

I am sure that Julie Scott would be inclined to agree with me, that Nanny has gone too far in trying to achieve her view of Nirvana.

Julie was called by staff at Uphill Primary School, near Weston-super-Mare Somerset, last week after her nine year old daughter Emily cut her finger.

The staff at the school have been so brainwashed by Nanny about zeroising risk, that they told Mrs Scott that local council guidelines meant that they were unable to put the sticking plaster on Emily's cut finger.

Mrs Scott had to go to the school herself to bandage her daughter's finger, and left a box of plasters by her desk in case of any further mishaps.

The school claim that strict guidelines, passed down to them from Nanny's hobgoblins in North Somerset Council, meant that they were not allowed to administer plasters.

Emily's father, Kevan, said:

"The whole saga is absolutely ridiculous.

My daughter had a tiny cut and I just cannot see the reason why a plaster couldn't be put on her finger by the staff.

I am not criticising the school at all which has always been great.

The staff I've spoken to there think the rule is stupid also.

When my wife went in to put the plaster on Emily's finger the teachers were apologising to her for having to come in.

It's a ludicrous guideline that the school seem to have been given, people should be men not mice.

Members of the Parents and Teachers Association were saying just the other day how absurd it was.

This is another example of the Nanny state

and the kind of rule that was probably drawn up by a committee

because nobody with any sense would have come up with it on their own."

The hobgoblins in North Somerset Council were not impressed with such a frank expression of opinion by one of Nanny's subjects, a troll for the council said:

"We provide broad guidelines for first aid in schools and there is no mention of using plasters.

Each child joining a school has to produce a medical declaration which includes allergies

and therefore it is down to the school to use its judgement about whether it is appropriate to use plasters or not.

This case highlights that we perhaps need to re-issue guidelines to schools to clarify the issue."

In other words they got it wrong, but being mindless lackeys were not prepared to admit that they got it wrong and blamed the school.

This case exposes Nanny's mindless zero risk policy to be the nonsense that it is. Mankind has been cutting and grazing itself for hundreds of thousands of years, yet it has survived until now.

I well recall my "yoof", when knees and elbows were regularly scrapped by tumbles in the playground. A knotted handkerchief sufficed to staunch the blood flow, and scabs were regularly picked in the following days with glee.

Go on, admit it, you all did the same!

I am now 43, fit and healthy; I managed to escape all forms of blood poisoning and long term scar tissue, despite falling foul of Nanny's current day absurd rules.

These rules will simply turn us into a nation of weaklings, unable to survive the slightest cold or cut.

Nanny, instead of zeroising risks, has issued death sentence on the next generation.

The Wrong Rubbish

Nanny hates litter,

I hate litter,

You hate litter,

We all hate litter!

One thing, at least, that we can all agree on.

Therefore full marks to Andrew Tierney, of Hinckley, who threw some litter into a litter bin on a lamp post last month.

Regrettably for Andrew he reckoned without the snooping and prying eyes of Nanny and her troglodytes.

A fortnight later he received a letter from the trolls who work in Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, they were fining him £50 for his trouble.

Why?

Well you see, Andrew had thrown away two pieces of junk mail that had been thrust into his hand by the postman, as he left for work.

In Nanny's eyes junk mail counts as "domestic refuse", and as such should not be put into a public litter bin.

Two questions immediately spring to mind here:

1 What sad, pathetic, snooping, twat had nothing better to do with his/her life than to spy on Andrew and report him?

2 Was it worse than spying, did some troll from the council go through the contents of the bin and read Andrew's name and address on the letters?

3 Should Andrew have simply thrown the letters onto the street?

Needless to say, Andrew is not taking this pathetic fine lying down; he is going to court over the matter.

Quote:

"I've been fined for doing the right thing

I could have easily chucked those letters on the ground, but I put them in the bin.

What has happened is a joke.

The council is barmy.

I never thought you could get a fine for putting rubbish in a bin

that's what they are there for."

He added:

"The council has told me to pay up or appeal

and there's absolutely no way I'm paying up.

No one I know was even aware a fine like this exists.

You get fined for chucking rubbish on the floor.

You get fined for chucking rubbish in the bin.

So what exactly are you supposed to do?"

The jobsworths at the council refused to back down, and rather incongruously noted that the bin's purpose was to "to keep streets tidy".

A Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council troll noted that junk mail "constituted household waste" which "has a separate collection."

The troll went on to say:

"A fixed penalty notice is served to people who we believe have committed an offence.

Anyone who feels they have been issued with a penalty unfairly can appeal,

and we will consider each case based on the evidence before us.

Our litter bins are there to keep streets tidy, as they enable the public to deposit small amounts of litter.

They are not provided for household waste."

What a plonker!

Now the council are considering putting signs up on the bins, no doubt at great expense!

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council chief executive Steve Atkinson, has he not got better things to do with his time?, got involved in the spat and said:

"If the evidence does not stack up and we are potentially guilty of over-reaction then we need to deal with it in the right way.

If we have over-reacted we will hold our hands up and acknowledge it."

It is hardly surprising that council tax bills keep going up. We will soon suffocate under a morass of red tape and snooping officialdom.

Simple solution, abolish all local councils; they seemingly serve no purpose other than to suffocate and tax their local residents.

On that particular subject you may find www.cracc.co.uk to be of interest:)

Nanny Bans Granny

It seems that not only does Nanny hate teenagers, but she also hates the elderly.

That at least is the experience of Betty Wilbraham, an 82 year old grandmother, who was going for a quiet drink in her local pub - the Hereward in Ely Cambridgeshire.

Betty, as per the custom of a lady brought up in a more genteel age, wears a hat when she goes out. Unfortunately the Hereward has imposed a "No Hats" policy, in order to allow their CCTV system to identify trouble making scumbags.

Now this policy, if applied in a sensible manner, is perfectly reasonable; there are trouble making scumbags who use hoodies and hats to hide from the camera. It is not unreasonable for the pub to ask "likely looking lads" to reveal their acne and pox ridden faces, lest they start to "kick off".

Unfortunately we live in the age of Nanny, where the state has taken responsibility for every aspect of our lives.

The result?

We no longer take responsibility for any aspect of our lives, and we have stopped thinking and using our common sense.

Needless to say Betty's hat caused the jobsworth morons running the pub some form of seizure, they asked her to remove it for security reasons.

The staff were of the opinion that there was a risk she would not be recognised on CCTV cameras if she started any trouble.

I would point out that the hat had maroon ribbons, I am sure that she could have been tracked down by our ever resourceful boys in blue in the event of her "kicking off"; after all if they have the nonce to record the Attorney General on the phone, then they certainly can track down an 82 year old.

Betty, towering above many at just over 5 foot, is none too impressed with the pub and vented her spleen:

"It is ludicrous to think that a little old lady like me could cause trouble in a pub.

I don't consider myself a threatening person.

It just shows the ridiculous nature of some of these rules and regulations.

Everyone is obsessed with security these days.

The girl told me that the pub was a hatless zone.

I did what she said because I did not want to make a fuss and I don't like to disobey orders.

I'm a hat person.

If I am going out to lunch I always wear a hat.

My mother wouldn't have set a foot outside the house for a loaf of bread without her hat.

She would have been horrified if ladies went to lunch without their hats."

Tony Love, the manager and evident lackey of the Nanny state, said:

"We put up the new signs

because we were finding it difficult classing what was a cap.

All customers and staff are treated the same.

In this day and age you don't know who are the troublemakers.

It is pointless having CCTV to protect people if those who cause trouble hide their faces.

I do understand Mrs Wilbraham's point of view but it is for her protection as much as anything else."

Love has clearly fallen under the dubious spell of Nanny, he misses the essential truth that is vital to the harmonious interaction of a mature and vibrant society; namely that people should apply common sense and use their judgement when interacting with people.

Relying on the state to act as arbiter will simply turn us into a nation of mindless automatons, destined to decay and wallow in our own filth as we wait for Nanny to wipe our bottoms.