Nanny Bans Santa

Nanny, as we all know, hates fat people. In her view they are slow witted, lazy, greedy and cost far too much to keep alive.

Far better that everyone looks like Nanny, a shrivelled bitter excuse for a human being with no "joie de vivre".

Anyhoo, Nanny has realised that people are best manipulated by the use of role models. As such she knows that with the coming season of gorging and drinking soon to be upon us (Christmas), she needs to tackle the hero of indulgence and jollity ie Santa.

When Nanny looks at Santa, she does not see a jolly gentleman in a red suit, she sees a fat person who is far too happy for his own good. Therefore she is putting him on an enforced diet.

Santa has been told to lose weight, or be banned from shopping centres at Christmas. Yes I kid you not, Nanny doesn't want children sitting on the laps of fat red faced men anymore; she wants them sitting on the laps of gaunt pasty faced men.

Nanny's lackeys at the Bluewater shopping centre in Greenhithe, have set up a Santa boot camp; where Santa will work out.

Fiona Campbell-Reilly, spokeswoman at the shopping centre, said:

"Santa has been around for years,

but society has changed and our Santa needs to reflect this.

Bluewater's Santa Boot Camp is getting Santa

in shape and setting a good example

to children who idolise him.

He will still be the same lovable jolly man,

but will be fitter and healthier."

Utter bollocks!

Society has not changed, Nanny is trying to change society; that is not the same thing.

Christmas is for wants, not needs!

Grave Concern

The Health and Safety Gestapo strike again, this time not content with interfering with the living they are now interfering with the dead.

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo have been running an ongoing campaign (I first commented on this issue in January 2005) to force families to pay to shore up gravestones deemed "dangerous" by our "old friends" our "respected" local councils.

Needless to say, you can see why Nanny is so keen to interfere here; it's not the safety or otherwise of these gravestones, but the fact Nanny sees the opportunity for a nice little earner for herself and her lackeys.

John Mann has seen through Nanny's scheming and notes, quite rightly, that no-one has been killed by falling headstones in churchyards in the past 10 years.

Yet families are being strong armed into paying local councils money, based on the results of our "old friend" the risk assessment.

Pass the sick bag someone!

The Local Government Association (LGA), needless to say, claim that the money is needed (well they would, wouldn't they?). An LGA spokesman said that most cemeteries are owned by local authorities, and "in the majority of cases" those authorities had covered the cost of making headstones safe.

Where the owners of plots had been charged "these costs are reasonable and it would be unfair to generalise from one authority alone".

Headstones are made safe by "staking" (not something you see in a Hammer film), in which wooden stakes are driven into the ground next to the headstones to prevent them toppling over.

Mr Mann paid for an independent "topple test" at a graveyard in his Bassetlaw constituency, the result indicated that 95% of headstone staking is unnecessary.

The reason that so many "topple tests" are showing up safety problems is that they are contracted out to private companies, who have a financial incentive to deem everything unsafe.

Mr Mann, all credit to him, is now planning on becoming an accredited gravestone "topple tester" so that he can independently check whether head stones need to be shored up.

As he said:

"These things simply don't fall on people.

There is much more chance of people dying

on their way to church."

As ever with "health and safety" rules, an entire industry has sprung up intent on screwing the public for every penny that it has got; aided and abetted by local councils, who take a nice percentage for themselves.

It is time that we rid ourselves of local councils, who add nothing but extra costs and administrative burdens to the daily lives of the people of Britain.

Nanny Bans Bonfires

Remember Remember

The 5th of November

Gun Powder Treason and Plot etc


Tis Guy Fawkes night and, as is tradition, thousands of homes across the country will be preparing bonfires and fireworks parties to celebrate the disemboweling and burning to death of a 17th century terrorist.

Halcyon days!

To be fair, the tradition of bonfire lighting goes back many more centuries than just the 17th. Bonfires were used in the bleak mid winter months to cheer people up, and to celebrate good news.

However, we live in 21st century Nanny Britain now; as such it should come as no surprise that Nanny's minions in her local councils disapprove of such frivolity.

Nanny's chums in Slough Borough Council have banned bonfires and burning Guys from its 5th November celebrations.

What is wrong with burning the effigy of someone who is dead?

There are many countries in the world where effigies of people, who are still alive, are burnt on an almost daily basis.

Anyhoo, Nanny's trolls in Slough Borough Council claim that the polluting effects of smoke would go against its environmental policies, but said rather perversely that it would still display fireworks.

Now tell me I am stupid, but aren't the sulphurous emissions from fireworks equally polluting?

There are some cynics out there who do not believe Slough's rather dodgy explanation, the cynics claim that the change has been ordered so as not to exclude ethnic minorities.

Frankly, if that is true, it sounds a bit half baked to me.

The council have denied the charge, and said the decision was based on environmental concerns alone.

Councillor Dexter Smith, the council's commissioner for planning, said there was a "responsibility to look after our environment and reduce our carbon footprint".

One night, one bonfire!

Seriously, how much of a difference will that make to the world?

It's our farking cultural heritage to set fire to things!

Happy Bonfire Night folks!

Nanny Is Mother Nanny Is Father

It seems that Nanny has few views on what constitutes a "good" parent, as Vincent and Pauline Matherick found this week. They have fostered 28 children, but have had their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

They are practising Christians who are worried that the agreement would force them to promote homosexuality.

The 11 year old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

They became foster parents in 2001, but no longer.

Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Nanny's Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Nanny told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11, and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

Mr Matherick said:

"I simply could not agree to do it

because it is against my central beliefs.

We have never discriminated against anybody

but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality

when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

An extra 8,000 foster parents are needed to fill the gaps in the service.

I am not in the slightest bit religious, I don't care for religions very much and don't believe in God.

I don't like bigotry.

However, the Mathericks don't come across bigoted and it seems that commonsense has been thrown out of the window in the interests of policy.

How does this help the 11 year old?

Nanny will be taking the same line with biological parents next.

Dick Headed Useless Knobheads

Normally I would consider awarding my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award in a case like this. However, having re read it I can only conclude that Broxbourne council has gone way beyond the "prat" stage.

Stan and Jean Chatterton, of Hoddesdon, Herts, have regularly cleaned up fallen crab apples from the grass verge outside their home. They do this in order to prevent them going rotten and becoming a hazard.

Unfortunately, they have reckoned without the interfering jackboot of the local council.

Why do we put up with these useless bodies?

What good do they actually do?

Anyhoo, Broxbourne council have issued an edict to Mr and Mrs Chatterton telling them to stop cleaning up the verge; because if they kept the area tidy themselves, the local authority's cleaning contractors would not know how often to cut the grass.

Eh???

No, I don't understand that either!

Mrs Chatterton said:

"We have been told off for keeping it tidy.

I just don't understand it."

Broxbourne council's edict states:

"Due to the maintenance being carried out by yourself,

we are unable to monitor the frequency

we need to cut the area.

We therefore ask if you would refrain

from maintaining this land from now on."

Total bollocks!

As Mr Chatterton says, the council can simply look at the grass elsewhere to see when they need to cut it.

Clearly the reason stated by the council is utter knobheaded bollocks. The real reason is probably that the Chattertons may now need public liability insurance to carry on maintaining the verge, and the council are too shit scared to admit this.

Useless dick headed knobheads!

Drop the council a note and tell them I said hi: Knobheads.

Duck Off!

Oh dear Nanny has got her knickers in a right old twist over the very harmless habit of feeding the ducks.

Now we all know that to eat, or roll around in duck shit is probably a bad idea. It is fair to say that even the most mentally challenged of us could have worked that out for themselves.

Unfortunately, for the ducks, Nanny doesn't think we are that bright. As such Oakley and Deane Parish Council have banned the feeding of ducks in the local pond.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council chairman Councillor John Strawbridge said:

"The pond has always been popular with locals

and an attractive feature of Oakley.

We don't want to be killjoys and we'd like

to encourage people to carry on enjoying it,

but feeding the ducks puts a strain on its entire eco-system".

He then went on to fret about the bread being bad for the ducks.

Oakley and Deane Parish Council admit that they have little proof to back up their ban. Indeed, common sense would dictate that if ducks didn't like the bread, then they wouldn't eat it.

Hilary Box, 75, who had a contract for 22 years to feed the ducks, thinks the whole idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"The sign says that feeding bread to ducks

can be bad for them but I think we have the

healthiest ducks in the world.

The bread does not appear to have done

them any harm and they haven't suffered over the years.

Feeding ducks is part of the English way of life,

it's part of the heritage to come to the local

pond with some bread. "

For fark's sake, it's a 400 year old village pond with a few ducks!

Doubtless it has been there longer, without causing any harm, than those on the Parish Council.

Another fine example of a useless interfering council, that adds zero value to people's lives.

Someone should ban the feeding of local councillors!