The Dangers of Eggs - Update

This just in:

"Dear Mr Frost,

Many thanks for sending me the link to the blog.

It appears that you disagree with the TV advertising code which all TV advertising should comply with. Clearcast is not responsible for its wording, and you therefore may want to raise your concern with those responsible.

Kind regards,

Kristoffer Hammer

Kristoffer Hammer | Editorial Standards Manager
Clearcast Ltd
2nd Floor | 4 Roger Street | London | WC1N 2JX"

The Dangers of Eggs

Those of you with long memories may well recall that fine old series of adverts (featuring Tony Hancock) "Go to Work on an Egg".

However, times change, and since then Nanny in her many guises (the rot set in with Eggwina Currie) has been lecturing us about the evils of eggs (aside from their "binding qualities", they are harmless).

I don't know why she has got such an antipathy towards them, they are:

1 An excellent source of protein

2 Cheap

3 Versatile

4 Tasty

5 Easy to store and cook

Nanny would have us believe that they are a dangerous source of cholesterol.

This is of course bollocks.

Anyhoo, Nanny has got herself into a right old state over a proposed advert for eggs by Noble Foods that uses children's voices.

The advertisers want to use the children's song, "Chick, chick, chick, chick, chicken, lay a little egg for me".

Nothing wrong with that is there?

WRONG!!!!!

Nanny's trolls in the advertising watchdog Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (a little known body, that is only notable for having banned last year's revival of the Hancock egg adverts...can you see a pattern here folks?) are very upset about the whole thing and have banned it.

Their rationale?

Using children's voices was outside the television standards code, even though no children actually appear in the advert.



Kristoffer Hammer, from BACC, said that BACC allowed children under some circumstances to feature in egg adverts, but their voices could not be used to "promote" omega 3 eggs, a concept that most children would not be interested in.

Noble Foods spokesman, Finn Cottle, said:

"We're beginning to suspect that the BACC has a vendetta against eggs."

Indeed she has Mr Cottle!

I can only assume that when she was a child Nanny suffered some form of egg related trauma, which has left her scarred for life. If not, she should have done!

Last year, you will recall, BACC banned the Tony Hancock advert.

Why?

It featured him eating two eggs for breakfast.

BACC said that this promoted an unbalanced diet.

My message to BACC is simple:

FARK OFF!!!

Breeda McBrearty, a nutritionist, quite rightly thinks that BACC is talking out of it own backside. She said that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that children should not enjoy eggs as part of a healthy diet.

Those of you wishing to drop Kristoffer Hammer of BACC a line, with your thoughts on the matter, can email him here kristoffer.hammer@clearcast.co.uk

Take a trip down memory lane and watch BACC's banned Tony Hancock adverts here:

-Housekeeper

-Soul

-Burst Pipe

-Crossword

-Bill

-Englishman

-Star

-Violin

Maybe BACC will try and ban this site too?

Nanny Bans Pancakes Again

Happy Shrove Tuesday everyone!

Traditionally a day when people mix a batter of flour, eggs and milk and toss it frantically in a frying pan.

Well that was the tradition, until Nanny put her nose into things. Three years ago I wrote about Nanny banning pancakes, now she is up to her old tricks again.

The Shrove Tuesday annual pancake race in Ripon has been scrapped this year because of health and safety considerations.

The revived event (originally dating back 600 years) has been carried out for the last 11 years in modern times; with local children, traders, clergy and soldiers taking part.

Unfortunately, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo have put their size ten jackboots into the batter and have caused the event to be cancelled.

For why?

The Dean of Ripon, the Very Rev Keith Jukes, co-organiser of the races, explained:

"We have looked at this and there are a number of reasons it won't take place and a big reason sadly this year is health and safety.

Any organisation which runs an event has to go through a number of risk assessments. The insurance companies demand it and in the end you have to work out whether it's a risk you take.

There is also the whole issue of road closures which can be an expensive business."

Pass the sick bag someone!

A risk assessment for a pancake race?

The insurance companies, and councils that kowtow to them, are destroying the fabric of people's daily lives.

It is time that these two malign influences on our lives were cut out from society, in the manner that one would cut out a scrofulous tumour.

In order to really annoy Nanny, here is a nice recipe for Swedish pancakes; go on, live a little!

Ingredients

- 2 cups milk
- 4 eggs
- 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
- 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
- 3 tablespoons sugar
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- Lingonberries or raspberries
- Seedless raspberry jam or fruit spread, warmed Whipped topping

Preparation

In a blender, combine the first six ingredients. Cover and process until blended. Heat a lightly greased 8-in. nonstick skillet; pour 1/4 cup batter into centre of skillet. Lift and tilt pan to evenly coat bottom.

Cook until top appears dry; turn and cook 15-20 seconds longer. Repeat with remaining batter, adding oil to skillet as needed. Stack pancakes with waxed paper or paper towels in between. Reheat in the microwave if desired.

Fold pancakes into quarters; serve with berries, raspberry jam and whipped topping.

Please note it contains eggs, milk, salt and sugar...all the things that Nanny hates!

Happy Shrove Tuesday everyone!

Get tossing!

Fly Posting

Rules come first, commonsense comes last.

That's Nanny's golden rule, and she is not changing it for anyone.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that a charity bingo event in Misterton, a village in Somerset, recently came a cropper when it tried to advertise its existence by putting up some flyers on lamp posts.

The event, to raise money for children, was to be held down a rather off the beaten track lane; and the organisers wanted to make sure that people could find their way there. Therefore putting up a few flyers on lampposts seemed to be a good idea.

Wrong!

The local council were informed by someone with too much time on their hands about the fliers, and immediately ordered that they be taken down.

Paul Bradly, treasurer of the village hall committee, wrote to South Somerset District Council to complain.

Nanny's trolls on South Somerset District Council responded thus:

"It is not our intention to deprive the village of community events. It is just our duty to enforce legislation in regards to anti-social behaviour."

Ah yes, the old "I'm only obeying orders" response!

Mr Bradly was quite rightly unimpressed:

"The fliers drum up interest in an event. The more people find out about it the more will come and the more money will be raised.

How is that anti-social?

This is all just completely ridiculous. I personally don't understand the problem with it as long as they are taken down afterwards which they are.

It would be different if it was a profit-making business. But a local charity is not the same as a travelling circus putting up large banners.

How else would people find out about fundraising events?"

However, Mr Bradley has made the mistake of assuming that Nanny and her jobsworths in local councils use commonsense...they don't!

Rigid application of the petty rules and regulations is all that matters to these people.

For good measure, the council threatened to fine the village hall £75 for fly-posting.

A spokeswoman for South Somerset District Council said that charities should not consider themselves exempt from the law.

Quote:

"We have recently had a complaint from a resident about signs littering the countryside so we had to act upon it.

Putting signs up like this without gaining permission is illegal.

I'm afraid littering and acting illegally is considered a form of anti-social behaviour."

I can't say that I am particularly impressed with the sad individual who complained about this, but the council should have used some commonsense.

Commonsense, unfortunately, is in rather short supply these days in local councils.

The Lunchbox Inspectors

Oh dear, is there nothing that Nanny and her trolls won't poke their noses into?

Now it seems that dinner ladies could soon be used to monitor school lunchboxes, in order to ensure that children are eating healthy meals.

Under Nanny's "obesity strategy" (give me strength!), there are plans to force all schools to implement a "healthy lunchbox policy".

Good grief!

Seemingly parents may even be asked to sign a form agreeing to ban unhealthy foods from their children's lunches.

Nanny has also called on heads to stop children from leaving schoolgrounds during lunchtimes.

Well, I realise that schools are not places that any child wants to be in, but really....do we have to make them prison camps???

When I was a "nipper" my mum would make me a nice lunchbox containing a myriad of delights, eg:

-a thermos of soup
-a banana sandwich
-homemade crisps (with added salt and grated cheese)
-a chocolate cup cake, or Jaffa cakes

Nanny wouldn't have approved of much of that.

Even the soup was risky, one day I dropped the thermos and the vacuum glass interior broke. Being a thickheaded child I happily drank the contents anyway, wondering why there were silver bits in the soup.

When I came back home I told my mum about this, and she promptly rushed me off to the doctor.

"Don't worry Mrs Frost, they don't use mercury now and whatever he swallowed will come out later."

Look at me now...perfectly healthy, and fully functional!

As Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said:

"We don't need politicians to tell us what to put in our lunchboxes."

Quite!

Once Nanny has implemented this policy it will dawn on her that the kids' diet is dictated, in the main, by what they eat at home.

Next step, Nanny will be inspecting people's dining tables (yes, I know people don't use tables anymore!).

Nanny Bans Salt Again and Again

It's a funny old thing, but yonks ago (18th September 2004 to be precise) when I first started this website, my very first article was about Nanny's obsession with salt.

How times have changed!

Errrmmmm, well no they haven't.

Three and a half years on, Nanny is still going on about salt. Yesterday I wrote about saltshakers having their holes reduced in number (wouldn't it be easier just to block a few holes with sticky tape?).

Today I would like to advise you that one of Nanny's special little trolls wants to ban salt from the dining tables of people's homes.

Martin Wiseman, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathologists, has said that food should only be seasoned with pepper or herbs in order to reduce salt intakes to recommended levels.

Prof Wiseman said:

"Because salt is added by food manufacturers, there is too much of it in our food before it even reaches our dinner table. By adding extra salt to a meal, you are only making things worse."

Doesn't the "safe" dosage of salt rather depend on:

- how much water you drink?

- whether you are sweating a lot?

- how much ready made food, or fresh food you eat?

- your body mass?

- your age?

I would point out that when I was a wee nipper (about 6 years old) my mum used to buy blocks of crystallised sea salt. They were solid blocks, wrapped in blue paper, around 12 inches high by 4 inches square.

My task was to "shave" them into salt crystals for our salt pots etc.

Mum would give me a knife, and let me get on with the shaving.

Can you see two Nanny dangers here?

1 A child with a knife

2 A child with salt

Call the Nanny police!

I always enjoyed salt shaving, and would take a few chunks to munch on.

It never did me any harm, as you can see.

Blanket bans and blanket advice is meaningless.

As a professor he should know that.

Same old story, same old tune from Nanny!