Prats of The Week - Aceeed!!

Dear me it has been while since I have awarded my prestigious, and world famous, "Prats of The Week" award.

This week, without any doubt whatsoever, the judges were unanimous in their decision to award it to Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.

It seems that Nanny's unhealthy obsession with paedophilia has reached new heights of hysteria there, as the school have published photos of their pupils (perfectly innocent and non offensive) with the children's faces hidden by a smiley from the acid house days of the 80's.

For why?

Well, seemingly, the school believes that by showing the actual faces the kids will be exposed to all sorts of paedophile shit.

All very well, if Britain has become a nation of paedophiles and if the kids names and addresses etc were also published.

However, as far as I can tell none of that is the case.

However, in Nanny's world, fear is the key to keeping good order.

Headmistress Clare Reece said:

"The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.

Not all parents want their children's picture on there.

You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures.

In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."



Surely the safety of the kids is the key issue, not the safety of the pictures??

Rather bizarrely, she went on to say that the photographs were printed unaltered in the school newsletter which was sent to parents.

How can the school guarantee that the recipients of the newsletter won't do anything weird with the pictures?

This whole idea is of course bollocks:

1 The children's personal safety is not impaired one way or another by having their face shown, so long as there are no personal details, eg address, disclosed

2 This sends a message to kids that all adults are predators, and should be feared. How healthy a message is that to give them?

3 It also, I have to say, looks very odd indeed and bit weird/sick to do this.

4 Why bother putting photos up at all?

5 School photos have been taken for decades, to show pride and achievement. Millions of us have survived having had our photo taken at school (and displayed), without being dragged off the street by some stalker. The worst that would happen would be the ridicule of one's contemporaries.

I am not alone in thinking this is all bollocks.

Shaun Kelly, spokesman for Children's charity NCH, said:

"The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving?

It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels.

We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."

Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, was even more cutting:

"Every time a school takes silly measures, it says we see the world through the eyes of a paedophile.

They think that any innocent picture of school children will somehow be subverted and manipulated.

These pictures serve a very important purpose of giving children clear images of their experiences, something they can remember later in life.

Depriving ourselves of these experiences is not only irrational but serves no purpose whatsoever."

Rather bizarrely, the school has now taken down the pictures; a message on the website did say:

"Our newsletter section is undergoing maintenance. Back soon!"

However, that has now disappeared too.

I smell a cock up of the first magnitude!

Nanny has a sick mind, and she is trying to infect us with her fears and phobias.

Cann Hall Primary School (or rather those in charge of Cann Hall Primary School) well deserving Prats of The Week.

The Dangers of Lamposts

Have you ever been wandering down the street, texting away merrily on your "Raspberry", when suddenly you find yourself walking into a lamppost?

Have no fear, you need injure yourselves no more.

Nanny has come up with the perfect solution to the menace of lampposts.

She is going to wrap them in padding.

Yes, that's right, she will pad them for your safety and comfort!

It has finally come to this, Nanny really does wnat to wrap us up in cotton wool!

A pilot scheme has been launched in Brick Lane (London), after it was found to have the highest number of "walking and texting" injuries in the country.

Seemingly 10% of people have hurt themselves while focused on their mobile phone screen, that at least is the finding of a survey conducted by 118 118 (the phone directory service). Quite how reliable this "statistic" is I have no idea.

The charity Living Streets has teamed up with 118 118, to test a scheme to pad lampposts.

A poll will be carried out on Brick Lane to gauge the response of locals.

If successful, the concept will be rolled out in Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool.

This sounds like complete bollocks, and I can only assume is a rather a lame PR stunt by 118 118.

The cheaper solution to these "walk and text" injuries is simple:

LOOK WHERE YOU ARE GOING!

The Joy of Lard

Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are becoming increasingly concerned about our level of fatness, and our eating habits, no change there then!

As such they are going to launch a drive against fat, rumour has it that the FSA are considering warning us about the dangers of cheese sandwiches and buttered toast.

The FSA commissioned consumer research which showed that shock tactics, such as graphic images of furred blood vessels and fat deposits, were the best way to change people's diet.

It seems that this time next year we will have endure yet another one of Nanny's remorseless campaigns warning us about the dangers of our everyday, simple pleasures.

The FSA is rumoured to be considering testing messages that show that ordinary foods (eg meat, dairy, snacks and confectionery) are far higher in saturated fats than people realise.

It seems that they are considering using the same form of warning that is printed on fag packets...and we all know how "effective" they have been!

Nanny and the FSA need to remember that, unlike smoking, we really all do have to eat food everyday. You cannot, and should not, criminalise food and eating!

The warnings will include one informing consumers that two slices of buttered toast contain more saturated fat than four doughnuts, and that one cheese sandwich contains more than half the daily amount of saturated fat.

CMI Research, who prepared the report for the FSA, said:

"Shock tactics show potential.

The researchers said that graphic images of fat had a big impact on consumers they spoke to.

Dramatising the amount of saturated fat in foods in an unexpected and unappetising way proved effective, as almost all were repulsed by the idea of eating lard."

Hang on lads, I am not repulsed by eating lard (beef dripping)!

I like it!

The FSA should remember that the body is like a car engine, just as the engine needs oil to lubricate its moving parts, so does the blood in the body need fat to enable it to travel smoothly between the organs.

We would simply seize up without fat.

Here is a perfect recipe for lard (dripping):

Ingredients

-1 slice of thick cut white bread

-Dripping

-Salt and pepper

Method

-Toast the bread

-Spread a liberal portion of dripping (at least 1 cm thick) onto the toast

-Season copiously with salt and pepper

Enjoy!

Needless to say, the FSA has denied it is considering warnings on packaging. However, it then went on to say that it still had a wide range of consultations to make before deciding how best to convey its message. In other words, they do want to use warning messages and if the public reaction is muted we will get them.

I suggest that you purchase one of these fine T shirts or thongs from The Joy of Lard, just to show Nanny what you think of her plans.



Any profits made will be used to add to my collection of lard and dripping.

Theme Tune

I think this site deserves a theme tune, I believe that this may fit the bill very nicely.

"You've got to fight for what you want

For all that you believe

It's right to fight for what we want

To live the way we please

Life and love and happiness are well worth fighting for

Never count the cost or worry that we'll fall

It's better to have fought and lost than not to have fought at all etc..."

All together now!

Nanny Bans Fireworks Again - Via The EU

It should come as no surprise at all to learn that Nanny is doing her best to try to ban fireworks again. Fireworks are fun, and Nanny hates people having fun.

This time Nanny is using her chums in the EU, that most monstrous and corrupt of organisations, to try to ban them.

A directive approved by MEPs (the people who don't want us to read the report into fraud and corruption within the EU) and EU ministers will force Britain and other member nations to adopt new safety regulations by 2010.

It seems that the EU Health and Safety Gestapo are even more officious than our own, they want firework manufacturers to pay for the retesting of tens of thousands of fireworks already considered safe in Britain.

Tom Smith, the Confederation of British Industry spokesman for the pyrotechnics industry, said that the new rules would make it impossible for firework-display firms to produce shows of variety and value.

"Not a single person in Britain will be made safer by all this additional testing, but everyone will be affected by it becoming much more expensive and bureaucratic to import fireworks.

It's a very real threat. You won't have New Year's Eve shows in London and Edinburgh, or on Guy Fawkes Night.

We wouldn't even have a display at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics."

The new European standard means that people will be told to retire at least 26ft after lighting a firework, as opposed to the current 16ft. Many people's gardens are not that big, hence the new rule will stop people holding displays in their own homes.

As ever, we see that the state (this time in the guise of the EU) adds no value to the quality of people's lives. Its sole raison d'etre is to create rules and regulations that justify its own miserable and corrupt existence.

Ask your MEP (if you know who that is) why we are not allowed to read the report on corruption within the EU and the fraud perpetrated by many of the MEP's wrt fraudulent expense claims.

The EU is rotten to the core, and needs to be chopped down to size.

Put a Cork In It!

Give me strength!

One of Nanny's chums, associated with the butchers' profession, is whinging on about booze again.

This time the "big threat" to our health comes from normal sized bottles of wine. Evidently, according to Trish Groves (Deputy Editor of The British Medical Journal) we are all too stupid and weak to be trusted with a whole bottle of wine.

In her view this is too tempting for us; when we open it, we are likely to drink the whole bottle.

Her solution?

Make supermarkets etc sell half bottles instead.

Ms Groves said:

"It's all too tempting to finish the bottle there and then to avoid waste.

Coupled with the news that wine is getting stronger, it's no wonder Britain's middle classes are getting wasted."

-Dare I suggest that the urge to down a whole bottle, once it is opened, is hers?

-Is she in fact speaking for herself here?

-Is it possible that the person she is trying to protect from "hazardous" middle class drinking is herself?

She went on to say:

"My local supermarket has row upon row of good looking wines in 75cl bottles - but it offers only three wines in half-bottles, hides them with the dessert wines that nobody drinks, and bumps up the prices prohibitively."

Well, I will agree with one point, let's push for booze to be cheaper!

OK, here's why she is talking bollocks:

• Some years ago I was on the morning Korean Air flight from Seoul to Tokyo, and partook of a particularly fine English breakfast whilst on board; eggs, bacon, sausage, hash browns etc ...the full monty!
  
  To accompany this fine repast, I had a bottle of red wine. Now the airline, as all airlines do, served the wine in those itty bitty bottles (I think they are a third of a bottle?). Needless to say, one itty bitty bottle was not enough to do justice to this fine repast, I needed had to have at least two more before feeling sated.
  
  Therefore, as this scientific research proves, small bottles in fact encourage you to drink more!



• People have free will and are able, if they wish, to say no; it is not obligatory to drink an entire bottle of wine once it is opened. Nanny and her chums should stop trying to label us as weak willed morons, unable to control and manage our own lives.



• The butchers' profession, and indeed the world of journalism, is inhabited by a statistically significant number of people who are overweight, smokers, drinkers and substance abusers. I do not think that they are in a position to give the rest of us advice as to what we should or should not eat, drink or smoke.



• Bottles of wine have corks, they can be replaced once opened. May I suggest that Ms Groves puts a cork in it!