Contemptible and Loathsome

One of the worst aspects of living in the Nanny state is the fact that Nanny's bad habits are adopted by many other people, as they seek to blame others for their own failings or simple bad luck.

Here is, in my view, a text book example of how Nanny is negatively impacting the behaviour of people living in this country.

Mr and Mrs Boardman (in their eighties) who live in Lincolnshire called paramedics last year when Mrs Boardman, who has heart trouble, fell ill.

When one of the ambulance workers (a technician) went to collect a stretcher from the ambulance, he fell over in the Boardmans' driveway.

Can you guess what is happening now?

Yes, that's right, this person (I have thought of using various fine Anglo Saxon words to describe him, but am containing myself) now wants to sue them.

The Boardmans have received a letter from his solicitors saying that he is seeking damages for personal injury.

The East Midlands Ambulance Service appear to be washing their hands of the matter, and claim that he is pursuing the matter in his own right. This implies that his work insurance policy does not cover this claim, which in itself speaks volumes about the credibility of the claim in the first place (ignoring the fact that he is trying to claim off the Boardmans).

Unsurprisingly neither the technician nor his solicitors were available for comment, too shame faced I would imagine.

However, the letter from his solicitor to the Boardmans says that the technician fell when the couple's security light flickered out.

Needless to say this disgraceful and contemptible claim is causing the Boardmans a lot of stress. Jim Boardman said:

"I think it's morally wrong.

There are other side issues to be considered... people could be reluctant to call the public services and it brings into disrepute an organisation which I've got the greatest admiration for."

Now, if you didn't think that this was bad enough, read what Unison (The Public Sector union) has to say on the matter!

Carol Brown from Unison said:

"I can't comment on this specific case because I don't know if this worker is one of our members but if our members are injured during work then of course the union would support them.

I can understand people finding it hard to believe but of course if someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

Read this bit again:

"If someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

BOLLOCKS!

No they don't!

This is the very essence of Nanny in her worst form.

Accidents happen; sometimes because of negligence, sometimes because of people's own stupidity and sometimes because of sheer bad luck.

Using accidents as an excuse to screw people for money is contemptible.

The union are loathsome scumbags for condoning this kind of morally reprehensible behaviour.

Are we now to assume that all emergency services will first have to conduct a risk assessment of a caller and their home, before they will attend an incident or emergency?

Mark my words, that is where this is leading.

Needless to say, the Boardmans say they are now reluctant to call the emergency services.

Nanny has destroyed our society!

Nanny Bans Fire Extinguishers

Following on from yesterday's piece about Nanny banning firemen from entering smokers' homes to offer fire prevention advice, I would like to continue with the general theme of fire safety.

It transpires that those appliances that you and I assume are there to help us fight fires, fire extinguishers, are a clear and present danger to our health and safety.

That at least is the view of Nanny's chums in Hamilton Townsend, managing agents for a block of flats in Bournemouth.

A risk assessment (pass the sick bag) was recently carried at Avon House and Admirals Walk by a buildings risk assessor, these people make a very nice living on the back on Nanny's rules and regulations (under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 the managing agents of every private block of flats must hire professional assessors to carry out a risk assessment).

The risk assessor recommended that the fire extinguishers be removed, as they are dangerous.

Eh?

Seemingly these extinguishers may delay householders from escaping a blaze, and may be dangerous if they are used by untrained people....ah...an opportunity for some wide boy to charge us money to "train" us to use these things!

Rather bizarrely this report has the support of Dorset Fire and Rescue Service, to the extent that extinguishers have already been removed from the two blocks.

The hapless residents of Admirals Walk were informed in a letter from their managing agents that:

"unless all residents are trained to operate the fire extinguishers, there is no legal requirement to maintain these in communal areas of residential blocks".

Pete Whittaker, the protection policy manager at Dorset Fire and Rescue, said:

"As part of the assessment, the assessors now look to see whether fire extinguishers are actually required in that particular block. In some cases, they are no longer needed and provide more of a hazard being there.

We do not want to encourage people to leave their flat to fetch a fire extinguisher from a hallway and then return to a blaze. We want people to get out safely.

Obviously in some cases, an extinguisher could come in useful in a communal area but with new building regulations, every escape route should be completely fireproof. It very much depends on the individual property and what the assessor believes is the correct course of action."

Complete tosh!

It was not that long ago that Nanny was telling us to ensure that we all had fire extinguishers.

Given the onslaught of absurd and contradictory health and safety rulings and edicts, people have totally lost what vestiges of respect that they may have had for health and safety "professionals".

A "profession" that is rapidly consigning itself to the dustbin of history!

The Dangers of Smoke - Firemen Banned

The Health and Safety Gestapo have donned their jackboots again, and have stomped into the firestations of the London Firebrigade.

Fire crews have been banned by Nanny from making home visits, to offer safety advice to people who smoke, unless the residents stub out all cigarettes at least one hour beforehand and open their windows.

What a larf!

Now correct me if I am wrong, but do not firemen kind of expose themselves to the far greater danger of smoke inhalation (burning houses, sofas, rubber, noxious chemicals etc) on a daily basis?

This nonsensical ruling was was recently sent out by London fire brigade chiefs, in order to comply with Nanny's workplace smoking ban.

The rationale being that people's homes are "the workplace" when firemen visit them to offer advice about fire safety.

Now, you would have thought that a smoker's home presents a possibly greater risk of catching fire than a non smoker's home. Therefore, are they not in greater need of advice about how to prevent a fire?

Approximately 40,000 prevention visits were carried out by London firemen last year. These help greatly reduce the number of fires and injuries from fires.

That doesn't bother Nanny, her edict states that anyone requesting a home visit will now be told to provide a "smoke-free environment to avoid threatening firefighters' health".

"Where the occupants are smokers, we ask that they refrain from smoking both during the visit and for a period prior to the visit.

We suggest a period of one hour."

Householders will be told to "ventilate the dwelling before the visit to clear any tobacco smoke."

How the fark does Nanny think that she will enforce this pile of dog doings then?

Aha, how silly of me, she will perform a risk assessment (pass the sick bag someone!).

Nanny says that if her rules are not followed, and a haze of smoke remains, the fireman must "complete a risk assessment and consider whether the visit should proceed."

What utter BOLLOCKS!

Seemingly if the brave fireman feels too afraid to enter, because of a waft of Rothmans, he will stand outside the front door and proffer advice.

I assume that risk assessment will soon have to be performed before firemen are allowed to attend a fire?

These Health and Safety knobheads and Nanny's rules will be the death of us all!

Prats of The Week - Sunbed Wars

It is a wet and windy Monday morning here in Engerlund, and as such it is time for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week my heartfelt congratulations to the passengers of P&O's 77,000-ton Oceana liner who reported Christopher Wells, the skipper, to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

For why?

There has been something of an ongoing spat on board over the use and reservation of sunloungers. A habit that is normally associated with Germans holidaymakers had spread to the passengers of the Oceana (none of whom were German), whereby towels and knickknacks are placed on the sun loungers in order to reserve them for use several hours later.

It is of course a thoroughly selfish habit, as more often than not the lounger remains unoccupied for several hours.

Passengers became increasingly narked over the lack of available sunbeds on the Oceana during their 15 day cruise of the Caribbean last month; all manner of objects used to reserve the sunloungers - towels, books, bags and clothes etc.

It became so bad that Capt Wells imposed a 20-minute limit on sunbeds being left unoccupied, and made several announcements to try to end the so-called "sunbed wars".

Needless to say, the passengers ignored him. There were increasingly heated rows between the passengers over the reservation of the sunloungers.

Eventually Capt Wells (who is married to a German) told the ship's 2,000 passengers:

"We don't want that kind of Germanic behaviour here!"

Clearly the point hit home, ie it was a well judged observation, and some reported him to the watchdog.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry, and Capt Wells has been forced to apologise for causing offence.

I was brought up by my parents to deal with petty matters myself, and not to report ("tell") on people to others. Nanny teaches people to report to the state, and related bodies; by this means she keeps us under control, as we fear that our neighbours, colleagues and friends may in fact be spying for her.

The passengers who reported him are well deserving of this week's "Prats of The Week" Award.

My advice to them is to grow up and deal with the matter yourselves, don't bring others into your petty and selfish arguments.

Hiding Behind Nanny's Petticoats

There is one thing worse than Nanny...

Really? I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?)

Yes, there really is one thing worse than Nanny!

What's that then Ken?

People, or organisations, who hide behind Nanny's petticoats and use her policies/warped ideas to further their own commercial/political ends.

Ladies and Gentleman...a roll on the drums please...



Presenting...

Tesco!

Their crime?

They have recently publicly demanded that Nanny introduce new laws to ban the sale of cut-price alcohol.

Tesco claims that this is in response to the public concern over the level of drink-fuelled crime and disorder.

Tesco claim that legislation is required to "ensure responsible pricing on alcohol".

Now the more intelligent amongst you may well ask, why doesn't Tesco simply put their prices up?

Oh dear oh dear, how little you understand the dilemma that Tesco finds itself in.

You see, if it were to do that people would simply shop elsewhere; and we couldn't have that now, could we?

You see, what Tesco actually wants to do is to use Nanny to pass laws that will enable it and its rivals to fix the prices (to the detriment of the consumers) which is of course illegal at the moment.

Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco's chief executive, has already been pushing Gordown Brown to discuss measures, including price controls, to tackle anti-social and under-age drinking.

In case you have forgotten, despite these "valiant" claims to be a "responsible" corporate citizen and "concerned" about cheap booze, Tesco has been happily selling cans of lager for less than the price of bottled water (mind you that says more about the extortionate price of water - real consumer rip off - than the price of booze).

Lucy Neville-Rolfe, an executive director at Tesco, recently said:

"We accept that we have a role to play in addressing the problem of anti-social drinking.

Competition law prevents businesses discussing anything to do with price with each other and imposes severe penalties for breaches.

The only safe solution is for the Government to initiate and lead those discussions and to bring forward legislative proposals which Tesco and others in our industry can support.

Such proposals would have to apply to all retailers of alcohol otherwise they would be ineffective, as those looking for cheap alcohol would simply shop with lower-priced operators not covered by the legislation, undermining our business and achieving nothing."

Bollocks!

It's a price fixing scheme from start to finish, designed to stifle competition (most notably the smaller corner shops).

It is unpleasant to see a commercial organisation hiding behind Nanny's petticoats in this manner, organisations should not support/encourage restrictive state practices to further their own commercial ends. This can lead us all down a very unpleasant road indeed.

Tesco should be reminded that other organisations, who in the past supported "assertive" state control, have some very ugly history that they have had to hang their heads in shame over - eg Krupp.

Educashun - Failed Degrees

It is reassuring to know that, in this "enlightened age" of educashun for all, Nanny is ensuring that our money is being spent wisely on degrees and courses that add value to society.

Not!

A staggering 22% of university students fail to complete their degree courses. That is the finding of a report, recently released by the National Audit Office, for the Public Accounts Committee.

This drop out rate is in spite of Nanny spending £800M on a scheme designed to curb dropping out.

The root cause of the problem is Nanny's obsession with pushing more and more people into higher educashun, as she desperately tries to manipulate her unemployment statistics.

Square pegs in round holes do not fit!

Here's some free advice for Nanny, if the primary and secondary educashun system is so poor and weak that it produces a nation of innumerate, illiterate dullards what is the point of forcing them into higher educashun?

The report notes that the drop-out rate is worse among those at former polytechnics, the con trick of the century was renaming "polys" as universities, where 44% fail to gain a qualification.

A fundamental weakness of the students is their lack of basic numeracy skills, they simply cannot understand their assignments and lectures.

The educashun system run by Nanny is a complete con trick, on the general population and the poor saps who have to endure it, designed to keep people off the unemployment register.

The report also notes that universities receive a bonus for every student they recruit from "non-traditional" backgrounds. Therefore they are incentivised to take on students (who may well be completely unsuited to university life) simply to take a "bung".

Another con trick by Nanny!

The basics of educashun need to be taught properly first; ie reading and writing.

This is what I'm talking about: