The People's Republic of Liverpool Bans Smoking

Oh my gosh, another smoking ban!

Nanny really needs to get some therapy, to help her get over her paranoia over smoking.

This time we must journey to the People's Republic of Liverpool for a cautionary tale of mind numbing heavy handed state interference.

As we all know, Nanny's local council in Liverpool regards Liverpool as being the world's most perfect city. Thanks to the "wise" policies of Nanny and generations of local councillors Liverpool now has zero crime, perfect race relations, no drugs, 100% literacy and zero anti social behaviour.

As such it should not surprise us to learn that Nanny's councillors have a lot of free time on their hands, and need something to do.

That at least is the only explanation that I can come up with for their latest daft idea.

SmokeFree Liverpool, there's a group with high aspirations, has decreed that all movies with smoking scenes should be given an 18 certificate. Needless to say, Nanny's chums on Liverpool City Council have backed this absurd and ridiculous idea.

Andy Hull, Liverpool's head of public protection (what the fark is that when it's at home?...another Nanny state militia?) and chair (how can a human be a "chair", ie a piece of furniture, he is chairman) of SmokeFree Liverpool, said that an adult rating on movies that depict smoking will reduce the number of young people lighting up.

"The international evidence...is that one in two children between 11 and 18 who witness smoking in movies actually experiment with - and therefore start - smoking themselves."

Prat!

All this will do is encourage children to regard smoking as an even more naughty adult vice, that they must most definitely try. Additionally, as with all adult films, the under 18's will be queuing up to get in.

When I was a lad, it was just nudie films that one had to sneak in to see (or watch late night on BBC2)...Nanny now wants to create a whole new list of "must sees"; eg smoking, eating, fatty etc.

Violence in under 18 movies is of course OK!

Hull said that Liverpool (what everyone in Liverpool?) wants the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to act.

Needless to say, as with all of Nanny's daft ill thought through ideas, there is a large fly in Nanny's oinkment.

The BBFC is none too impressed with this daft idea, and said:

"To simply classify a film 18 because people smoke in it would not be popular with the public."

Politely put, BBFC told Liverpool council to fark off!

Hull, being a true disciple of Nanny, is not interested in common sense or indeed the advice of experts if that advice contradicts his prejudices. He said that if the BBFC is not prepared to adopt an 18 certificate, then Liverpool will consider using licensing laws to bring in its own stricter ratings for films screened locally.

Thus making Liverpool look completely ridiculous, and dictatorial.

The arrogance of local councils never ceases to amaze me. Their role is not to interfere in the daily lives of people, nor is it to act like mini Hitlers. yet they choose to do so.

Why?

Because we have allowed them to, and we elect useless third rate human beings to become councillors.

Isn't it about time that we put an end to local councils?

We need to rid of these useless appendages once and for all.

Feel free to email Andy Hull andy.hull@liverpool.gov.uk

Nanny Bans Open Air Smoking

Oh dear oh dear, Nanny really is fixated with smoking. Not content with banning it inside public buildings, and trying to prevent firemen from entering the homes of smokers, Nanny is now trying to ban smoking in the open air as well.

Nanny's chums in Sutton council want to introduce a smoking ban in children's open air play areas.

Why do we need local councils?

Needless to say councillor Bruce Glithero, the person leading the hysterical calls for an open air ban, belongs to the party with a name that is a contradiction in terms...Liberal Democrat.

Isn't it funny how the Liberal Democrat party is always at the vanguard of calls for restrictions on people's liberties?

Why don't they change their name to something that actually reflects their true political leanings, eg The League of Interfering Fascists?

Anyhoo, Glithero said:

"As the father of four daughters we often like to go to the park, but recently I was sitting at the side of the sandpit when I turned around to see one of my four-year-old twins spluttering.

At first I thought she had swallowed some sand, but then I realised she was coughing because smoke from a woman sitting nearby was blowing directly into her face. It seemed so unfair.

The main reason people go to the park is to enjoy some fresh air, and this move aims to protect that."

What a prat!

There is ample fresh air for everyone and life, by the way, is unfair; so stop whinging!

The council has approved Glithero's plans, and the scheme will be trialled at Beddington Park.

Needless to say, the sign printing industry will be doing very nicely out of this. Signs will be erected (can I say erected?) informing smokers of the new rules, which will be enforced by Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams?

Has anyone ever heard of these people?

Who are they, what do they do and are taxpayers paying for them?

Now, here is where this scheme of Glithero falls apart.

Can you guess what the fundamental problem is with his scheme?

Yes, that's right, it's not be legally enforceable.

The council clearly is inhabited by a complete bunch of tossers, how do you enforce a non legally enforceable rule?

Seemingly Glithero expects the public to co-operate.

The costs of the signs for this unenforceable rule run to £860. This money could have been spent on improving the playground facilities for the kids.

This not the first time that Sutton council has done something stupid. In 2006 Sutton councillors tried to stop people smoking in their own homes.

Under the proposal, council tenants would not have been allowed to smoke while being visited by health workers and staff such as those delivering meals on wheels. Needless to say the scheme was deemed to be bollocks by people who live in the real world, and had to be withdrawn in the face of fierce opposition.

Funny how the phrase Liberal Democrat is such a contradcition in terms.

The trouble with Liberal Democrats and indeed local councils is that common sense, and practicalities are irrelevant to them.

As I often ask on this site; what is the farking point, use or value of local councils (or for that matter Liberal Democrats)?

With regard to the absurd scheme of Sutton council, I suggest that a bevy of smokers descend upon the park and light up; let's see what happens then.

Happy St Patrick's Day!

Being half Irish, the Pope has given me special dispensation to wish you all a Happy St Patrick's Day.

Ken

Prats of The Week - Nanny Nicks Basil

Another Monday has appeared on the horizon, with all the depressing inevitability of an unloved season. As such it is time for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week it goes to Nanny's chums in the Northamptonshire Police.

It seems that they are prepared to spend time, money and effort on investigating Basil Brush (a children's TV puppet, that has been entertaining generations of kids and their parents since the sixties).

Basil's crime?

Racism!

It seems that one of his shows featured a gypsy selling pegs and heather.

Needless to say, this provoked outrage amongst some members of the gypsy community, and at least two of them complained to the Northamptonshire force.

The police, clearly having solved all of the reported crime in Northamptonshire, having nothing better to do are therefore investigating the matter.

The programme features Basil's friend, Mr Stephen, falling under a gypsy spell which makes him attractive to women.

Dame Rosie Fortune, who lives above them, tries to sell Basil pegs and heather – but he turns her down.

She then offers to tell Basil's fortune, but he says:

"I went to a fortune teller once and he said I was going on a long journey."

Mr Stephen then asks him what happened, to which Basil replies:

"He stole my wallet and I had to walk all the way home."

Boom Boom!

The irony is that this episode was first shown on the BBC six years ago, and has been repeated eight times since. It is also available on DVD "Basil Unleashed".

Best rush out and buy it now, before the police ban it.

Seemingly the force are studying the video for evidence of the racism.

Joseph Jones, vice chairman of the Southern England Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller Network, said:

"This sort of thing happens quite regularly and we are fed up with making complaints about stereotypical comments about us in words that we find racist or offensive.

Racist abuse of black people is quite rightly no longer deemed acceptable, but when a comedian makes a joke on TV about pikeys or gippos, there's no comeback.

Travellers have historically sold heather and pegs, but they don't do it anymore for a living. It could be that someone thought this was a kind of stereotyping."

When I was a student at Edinburgh University I was referred to on more than one occasion (in a jocular manner) as an "English bastard", yet I didn't go running to the police.

Why should I?

Had I done so, the police would quite rightly have pointed out that they had better things to do with their time.

Northamptonshire police, well deserving "Prats of The Week".

A Conundrum

Nanny, the media, the butchers' profession, Tesco and other "experts" have been working themselves up into a bit of a frenzy recently over booze and its "alleged" effects on people's behaviour.

In Nanny's view, booze is the root cause of many of society's ills eg; violence, crime, anti social behaviour etc.

Now herein I would like to present a counterpoint, based on my own modest contribution to the "booze debate".

On Friday I dined in Londinium with an old chum of mine from my days in KPMG. An excellent evening was had by all, first in the Red Lion then in Le Boudain Blanc (I will be adding a review about that to my Restaurant Reviews site in due course); an elegant sufficiency of booze was consumed by all.

I personally rounded off the meal with an Irish coffee (in honour of being half Irish, and it being St Patrick's day on Monday) and four double Remy Martins (the singles looked ridiculous in the glass).

After that I wended my way back to Croydonia, using the underworld railway and Network Snail.

Now, despite having consumed an elegant sufficiency of alcohol, I still managed to get home perfectly safely WITHOUT:

1 Assaulting anyone

2 Stamping on anyone's head

3 Vomiting or collapsing in the street

4 Passing myself off to police as Euan Blair, or a minor member of the royal family

5 Pissing against a wall

6 Vandalising the tube or train

7 Inflicting any form of anti social behaviour on my fellow passengers

8 Putting my feet up on the seats

9 Swearing loudly, or talking on my mobile phone

10 Being attacked, mugged, robbed, assaulted or buggered about with in any way

Now the thought occurs to me, if I a shy, retiring, reserved, middle aged accountant (who wouldn't say boo to a goose) can manage to do that, despite having consumed more than Nanny's preferred/recommended quantity of booze, why is that the yoof of this country (who are less than half my age) cannot manage to do the same having consumed a few water based, fizzy, sugar added shitty drinks flavoured with sub standard vodka?

The answer my friends is this...

It's not the booze, its the personalities that causes the trouble.

The badly behaved scumbags that litter the streets of Britain on Friday and Saturday are badly behaved, because they are badly behaved per se. They are ignorant yobs who have not been brought up properly by their parents to respect others, to respect themselves or indeed to be able to drink in a sensible manner.

The root cause of Britain's behavioural ills lies not with booze, but lousy parenting.

Curing that will require a lot more effort than merely farting around with headline grabbing taxes on alcohol flavoured fizzy water.

Beware The Dinosaur

Oh dear, someone seems to have reanimated one of Nanny's chums from the world of the dinosaurs long since thought to have become extinct.

Those of you with long memories will recall the "heady" days of the 1960's and 70's (I am still so young, that I can barely recall that period) when the "brothers" in the TUC held sway over this country, and did a fine job of almost destroying it.

In the 1980's Maggie Thatcher, with the support of general public who were revolted by the excesses of the TUC, more or less killed the unions off.

Unfortunately, there are still some old fossils who haven't quite realised that their day is long since gone. The TUC recently made a bold attempt to capture the headlines by calling for a boycott of Lonely Planet guidebooks.

I am sure that resulted in a downturn of sales of literally one or two.

What was the crime of Lonely Planet, in the eyes of the "brothers" at the TUC bunker?

Seemingly the Lonely Planet have the temerity to publish a guide about Burma. The TUC does not approve of Burma, therefore it wants Lonely Plant to stop writing about it.

Ah the good old Nanny ideal of censorship and dictating what is fit to read!

I wonder what gives the dinosaurs in the TUC the right to dictate to the rest of us what we may, or may not read?

The "brothers" say that travel to Burma is unethical, and helps prop up the military government.

The TUC, Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist have launched an online petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the book.

New Internationalist co-editor, Chris Brazier, went into full moralising mode:

"Holidaying in Burma is one of the most unethical trips you could make, given the brutality of the current regime.

The Lonely Planet guide to Burma should be immediately withdrawn."

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber also waded in:

"The very existence of a travel guide to Burma encourages people to visit a country they might not otherwise consider."


"Where first you burn books, next you will burn people."

Where do they get these people from?

Needles to say, the TUC by raising Burma as a possible travel destination have doubtless increased the number of bookings there.

I can think of many other places in the world where there are "issues", surely if the TUC is going to try to show moral integrity it must ban travel to all of those places too?

Let me see now..hmmm..some argue the following places are not very nice:

- China has been ticked off for censorship etc
- USA does waterboarding, invading other countries and rendition
- Various Asian economies use low cost labour (well below TUC approved minimum wages)
- Cuba is a bit dodgy
- Saudi Arabia etc have "issues" wrt their treatment of women
- Russia appears to be lurching to a one party state
- Africa is most certainly riddled with "issues"

Will the "brothers" in the TUC be banning travel books that write about those places too?

Will they be banning people and TUC members from travelling there?

No...I thought not!

TUC influence and power in this country was destroyed because it was arrogant, corrupt and dictatorial.

We live in a free society (almost), it is up to the individual to decide where he/she goes and what he/she reads/buys. The TUC has no right to interfere, or to dictate in that decision making process.

However, this call for a boycott has served one valuable purpose. It is nice to see the "brothers" reminding us, by this very ignorant call for a boycott, why they have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Will someone please put them out of our misery once and for all?