Nanny Bans Religion

Nanny has a rather schizophrenic personality. On some occasions she is happy to offend the vast majority people; by telling us that we are fat, lazy and unhealthy.

However, on other occasions she frets that the slightest word, or action, by her subjects may offend others. She therefore seeks to remove these offending words and gestures from our lives.

In this instance she has decided that St Mary Magdalene Church of England Primary School, in Nanny’s favourite constituency Islington, has an offensive name.

It seems that, in Nanny’s perverted view of the world, the word “saint” is offensive to other religious groups. Therefore, Nanny’s “thought police” in Islington council have deemed that calling schools after saints or bishops alienates people from other faiths.

Those of you with good memories, will recall that Ofsted ruled that Islington was running the worst schools in the country a mere 5 years ago. I am therefore a tad puzzled as to why the Islington thought police feel that they are now in a position to harangue a school, that has been serving the community well since 1710, about its name/standing within the community.

In typical “Nanny speak” James Kempton, children and young people spokesman for the council (whatever that means), noted:

“..a consultation had been launched because of concerns over the use of the word saint...we want to create a school that is open to everybody in the community, not a school that selects through the back door...We need to ensure this is a school which is appropriate for Islington in the 21st century…Church-going is now a much less significant part of people's lives..."

Nanny’s thought police have come up with an “approved” list of names, the Islington Academy or the Barnsbury Academy.

Like all third rate dictators, Nanny dislikes religion; as it places God and morality above her. Dictatorships seek to channel peoples’ religious faith away from God, and into the “state”.

Witness the use by the Nazis of the Swastika on top of Christmas trees, as an example of state symbolism replacing religious symbolism.

However, Nanny won’t be allowed to get away with her dictatorial plans; the parents, governors and teachers at St Mary Magdalene are going to fight this Nanny nonsense. John Stewart, the head teacher, said:

"We have been serving the community in the area since 1710 and there is no reason why we should change our name..The name makes our Christian ethos clear to everyone and there are plenty of Church of England schools named after saints in Islington and elsewhere which take children from many other faiths or none who want the education and ethos we offer..."

This case provides us with a good example, whereby the weeds of a dictatorship can be seen poking their heads above the soil.

When you see a weed in your garden, you take swift action and poison the weeds before they spread and infest the entire garden.

Do the same here, tell Nanny’s thought police to keep their hands off the school. Here is the email address of their “young persons spokesman” james.kempton@islington.gov.uk.

When the time is right, remove Nanny’s grasping claws from the levers of power; by voting her, and her acolytes, out of office.

The Rise of The Bottom Inspectors

Nanny, although a strict disciplinarian herself, tried to outlaw parents smacking their own children this week.

However, her plans came a little unstuck when MP’s in the House of Commons voted to allow “reasonable chastisement” of children to continue; so long as there were no visible marks.

Should there be a visible mark on the child’s posterior, the parents will have been deemed to have broken the law.

Needless to say, Nanny knows that this “fine piece of legislation” is of course unworkable.

Precisely how will Nanny’s snoopers and spies know if there are marks on children? The police, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a nonsensical and unenforceable piece of legislation.

However, do not despair, Nanny has a plan.

Nanny remembers reading the British satirical comic Viz in her youth. One storyline that featured regularly in this fine publication, was that of Britain being ruled by a Gestapo like authority known as “The Bottom Inspectors”.

Their mission was to ensure that peoples’ bottoms, have you noticed that it’s always bottoms with the Brits, were up to the standards of the “Bottom Reich”.

Viz unknowingly, but presciently, had provided Nanny with the solution to her problem.

Nanny will form an elite body of men and women, known as “The Bottom Inspectors”. They will, like all other organs of the nanny state in the UK, poke their noses into the very private aspects of peoples’ lives; namely, their bottoms.

Should you wish to join “The Bottom Inspectors” please send your CV, and a brief summary of why you want to join, to anthonyblair@gmail.com

Exposed, Nanny's Bribe Scandal

I can exclusively reveal that Nanny is paying bribes.

What?

Nanny, the upright moral guardian of our lives; both spiritual and temporal, paying bribes!

Surely not!

I am afraid so; she is in fact bribing school children to attend school.

You see Nanny has for a long time lectured us about the importance of education. She has a passion, so she says, for education and ensuring that the children of Britain are given the best start in life.

However, there is one slight flaw in her plan to turn British children into the intellectual elite of the world, the children don’t believe her.

Contrary to the media driven myth that we have bred a generation of moronic ingrates, today’s child is “savvy enough” to know that they are being sold “a pig in a poke”.

The exams, that they are being “hot housed” to pass, are worthless pieces of paper; that merely assign them to, at best, stacking shelves at the local supermarket.

Nanny, in her enthusiasm to ensure that her exam pass statistics rise each year, has made the exams impossible to fail. Our children know this; after all if members of the Royal Family can gain more than one A level, anyone can!

Bearing this in mind, children see no point in attending school; to attain these worthless qualifications.

Nanny of course knows that this reflects badly on her “passion for education”.

Therefore, having outlawed corporal punishment and any other form of chastisement, she has but one course of action left open to her to induce children to attend school; she has to bribe them.

Nanny’s “brilliant idea” is being tested at Kings Norton High School, a comprehensive in Birmingham. This school is likely to close, because of its poor GCSE results and abysmal 5% non-attendance record.

Children at Kings Norton, who deign to attend class, will be entered into a weekly draw for a prize worth £50.

Those who meet their individual targets for attendance, over a whole term, will be entered into a draw for a £150 prize.

Hey, they even get paid to sit the exams; £2 and £5 per subject. Easy money!

In money terms, the cost of Nanny’s scheme is £267K. However, in terms of destroying the remaining vestiges of dignity within the education system the cost is incalculable; as soon every child will expect to be paid to attend school, even though attending school is required by law.

In truth, Nanny does not have a passion for education; her passion is for statistics of her “achievements”, to brow beat us with, so that she can remain in power.

The Prohibited Stroke

Nanny’s lackeys in Blackburn council have decided that the centuries old swimming technique, the backstroke, is in fact highly dangerous.

Therefore this “prohibited stroke”, a term more akin to a service provided in a brothel, has now been banned in Daisyfield pool Blackburn. The council spokesman, Kate Hollern, claims that the ban will lessen the chances of dangerous collisions; she also noted that it follows “national guidelines”.

However, it seems that Kate Hollern is talking nonsense. The Institute of Sport and Recreation Management has clarified that it has NOT issued any guidance recommending the ‘banning’ of backstroke in public swimming pools.

Therefore we have to ask the question as to whether Ms Hollern and her colleagues at Blackburn council are lying, or are simply just too lazy to conduct some cursory research.

As usual with Nanny and her “helpers” they act without thinking, or checking the facts.

Ladies and gentlemen we are being governed by lazy, dishonest “intellectual pygmies”; whose prime objective is to build for themselves a permanent, well paid, power base founded on fear.

The best way to deal with these “petty dictators” is to ignore them and, when the time comes, vote them out of office.

Nanny Breaks The Law

Dear old Nanny just loves to introduce new laws. She feels that by introducing swathes of new laws she will look busy, and important.

Her latest legal “initiative” is the introduction of on the spot fines for litter, drinking, shop lifting, “looking at me in a funny manner” and a whole host of practices that Nanny finds to be annoying.

As from 1 November 2004 police can issue £80 fixed penalty notices to anyone caught drinking underage, buying alcohol for a minor, shoplifting for the first time or causing minor criminal damage. People dropping litter will face £50 penalty notices.

Nanny’s helpful little Home Office sprite, Hazel Blears said:

"Vandalising property, fouling streets with litter, blind drunk teenagers causing trouble or stealing for a buzz – this is anti-social, criminal behaviour and a scourge on society...People committing these offences will no longer be let off with a verbal warning. From today, they will face immediate punishment and court action if they refuse to pay.

These fines will make people think twice and will increase the number of low level offenders we can bring to justice..We know that fixed penalty notices make big savings in police time, freeing them up to patrol the streets, they enable the courts to concentrate on more serious offences and give offenders an immediate punishment.

They are supported by police and a key part of the Government’s campaign to deliver a culture change of tackling, not tolerating low level nuisance and disorder.."

As you can see, Nanny is happy to use the phrase “not tolerate”; in other words she now openly admits to being intolerant.

Fair enough you might say, drunken louts are nobody’s “cup of tea”.

However, Nanny has plans to extend the powers to issue on the spot fines to not just those in the police but to other groups of people as well.

Parish and town council wardens are also to be given the power to issue on the spot fines of up to £100 for dog-fouling, littering and graffiti; in a major extension of Nanny’s crusade against what she perceives to be antisocial behaviour.

Nanny’s special friend, David “trial without jury” Blunkett, announced that the new powers on fixed penalty notices will be aimed at 10,000 parish and town councils.

The councils will be able to impose fines of between £30 and £100 for a range of offences, that Nanny believes to be antisocial; including dog-fouling, littering, vandalism, making excessive night-time noise, fly-posting and throwing fireworks.

These fines will be issued by wardens, rangers and crime and safety officers from the parish/town councils. The new powers will be set out in an Act of Parliament which will be included in next month's Queen's Speech.

These on the spot fines raise rather an interesting legal point; something which Nanny, with all her lawyers in the Cabinet and social circle, should have known about.

There is something called the Bill of Rights Act, which was passed in 1689, it states that:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

In other words, on the spot fines are illegal until due legal process has been completed. This means that the recipient of an on the spot fine has the right to a trial.

Needless to say if everyone who received an on the spot fine refused to pay, and opted for a trial, the cost would be prohibitive; and the legal system in this country would grind to a halt.

In fact the Bill of Rights “throws a spanner” in many of the “legal” practices used in Britain today; such as the issuing of speeding tickets or congestion fines.

In the 'Metric Martyrs' judgment, Lord Justice Laws said:

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union...Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not..."

This means that all of Nanny’s lackeys; be they Local Authorities, Government agencies or police forces who fine people through the post, or on the spot are acting illegally.

As usual Nanny has demonstrated that:

• She does not think through the consequences of her actions



• She is intellectually lazy



• She is contemptuous of the law and intolerant of the behaviour of others.

Her prime objective is to tie us down with petty rules and regulations, that have no basis in law, and to use self appointed lackeys to administer her new "legal" system.

The First Steps on The Road To Belsen

Nanny has decided that enough is enough; with regard to the “unwholesome sight” of doctors, nurses and patients smoking in and around hospitals.

It seems that the sight of health professionals smoking simply does not set the “right” example to Nanny’s charges, that’s you and me folks.

In addition to banning smoking in hospitals and NHS premises; Nanny will be banning doctors, nurses and patients from smoking outside as well.

This plan will be put forward in the forthcoming White Paper on public health.

Precisely how does she intend to stop them smoking?

• Given the parlous state of our understaffed hospitals, does Nanny intend to fire doctors and nurses who smoke outside?



• With regard to patients, does she intend to deny them treatment; and send them home from the hospital, if they break the rules and smoke outside?

In fact the latter is part of Nanny’s plan to ensure that her NHS treatment targets are met; by excluding large sections of the population from being able to seek treatment, demand will fall, and she will be able to meet her targets.

In fact, if she can exclude enough people from being treated; she will be able to cut down the staffing requirements of the NHS, and sack all those doctors and nurses who indulge in the “evil weed”.

Those doctors who have their own premises may be thinking that they will be let off the hook. Unfortunately ladies and gentlemen this will not be the case, you will be “invited” to follow suit.

When Nanny “invites you” to do something that means “DO IT”, or suffer the consequences.

In a very sinister clause within the White Paper, apparently only the mentally ill are now to be allowed to smoke.

This is rather a perverse judgment in my view, after all mature rational adults should be allowed the freedom of choice as to how to manage their own lives; yet Nanny takes the opposite view.

The rational and most able members of society, who are able to look after themselves, will be told what to do. However, the mentally ill will be allowed to damage their physical health as it will be “good for their mental well-being”; even though they may not understand the consequences.

I seem to recall a certain Austrian corporal, of some years ago, instituting a step by step eugenics programme; by allowing the those less able to take care of themselves to die. The story “peddled to media” was that it was an act of kindness.

This was of course the first step on the road to Belsen.