Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Ethnic Quotas

Ethnic QuotasI have said it before, and I will say it again...in fact I said it yesterday...Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering.

Why, oh why, do governments insist on this?

It only brings about pain and misery for those on the receiving end of the "engineering".

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums on the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force recently decreed that companies that bid for multimillion-pound Government contracts will be rejected if they do not employ enough black and Asian workers.

This committee has formulated plans to question competing companies about their attitudes to race, before choosing which to employ. Firms will be asked to provide figures showing the numbers of their black and Asian employees. This figure will be compared with the proportion of people from ethnic minorities living near the company's offices, and will be a factor when deciding the winning bid.

That's right folks, skills no longer matter!

Firms must employ the "right mix" of people if they have a hope of working with Nanny.

How patronising to those "classified" by Nanny as being non white.

Iqbal Wahhab, chairman of the Ethnic Minority Advisory Group, a government-backed think-tank, said:

"These new procurement policies are required to assist employers in making more enlightened recruitment decisions.

It may be unpopular in certain quarters,

but the fact remains that we should not have been in this kind of position in the first place
."

Utter bollocks!

Society will only grow and flourish if it is based on a meritocracy, not on biased politically motivated patronage.

A spokesman for the British Chambers of Commerce said that the plans would hinder the competitive tendering process and make it more difficult and expensive.

"Public tenders are already complicated enough.

Lengthening the applications will only further dissuade businesses from applying for public work.

This will do nothing to ensure that government contracts go to the firms with the most competitive bids
."

Nanny doesn't give a stuff about the cost, as it is us the taxpayer who funds her daft ideas.

Three pilot schemes are up and running in Job Centre Plus, the Identity and Passport Agency and the Department for Education and Skills.

A pathetic political sop to those who play the victim. Those who play the victim, will always be the victim.

Get off your knees and earn people's respect!

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Nanny Bans Fat Women

Cherie BlairNanny can't resist a bit of social engineering, and in keeping with her campaign against all things fat she has drawn up recommendations that further ostracise the fat community.

Nanny's chums in The British Fertility Society (BFS) have decreed that free IVF treatment should be limited to those who are of a healthy weight, ie fat women will not be given IVF treatment.

BFS chairman, Dr Mark Hamilton, said that women who were clinically overweight faced safety risks and should make an effort to get fit for pregnancy.

The guidelines say women who have already embarked on a weight loss programme should be considered for treatment.

The question is, what constitutes fat?

Doctors have been using body mass index (BMI) as a measure of fatness, yet according to some the BMI is in fact bollocks; eg a fit rugby player will come in at over 30 on the BMI, yet Nanny's doctors say that 20-25 is the "correct" BMI.

Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS 'value for money' watchdog, say that patients should 'ideally' have a BMI of between 19 and 30, with no absolute upper limit for treatment.

Oddly enough Nanny's other bane of her life, smokers, would not be excluded from treatment, but would be given advice on quitting.

A tad hypocritical, given the fact that Nanny tells us that smoking is the most evil thing that you inflict upon yourself and others.

The bottom line is this, when governments try to social engineer society they always cock it up.

This ban is just a nasty way of trying to save money, other "savings" will be sought in the future; whereby fat people, smokers, drinkers, wankers etc will be denied treatment in the interests of "saving" money. After all, if you are a non smoker, non drinker and not a fat person you are alright aren't you?

Nanny is avoiding the real issue here, namely how do we fund an NHS that seeks to satisfy an ever increasing demand for its services?

Answer: WE CAN'T.

There has to be a debate about what services the NHS can actually provide to everyone (fat people, smokers and wankers etc), and how much we are able to pay for them.

Nanny of course likes to avoid painful questions, and instead enjoys lecturing us on our lifestyles.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Nanny's Concept of Child Abuse

Nanny's Concept of Child AbuseNanny has an unfortunate tendency to over react to things at times; smoking (even in a public place) is considered a greater threat to non smokers' health than death itself, and tubes of tooth paste are now weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that earlier this month that Nanny's chums in Coordination Group Publications, one of the largest educational publishers in Britain, decreed in a citizenship guide for 14 to 16 year olds that cross-country running is a form of 'physical abuse'.

Nanny's chums in this "organ" describe the sport as infringing children's human rights.

Can you believe that the people who come up with this drivel actually are allowed out in society, without any form of supervision? More alarming is the fact that they are paid for their "endeavours"!.

I am sure that you all remember those "happy" days at school when you were forced out in the freezing wind, snow and rain to participate in some inane run around a field or through some woods.

My efforts were so lamentable that those in charge of the "run" gave up with me and my fellow laggards, we ended up simply walking the course and discussing the state of the world instead.

My point being, that we all survived this so called "abuse".

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11

Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11Just in case you were wondering, Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Has anyone told Tony?

Monday, August 28, 2006

Nanny Bans Catholics

Nanny Bans CatholicsNanny's chums in the legislature of the People's Republic of Scotland, the protectors of free speech and tolerance (so long as you don't smoke and aren't English), have caused something of a minor storm in a wine chalice by banning the "good old" Catholic practice of crossing oneself.

Needless to say the trouble erupted during a football match between those two stalwarts of religious tolerance, Celtic (the Catholics) and Rangers (the Protestants). Those of you not familiar with some parts of Scotland need to appreciate that in certain areas, the feud between Catholic and Protestant is just one step away from erupting into Belfast in the 1970's.

Anyhoo, way back in February of this year Artur Boruc (goalkeeper) was playing for Celtic in a match against Rangers when he decided to make the sign of the cross.

To the religious scholars of Rangers this was a red rag to a bull, and needless to say there was a barrage of complaints. The police launched an investigation. Last week "judgement" was handed down, and Scottish prosecutors cautioned the hapless Boruc for a breach of the peace.

A Crown Office spokesman said Boruc's actions had "provoked alarm and crowd trouble".

The procurator fiscal had issued the caution as an alternative to prosecution; Boruc now has a criminal record.

Father JackNeedless to say, Holy Mother Church is none too pleased over this result, and called it "worrying and alarming"; they argue that the sign of the cross was globally accepted as a "gesture of religious reverence".

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church, said:

"It's a worrying and alarming development,

especially since the sign of the cross is globally accepted

as a gesture of religious reverence

It's also very common in international football

and was commonplace throughout the World Cup.

It is extremely regrettable that Scotland

seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world

where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence
."

Even Ruth "Old Puss Dei" Kelly has waded in, saying she was none too happy with this result.

Now here I must declare an interest, for reasons that are totally unclear to me, my mother persuaded my father that I should be christened a Catholic. Three miserable years at a Catholic school, a system designed to destroy any vestiges of free thought and creativity, convinced me that this was not the path to follow; therefore I can assure you all that I am now a very lapsed ex Catholic.

Anyhoo, I have to say a wry smile crossed my lips when I read of Holy Mother Church's bleating about the ban; you will recall that Holy Mother Church has been more than happy over the centuries to ban all manner of books, films and people. It seems that whilst Holy Mother Church is happy to dish out bans, it is not so happy to be on the receiving end of them!

Hypocrisy, in the church?

Never!

However, as with all things involving Nanny nothing is ever as clear cut as it first may appear. Whilst banning the sign of the cross is to some an over reaction, and to others a necessary ploy to avoid brawls on the streets, there is a more worrying problem here. Nanny on the one hand bans this "inflammatory" gesture, yet all around us (were we inclined to feel offended) we see religious symbolism and gestures from a whole host of differing faiths that could, were one so inclined, be labelled as inflammatory.

Surely Nanny should be banning these as well?

The trouble is, Nanny is selective when she issues her banning orders; ie she is a hypocrite.

This whole sorry story is proof, if ever it were needed, that religion is the cause of most of the trouble in the world today.

I would personally ban all religion, and its symbolism.

God, if he exists, does not need a flawed man made religion to validate his existence.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking II

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking IIFollowing on from my mail to Ofcom concerning the banning of cartoon smoking, I received a reply from them yesterday.

Read between the lines of the "carefully crafted" bureaucratic non response to my mail and, although they claim to have had nothing to do with the ban, you will see that they did pressure Turner to edit their cartoon collection.

Here is a copy of their mail to me, and my response; this is not yet over.....

If Ofcom, as you claim, took no part in Turner's decision; why were Ofcom involved in the first place?

Kind regards

Ken Frost

http://www.nannyknowsbest.com


From: "OCCbroadcast"
Subject: Ofcom Broadcast Complaints Bulletin 67. Tom & Jerry
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:26:53 +0100

Thank you for contacting Ofcom. You have raised concerns about media coverage of our report on Tom and Jerry. Perhaps it would be helpful if we explained the actual position.

In Ofcom's broadcast bulletin 67, we published a report on action taken by Turner, the licensee for Boomerang, following its receipt of a viewer complaint about scenes of smoking in Tom and Jerry sent via Ofcom.

You should be aware that Ofcom has taken no regulatory action in this matter and has not banned images of smoking in Tom and Jerry or in any cartoon or in fact any programme.

Independently of Ofcom, Turner decided to conduct an extensive internal review of the Tom & Jerry archive library to reassess the volume and context of smoking in these cartoons. The licensee has subsequently decided to edit any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorised or where it might encourage imitation.

We are not aware of evidence from research in the UK that shows a direct correlation

between children who see smoking on television with a greater propensity to take up smoking. (However, broadcasters and Ofcom are required to protect those under eighteen and that protection is particularly important where the youngest children are concerned.) Research published in September 2005 by Ofcom indicates that broadcasters are very aware and responsible in the way they include smoking pre-watershed. It is important however that there is editorial justification when smoking is featured in such series.

We noted in the report that "Stylised and comic actions in cartoons are not intrinsically a concern in themselves - including violence and other activity which in a different context would be unacceptable. However it depends on treatment and context. We recognise that these are historic cartoons, most of them having been produced in the 40s, 50s and 60s at a time when smoking was more generally accepted. Depictions of smoking may not be problematic given the context, but broadcasters need to make a judgement about the extent to which they believe a particular scene may or may not genuinely influence children. We note that in Tom and Jerry, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned."

On this occasion, Turner decided to adopt a precautionary approach. As this resolved the complainant's issue, there was no need for Ofcom to look into the matter further. The full report is below.

Yours sincerely

:: Broadcast Support Team

Tel: 020 7981 3040

Fax: 020 7981 3334

Email: OCCbroadcast@ofcom.org.uk

:: Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000

www.ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom broadcast bulletin 67 21 August 2006

Tom & Jerry Boomerang, various dates 2006


Introduction

In two separate cartoons Texas Tom and Tennis Chumps there were scenes involving smoking. In Texas Tom, Tom tried to impress a female cat by rolling a 'rollup' cigarette, lighting it and smoking it with just one hand. In Tennis Chumps, Tom's opponent in a match was seen smoking a large cigar. One viewer complained that these scenes of smoking were not appropriate in a cartoon aimed at children.

Response

Following receipt of the complaint, Turner, the licensee for Boomerang, conducted an extensive internal review of the Tom & Jerry library to reassess the volume and context of smoking in these cartoons. The licensee has subsequently proposed editing any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorised or where it might encourage imitation (for example where, in Texas Tom, Tom tries to impress by smoking). Turner believed however, that editing out all references to smoking, where such references neither glamorised nor condoned, might adversely affect the value of the animation.

Decision

Rule 1.10 of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code states: The use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol:

* must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;

* must generally be avoided and in any case must not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised in other programmes broadcast before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is editorial justification;

* must not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised in other programmes likely to be widely seen or heard by under eighteens unless there is editorial justification.

We are not aware of evidence from research in the UK that shows a direct correlation between children who see smoking on television with a greater propensity to take up smoking. However, broadcasters and Ofcom are required to protect those under eighteen and that protection is particularly important where the youngest children are concerned. There are concerns that smoking on television may normalise smoking. For precautionary reasons Ofcom expects broadcasters to generally avoid smoking in pre-watershed programmes. Research published in September 2005 by Ofcom indicates that broadcasters are very aware and responsible in the way they include smoking pre-watershed.

Boomerang is a channel that attracts a large number of children - 56% of its audience are aged 4-14 years. Although historic cartoons such as these may have been made originally for family audiences they are now primarily viewed by children, including very young children, who may be viewing on their own.

Stylised and comic actions in cartoons are not intrinsically a concern in themselves -including violence and other activity which in a different context would be unacceptable. However it depends on treatment and context. We recognise that these are historic cartoons, most of them having been produced in the 40s, 50s and 60s at a time when smoking was more generally accepted. Depictions of smoking may not be problematic given the context, but broadcasters need to make a judgement about the extent to which they believe a particular scene may or may not genuinely influence children. We note that in Tom and Jerry, smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned.

However while we appreciate the historic integrity of the animation, the level of editorial justification required for the inclusion of smoking in such cartoons is necessarily high. We will look at all such cases individually.

Given Turner's commitment to adopt a precautionary approach, we welcome its review of archive material and action taken to minimise the possibility of harm.

Resolved