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.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Happy New Parking Rules Day!

Happy New Parking Rules Day!Hip hip hooray it's new parking rules day today!

Under Nanny's overhaul of parking regulations, a new era of "remote enforcement" is being imposed upon her hapless subjects.

As from today, Nanny's "beloved" and "respected" local councils will be allowed to use CCTV cameras to detect parking offences.

Drivers will not even know that they have been caught until a letter arrives up to 14 days later, by which time they may be unable to gather evidence to defend themselves.

Guilty by default!

How nice that Nanny has been able to overturn centuries of British jurisprudence at the stroke of a pen, without the slightest whimper from anyone.

Have we all gone to sleep?

Cameras can be used only in areas where it is too "difficult or sensitive" for an attendant to operate, ie a fast-flowing road (are there any?) or a busy junction.

Nanny is even renaming the "Parking Attendants".

Can you guess what her new, "non sinister" "non Orwellian" name for them will be?

Civil Enforcement Officers!

I don't like that at all...give a little man a big title (and uniform) and he will act like a right git.

The Civil Enforcement Officers will be given powers to post tickets that they do not have time to finish writing before motorists drive off.

The AA quite rightly has noted that thousands of innocent drivers will receive penalties from attendants seeking an easy way to meet performance targets.

Nanny's councils make over £1BN out of this little scam (a surrogate council tax).

Some councils are planning to require simply that the attendant record the number plate and tax disc number, no evidence whatsoever will be required for a fine to be issued.

Rosie Winterton, the Transport Minister, said:

"Parking enforcement must be fair, clear, consistent and based on robust evidence. We want to increase public confidence in parking. Parking rules exist to help beat congestion and improve road safety.

With more than 30 million vehicles on Britain's roads, just one vehicle parked in the wrong place can cause traffic jams. It can also put other road users in danger
."

I agree, unfortunately Nanny's local councils use parking fines to supplement their council tax take. Fines should not be issued by the same organ of the state that then utilises the revenue.

That principle was was worked out, and agreed upon, back in the 17th century; it would appear that Nanny is now seeking to abandon it.

Why not eliminate the need for officers and simply fine us all up front, given that in Nanny's Britain we are guilty until proven innocent?

Happy New Parking Rules Day!

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Swedish Lessons

Swedish Lessons
In keeping with the Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow) Terminal 5 theme, I would like to draw your attention to this little article from a Swedish site E24:

Pommes-fritt på nya Heathrow-terminalen

Londonflygplatsen Heathrow har öppnat en ny jätteterminal - där man förbjudit förekomsten av pommes frites och annan snabbmat.

Monsterflygplatsen Heathrow, med Europas största flöde av privatpassagerare tillika den flygplats som slussar vidare flest internationella passagerare i världen, har fått ett rejält tilltaget terminaltillskott.

Den nya terminalen är tidsenlig på många sätt. Framförallt är den befriad från transfetter och osund kost. I sann Jamie Oliver-anda har man bestämt sig för att förbjuda snabbmatsrestauranger till förmån för sunda och miljövänliga alternativ, rapporterar norska Aftonposten.

Den etablerade brittiska pubkedjan JD Wetherspoon har därför tvingats radera frityrstekarna och fish-and-chipsen från sitt utbud på Terminal 5.

Bygget av Terminal 5, som den nya terminalen heter, har tagit nästan åtta år. Men terminalen har varit i pipeline längre än så. Redan 1982 inleddes en debatt kring huruvida man skulle bygga ut Londonflygplatsen Stansted eller satsa på att bygga ut Heathrow.

Tio år senare bestämde man sig slutligen för att satsa på en femte terminal för Heathrow. Sammanlagt 80 000 personer har varit involverade i bygget.

Terminal 5 kommer att besökas av uppskattningsvis 30 miljoner passagerare årligen, vilket ökar Heathrows totala kapacitet till 90 miljoner passagerare per år, en ökning med 22 miljoner passagerare eller dryga 30 procent, från dagens 68 miljoner passagerare.

Den totala kostnaden beräknas till 4,3 miljarder pund, motsvarande 52 miljarder kronor i dagens penningvärde.


How very cosmopolitan of me!

The title says:

French fries-free new Heathrow terminal!

It goes on to say that that the established British pub JD Wetherspoon had to remove deep fried steak and fish-and-chips from the menu in Terminal 5.

Most assuredly, we should boycott Terminal 5!

Here endeth today's Swedish lesson.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Knobheads of The Year - BAA II

Knobheads of The Year - BAA II
Hearty congratulations to BAA for thoroughly screwing up the first day of operations of Terminal 5 Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow).

Chaos reigned supreme yesterday as check ins, baggage belts and lifts failed. I understand that today is pretty shambolic too.

How ironic that I gave them the "Knobheads of The Year" Award yesterday!

Now let me see, what have I said on several occasions about BAA's competence...errmmm???

Oh yes, this is what I said:

"BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities."

The words "brewery", "piss up", "couldn't" and "organise" spring to mind...if someone could please arrange them in the correct order for me...

Suffice to say, given the dismal performance of BAA wrt terminal 5 Thiefrow, how on earth can they be trusted with our fingerprint data?

I am absolutely certain that BAA, in it current form, will cease to exist in the not too distant future. Let us hope that whatever rises from the ashes is an improvement.

BAA, well deserving knobheads of the year.

corporateresponsibility@baa.com

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Knobheads of The Year - BAA

Knobheads of The Year - BAA
Today, in hour of the opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow, I was going to award BAA my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award, for their truly appalling scheme to fingerprint everyone (including domestic travellers) at Terminal 5 Thiefrow.

I now have to state publicly, and on the record, that this award would have been a grave mistake.

I formally and unreservedly apologise to BAA for almost besmirching their "fine" name, by thinking of giving them this award, and herewith and immediately withdraw the award.

What?!!!!!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?).

Have you lost your cajones Ken?

Fear not loyal readers and anti Nannyers everywhere, I have not lost my cajones. BAA are in fact to be awarded my ultra prestigious "Knobheads of The Year" Award.

For why?

Well, it seems that their idiotic and badly thought through scheme to fingerprint everyone at Thiefrow Terminal 5, which is being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Orifice (ICO) as it is illegal, has been put on hold.

A spokesman for BAA slimed:

"Following a meeting with all relevant parties, including the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency, the introduction of fingerprinting for domestic passengers and international passengers transferring on to domestic flights at Heathrow will be temporarily delayed."

BAA said that it will hold further talks with both the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency before deciding its next move.

For the time being instead of leaving a fingerprint before passing through security, passengers will be photographed.

BE WARNED

This measure is only "on hold", BAA have spent a lot of money on installing the fingerprint scanners and are as keen as mustard to use them; they will try every trick in the book to implement this.

Here's why thier scheme is a load of old bollocks:
  • BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities


  • BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?


  • The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say


  • This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)


  • There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)


  • The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?


  • They will photograph everyone anyway, the prints are not needed
Anyhoo, in celebration of today's grand opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow I am proud, nay honoured, to award BAA "Knobheads of The Year"

Feel free to tell them that they have won, via this email address: corporateresponsibility@baa.com

They had better hurry to pick up the award, given their appalling gearing levels BAA are not going to be around for much longer!

BAA well deserving "Knobheads of The Year"!

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Prats of The Week - Booze and The Pregnant Woman

Prats of The WeekOur old chums from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence - often featured on this site - see label at end of this article) have put their jack boots on again.

This time they have waded into the debate over drinking whilst pregnant.

NICE have decreed that pregnant women should drink nothing at all whilst pregnant, most certainly not during the first three months of pregnancy.

Now, here's why this edict is bollocks:

1 Women have been drinking for millennia during pregnancy, in moderation there is no damage or risk to the baby.

2 Given that for the first few weeks of pregnancy many women do not even know that they are pregnant, how the fark are they meant not to drink during the first 3 months?

3 Here is the clincher, NICE admit that their advice is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Hoisted by their own petard, Nanny's chums admit that they now issue edicts without any scientific backing!

Good grief, they'll be telling pregnant women not to smoke next!

NICE, well deserving Prats of The Week!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Nanny's Fag Fetish

Nanny's Fag FetishFarking hell!

Nanny is still going on about farking fags!

She really ought to get some therapy over this unhealthy obsession with smoking and fag related issues.

Anyhoo, this time Nanny has decided that taxation, banning adverts, banning smoking in public places etc is still not enough to demonise the evil weed. Nanny now wants fags to be sold "under the counter", shops will be banned from displaying tobacco products. Vending machines in pubs and restaurants will also be banned.

Why?

Nanny seems to think that this will reduce the number of children who start smoking.

I didn't know kids regularly wandered into pubs, unchallenged, and bought fags.

Nanny's best chum Dawn Primarolo (once known as "Red Dawn" for extremist left views), the Minister for Public Health, says that this new measure if implemented will save lives:

"It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that."

How very "noble" of her!

The consultation process will begin in late May, once complete Nanny will then ignore the results and push ahead anyway.

OK, so here's why this idea is bollocks:
  • This will drive fag selling to the underworld, thus boosting the revenues of criminals and low life scum (just as drugs, gambling and booze bans have all done in the past).


  • Children are instinctively drawn to anything deemed to be naughty or illegal, this makes fags even more tempting to them.


  • Small/corner shops do not have the space to have an "under the counter" operation. This will effectively destroy the corner shops, and leave the supermarkets in control of what we buy.


  • Aside from fags, shops sell a whole myriad of products that Nanny hates (sweets, chocolates, booze, porn, pies, pasties, patties etc); will these be banned too? Another nail in the coffin of the corner shops, which only survive because they sell these products.


  • We live in a free market economy, shops have the right to display whatever products they wish in any manner that they wish. Consumers have the right to buy whatever they wish.


  • Fag packets have to be least inspiring piece of marketing design on the planet, there is nothing intrinsically attractive about them; ie they are not at all tempting.


  • Nanny makes a nice little earner from the tax on fags, what is she going to do without that revenue stream?


  • Once Nanny has banned fags, she will ban; booze, meat, fat, milk, eggs, cheese, sweets, chocolate etc. The fanatics who push for these bans "get off" from the power kick it gives them, they like to control the lives of others.


  • The argument put forward by Nanny and the butchers' profession that lives and money will be saved, misses a rather essential point. Fags generate tax revenue, which in part goes to pay for the health care of those who become ill from fag related issues. Remove the fags, and you remove the revenue stream and allegedly "grant" people a longer life.

    However, those that live to a "ripe old age" are invariably condemned to years of senility, dementia, frailty, pain and misery in one of Nanny's horrific geriatric wards; ie they are condemned to a living death. These wards cost money to maintain, but the costs are not offset by taxes on fags; therefore the costs to society of an ageing population in terms of money and suffering terms are higher.


  • Nanny and the butchers' profession ignores the fact that it's not the length of life that counts, but the quality.

    We as a society are ignoring the fundamental problem that extending people's life spans, without taking into account the quality of those extended lifespans, is storing up trouble for the future and wrong.

    The butchers' profession and Nanny do not have the moral right to force us to live longer than we were physically/mentally designed to do.
All in all the proposal is truly appalling, on so many levels. Unfortunately, Nanny will implement it because she doesn't give a fark about the consequences.

Background on Red Dawn:

Dawn Primarolo spent ten years at the Treasury as a minister under Gordon Brown, a sentence longer than many serious criminals have to serve. In that job, it is fair to say that she was not universally commended for her competence, more often than not being wheeled out to take a Commons beating for some Treasury blunder or other.

Despite campaigning against the first Gulf War in 1991, she voted in favour of invading Iraq in 2003, and against any investigation into the invasion after it had taken place. She has voted in favour of ID cards and increased university tuition fees.

As Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo was responsible for the administration of the Tax Credits system, intended to provide working families with financial support. This system is of course a complete shambles (see www.hmrcisshite.com).

In 2003, a Treasury select committee member accused her of "losing control of her department" after it became known that Inland Revenue buildings under Primarolo's control had been sold to tax-haven companies. This came shortly after she had "insisted ... the Child tax credit scheme was a "success"", despite Inland Revenue staff walking out in protest against the pressure they were being placed under.

In 2005, PM Tony Blair was forced to apologise after a report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman that Primarolo had failed to give Parliament accurate information. Primarolo admitted at the same time that she had been fully aware "about the extent of the problems".

She was responsible for introducing the controversial IR35 tax rules.

In July 2007 she was appointed minister of state at the Department of Health.

How many hospitals has she ever visited, during her tenure in orifice?

ZERO!

She doesn't like fat people either.

Here is her email address primarolod@parliament.uk, why not drop her a line?