Nanny's Titanic

Nanny, as we all know, believes in an open society; she believes that ordinary people should open up their private lives, and that their activities should be scrutinised by the state.

Now some of you may feel that this is a little one sided, and unfair; do not despair, Nanny has thought of that.

In January 2005 her new freedom of information laws will come into force. These laws will allow the ordinary citizen to inspect Nanny’s activities both past and present.

Now these new laws are very important, Nanny does not want their introduction and operation to be “messed up”. She therefore needed someone with impeccable credentials, someone who has the respect of his colleagues, the media and the public to handle their introduction and operation.

Nanny immediately thought of Lord Falconer, her own dearly “respected” Lord Chancellor, as a very safe pair of hands to guide this tricky piece of legislation through the system.

You will of course recall that Lord Falconer has had many “successes” in “managing” contentious political issues:

• He had to apologise to peers for misleading them about the financial state of the Dome, his pet project. It seems that he was mistaken in denying that it was insolvent



• He tried to abolish his own post of Lord Chancellor, then found he couldn’t



• He is involved in Nanny’s pet project for introducing a Supreme Court in Britain, some people have unkindly suggested that this plan is being worked out on the back of an envelope



• He managed to persuade Nanny to exempt members of the judiciary from the £1.5M tax threshold on pension funds, that everyone else is subject to. It was not too difficult to persuade Nanny; she is, as we all know, quite friendly with lawyers and the judiciary

Given these previous successes, Nanny gave Falconer the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, as I mentioned, in theory this will allow ordinary people to ask Nanny and her chums what they have been up to; over 100000 public bodies will be covered by this act. However, it seems that Lord Falconer has other ideas.

He says that the freedom of information laws will not signal a "free for all", because some Government deliberations must remain secret.

He then compared it to an ocean liner, the Titanic in fact; rather an unfortunate comparison don’t you think Lord F?

Lord F went on to say that some aspects of ministers' decisions were “rightfully” exempt from the Act. It seems that to expose some information would “hinder” good government; now you know why Nanny chose him!

"Cultural change in Whitehall is exactly like turning round the classic ocean liner...Opening up Whitehall and introducing freedom of information is a titanic task..”

"The Act does not signify a `free for all'."

It seems that the new measures will not cover the security and intelligence services, the Special Forces, courts and tribunals.

Additionally, other areas such as; defence, international relations, the economy, law enforcement, health and safety and the Cabinet's collective responsibility for Government decisions are subject to a public interest test.

In other words Nanny will still have the final say as to whether you are entitled to ask a question, and receive an answer.

Nanny's Child Catcher

Nanny’s Children’s Minister, Enver Hodge, is currently recruiting for her much heralded position Children’s Commissioner. The function of this role is apparently to enable children to get their views across to government.

This role will bring in a stonking £100K a year to the post holder, doubtless worth every penny!

It seems that, despite the fact that children neither vote nor pay tax, Nanny feels they have a right to say how the country should be run. Needless to say that by flattering them that their opinion actually matters, which of course it doesn’t, Nanny turns them into loyal future supporters.

Nanny’s friend Enver will be overseeing the recruitment of this new position, and has stamped her own “charming” personality on the recruitment process; by making the prospective candidates face an interview panel of children.

Key personality traits for this “vital” role are that the post holder must not “get stressed out or yell”, nor must he/she “make promises which are then broken”.

Well that rules out all our elected members for sure!

This love and concern for children, being displayed by Enver, should come as no surprise. Less than 20 years ago, Enver was in charge of Islington Council during the period that some 32 council staff were found to be systematically abusing children; some were even running brothels for paedophiles, being “staffed” by children from the council’s children homes.

It has taken a while for Enver to really face up to this problem, even as recently as last year she had to be reminded by one of her victims of the true horror of the situation.

In 2003 she wrote to the BBC; claiming that one of the victims, Demetrious Panton, was “extremely disturbed”. Needless to say this dim-witted outburst backfired, and Enver had to apologise and pay £10K to a charity.

Now that this sorry episode is behind her, who better should be in charge of children’s welfare and selecting the candidate for the new role of Children’s Commissioner?

Blunkett's Bonkers

Oh dear, it seems that the pressure of living up to Nanny’s expectations is beginning to get to one of her lackey’s.

Her dear friend, David “trial without jury” Blunkett seems to be on the verge of a political nervous breakdown and a career implosion.

Need I remind you, that this is the man who claims to value the probity of the law above all else; yet, if the accusations in the press are to be believed, he seems to have taken leave of his senses and has used his office for the benefit of his mistress (Mrs Quinn, not Nanny) rather than for the benefit of the public.

Among the accusations, flying around this weekend, are reports that during his affair with Spectator publisher Kimberly Quinn he:

• Used his position to help Mrs Quinn's former nanny (another Nanny, good grief they are everywhere!) to obtain permission to live in Britain.



• Shared confidential information with her, advising her to tell her parents to avoid a US airport hours before a security scare and telling her in advance about a police raid in Manchester



• Ordered a policeman to stand guard outside her Mayfair home during a May Day anti-capitalist demonstration



• Gave her a first-class rail ticket assigned to him for his work as an MP, and used his government chauffeur to drive her to meet him at his Derbyshire home



• Put pressure on the US Embassy to issue a temporary passport for her son in 2003
  Took her to Spain for a wedding accompanied by four bodyguards and a driver paid for by the taxpayer

As if to pour salt into his own wounds, clearly a man of great moral backbone, he is also seeking to use his own laws to prove the paternity of Mrs Quinn’s two children (a toddler, and her yet to be born child). Mrs Quinn insists that they are her husband’s; however, Blunkett knows best and believes that they are in fact his.

This will get very ugly, and Nanny is going to be highly embarrased.

The question is, do you believe that a man who has clearly taken leave of his senses should be making the law up as he goes along?

As ever with Nanny, it is a case of do as I say not do as I do!

Never mind David, Nanny will kiss it better!

PEOPLE OF BRITAIN WAKE UP!

Those of you who doubt that Britain is becoming a police state, should read the article in this week's Spectator entitled New Labour's Police State.

It scared the hell out of me.

Unless the British people wake up, and throw Nanny and her apparatchiks out, the forthcoming general election in 2005 will probably be the last free elections in this country.

Resistance Is Futile

Nanny is getting a little testy these days, about people constantly criticising her for interfering in their lives.

What a shame!

In fact she has become so annoyed that she has sent her “well respected” apparatchik, Enver Hodge, to tell the British people to “shut up”.

Enver Hodge went on the airwaves today to defend Nanny, and to speak up for the "unsung virtues" of the nanny state.

Dear old Enver has had, you may recall, quite a colourful past life; running a bankrupt and corrupt council.



In the glory days of the 80’s and 90’s Enver was involved with Islington Council, and its childcare policy. In Islington a number of children, in Nanny’s care, were abused by some 32 members of staff; yet Hodge did not act. Indeed when the Evening Standard started to report the issue in 1992, she accused it of “gutter journalism”.

She then managed to further pour salt in the wounds, by writing to the BBC in 2003; claiming that one of the victims, Demetrious Panton, was “extremely disturbed”. Needless to say this dim-witted outburst backfired, and Enver had to apologise and pay £10K to a charity.

In addition to allowing systematic abuse to occur, whilst under her “watch”, Enver managed to bankrupt Islington council. During her period in office she made sure that her own children were kept well out of the clutches of Nanny, by sending them to fee paying schools.

Her nickname, coined by her own staff, during this period was “Enver Hodge”; a reference to the Stalinist dictator of Albania.

With credentials like that, Nanny knew that Enver was the ideal person to lecture parents on how to bring up their children. Indeed Nanny lived in the same street in Islington as Enver Hodge, they were special friends.

Now Enver is back, and has unveiled her “splendid” new plan to tell parents how to bring up their children.

Enver’s department has published a booklet today, which will be given to all new parents, outlining Nanny’s preferred child rearing techniques.

Nanny offers some very worthy advice, such as; how to read a book with a child, and warning parents not to let children watch too much TV.

Enver became rather testy during her media appearance; noting that Nanny is tired of the barrage of attacks over her moves to restrict the right to smack children, smoke in public and eat fatty foods.

Quote:

"I want to celebrate the unsung virtues of state intervention on behalf of families, and I want to expose the contradictions in the position of the Right. There's an element of 'nimbyism' in our attitude to the nanny state. It's all right to put speed bumps outside our front doors to slow down traffic and enhance our property values..

..But we resent the nanny state speed camera catching us as we are late for work and breaking the speed limit..

..The Right, who relish attacks on the nanny state, are very ready to impose their moral values. It is the Right who are constantly telling people how to live their lives.."

She finished her tirade by noting that eventually everyone will agree with Nanny; ie Nanny will simply wear us down, until all opposition is extinguished.

Sounds like the refrain of the Borg “resistance is futile”, and we all know what happened to them don’t we children?

The Politics of Fear

Nanny’s special friend and chief propaganda minister, Peter Hain, has rather bizarrely claimed that Britain is safer under the “protection” of Nanny than it would be if there were a Conservative or Liberal government.

Reich Propaganda Minister Hain went on to say that the likelihood of a British September 11 was greatly reduced by the fact that Nanny was keeping a “watchful and protective” eye over us.

I am so relieved that Nanny is here to take care of us!

As if by magic a report appeared, on the very day that the Queen’s speech outlined Nanny’s proposals for increased powers over her “charges”, of a thwarted attempt by terrorists to fly a plane into Canary Wharf.

The one problem with this little scare story is that it is bollocks; the claim, in fact, refers to an alleged attempt over two years ago.

Do you not find it a little odd that Nanny and her Propaganda Minister chose to publish this story now?

The politics of fear is a very nasty and dangerous game; those that seek to rule by fear are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

So be it, since Nanny wishes to play the fear game; let us ask this simple question:

Do you feel safer in Britain now, during Gulf war II, than you did during Gulf War I (when Nanny was not in power)?

Please send your answers to Reich Propaganda Minister Hain at Leader@CommonsLeader.x.gsi.gov.uk

Happy Thanksgiving

I would like to wish my American visitors a happy, and peaceful, Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately the US Ambassador here in London has, yet again, left me off the invitation list for his Thanksgiving party in Grosvenor Square.

Maybe next year!

I am pleased to say that this site has won plaudits in the USA, in particular "A Nation of Riflemen" has written a very robust article recommending this site to its readers.

My thanks to Kim du Toit, the owner and author of "A Nation of Riflemen", for his article.

Nanny to Reintroduce Food Rationing

Nanny, as we know, hates the way that we live our lives. We are fat, lazy and we eat too much of the wrong food.

Nanny feels that she has done her best to try to persuade us to change our lifestyles, yet we seem to be ignoring her. This inattention to her lectures really annoys her.

Well, Nanny is fed up with being ignored, she does “know best”; and has decided that action will be taken.

One of her special friends, Dr Rachel Davey of Staffordshire University, has been thinking about the problem; and has presented Nanny with a special paper that makes a few radical proposals.

Davey’s paper correctly identifies that the more we eat, and the less that we do, the more weight we will gain.

No problems with her most excellent analysis so far.

Now here is where it becomes a little more worrying; she says that when we are confronted with food we are weak willed, and that we will not voluntarily change our habits.

Oh to have Nanny’s moral backbone!

However, do not despair, this is where Nanny will help us.

Dr Davey, who views our current eating habits as “insidious” and likes to use the word "enforce" (let’s not mince words here doctor), proposes a number of “helpful” measures designed to make us fit Nanny’s ideal:

• She proposes taxing certain food items, that Nanny dislikes, much like tobacco and drink are taxed



• She proposes that the advertising of certain food stuff be controlled; in the same way that tobacco and drink advertising is controlled



• She proposes, and this is the real killer, that certain foodstuffs be rationed; just like they were in the war!

Quote:

“..It is not inconceivable that some form of food rationing and portion size control may be required in future if the dramatic rise in obesity continues. This could be done via supermarkets since most of the food we consume in the home is purchased at a relatively small number of food outlets. Obesity is virtually impossible to treat by conventional methods so efforts need to be directed towards prevention. To change social attitudes and challenge social norms, governments must implement radical policy changes which will enforce an environment in which food production, marketing and consumption are controlled…”

During the last war, the British government rationed food via a points system. Everyone was allocated 16 points a month, which they could “spend” on food of their choice. Once the points were used up, they could buy no more.

Dr Davey argues that people were fitter and healthier then; therefore it is the right solution for the “obesity” war that Nanny is fighting on our behalf.

Dare I inject a note of reality into Nanny’s view of history here?

• Rationing was introduced because Britain was at war, people had no choice but to live in this manner; the country was facing starvation, as the U boats cut our supply lines.



• The war lasted 1939-45, rationing persisted until the 1950’s; by which time people were heartily sick of it. The then labour government had to abolish it, or face a mini “revolution”. Oddly enough people don’t like being restricted in their choices, when there is no war to fight.



• During rationing there was a thriving “black market”. Nanny’s attempt to introduce rationing will merely produce the same result. An affluent criminal element in society, which will control the supply of burgers and chips.

By the way regarding the current lard shortage, that is threatening to ruin Christmas for many a British household, I have a pack of lard in my fridge; and am open to offers.



Please submit your bids to lardbid@kenfrost.com, marking them "I love lard".

As ever, with Nanny’s “solutions” to problems, she has not thought through the consequences of her actions; and blatantly disregards the right of people to choose how they wish to live their lives.

Weblog Nominations

Nominations for the Best Blog of 2004 are now being taken by www.2004weblogawards.com.

If you like this blog, and think that it deserves an award, then please nominate it via this link Weblog Nomination 2004.

Many thanks.

The Sly Old Fox

Those of you reading the British newspapers, and watching the news bulletins, over the last month or so may be forgiven for thinking that Nanny has become obsessed with fox hunting.

She certainly has kicked up quite a fuss over the issue; professing, as she does, to have the best interests of animals at heart.

Oddly enough I see no legislation coming forward to ban shooting or fishing. Doubtless that will come.

In fact Peter Bradley, the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, admitted that Nanny’s friends in Labour don’t “give a stuff” over the fox hunting issue at all:

“We ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom: it was class war…

This was not about the politics of envy but the polities of power. Ultimately it's about who governs Britain..”

Nanny meanwhile has stayed above the fray, in fact she has been almost invisible.

Maybe I am tad cynical, “surely not!” I hear you cry, but maybe Nanny has other fish to fry?

Does it not strike you as a little odd that a government so obsessed with media manipulation and spin has allowed, what in theory is a minority sport, to dominate the domestic agenda and media headlines?

The truth is that Nanny does not give a stuff about foxes, one way or the other. However, she has studied their wily ways, and is a sly old fox herself.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, whilst the media, the public and the “opposition” parties’ attentions have been diverted by the hunting issue; Nanny has quietly introduced, and passed, a most dangerous piece of legislation.

The Civil Contingencies Bill became law last Thursday, oddly enough the same day as the fox hunting ban went through with all that fuss.

The Civil Contingencies Bill allows Nanny, at the drop of a hat, to suspend the constitution and impose whatever restrictions on individual liberties and civil rights that she chooses.

Nanny can invoke her right to suspend liberties whenever there is an emergency.

Now, dear reader, what is an emergency?

Simple, anything Nanny says is an emergency is in fact an emergency.

This includes an event or situation, which threatens serious damage to:

• Human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom



• The environment of a place in the United Kingdom



• The security of the United Kingdom or of a place in the United Kingdom

Damage includes:

• Loss of human life



• Human illness or injury



• Homelessness



• Damage to property



• Disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel



• Disruption of an electronic or other system of communication



• Disruption of facilities for transport



• Disruption of services relating to health

In short, Nanny can now do whatever she likes when she likes.

You should now be afraid, be very afraid!

You may well ask where the media and the “opposition” parties were, when this “rule by dictat” bill was being put through parliament.

Ermm, that’s simple, they were chasing Nanny’s fox.

In truth the media and the "oppositon" parties failed the people of the United Kingdom, I trust that they will hang their heads in shame!

Nanny, I have to hand it to you; you are a sly old fox!

Croydon's Crappy Christmas

Nanny’s trolls and sprites in Croydon Council have been very busy of late, bringing the Borough to the edge of bankruptcy.

However, their prime goal, that of pleasing Nanny always takes priority. In the past they have ruminated over the meaning of Christmas, and decided that Croydon should not be overtly supportive of this Christian festival; lest it offend others.

Therefore, in 2002, they decided to remove the illuminated display shown each December of a Christmas tree and a cross on each side of Taberner House (the town hall). These symbols were formed by leaving selected room lights on until midnight.

Now, moving on a couple of years, Nanny’s friends in the council have decided that they will not be footing the £1500 bill for the erection (can I say erection on a public blog?) of a Christmas tree in the town centre.

The good burghers of Croydon cite the fact that costs, and health and safety issues, make this erection impossible.

Now before you all despair at the thought of my beloved Borough (yes I live in Croydon) being without a Christmas tree, don’t.

Nanny’s sworn enemy Ronald McDonald, purveyor of proscribed foods, has come to the rescue.

His company, McDonalds, will pay for an erection in Croydon.

We will have a tree!!

However, the council never ones to take a slap in the face lightly have responded. They will be doing their best to keep the lighting ceremony low key, ie they don’t want one.

Tony Hart, the town centre manager, said the cost of organising a formal event for the turning-on of the lights had rocketed over the past few years; due to health and safety regulations, and it would therefore be a low-key and understated affair.

In a further slap in the face to the citizens of Croydon, Mr Hart said that there would be no other Christmas decorations in the town centre; unless enough money could be raised from local businesses.

It looks like that we will be having a truly crappy Christmas in Croydon this year, thanks to Nanny’s friends in the council.

Those of you wishing to read more about how badly Croydon is run, please visit www.croydoniscrap.com

Nominate Me for an Honour

I think that Nanny would be very be pleased to know about my efforts to tell everyone in the world about the "good" work that she does, so selflessly, for the people of Britain.

In fact, I am sure that if she were aware of my efforts to tell people about how hard she works; then she would honour me for it.

Nothing too fancy mind, an MBE or Knighthood will do.

Therefore if you think that I deserve an honour, why not visit Nanny's Ceremonial Secretariat download a nomination form; and tell her to honour me.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

Ken

Give a Dog a Bad Name

I am more than a little touched to discover today, that one of Nanny’s ministers has been reading this site; and taking lessons from it.

It seems that our beloved Home Secretary David “trial without jury” Blunkett has caught sight of his nickname here, as per previous posts, and decided to live up to it.

Today at 1:00PM on the Dimbleby show on ITV, Blunkett will announce that he is increasing Nanny’s powers; and that those suspected of terrorist offences will be tried in closed courts, without juries.

Blunkett also wants to introduce new civil orders, against people suspected of planning terrorism.

Those breaching such orders could face imprisonment, even if they have not committed a crime. Nice touch that, arresting someone even when they have not broken the law.

I understand that he is dreaming of the day when he can apply this ruling to every criminal case. However, softly softly, one step at a time.

Don’t worry David; it will not be long before you have totally abolished the checks and balances that took the British legal system centuries to develop!

Another particularly nice touch to this issue, is that Blunkett is choosing to tell the British people about Nanny’s plans on TV; before telling the House of Commons, which would be the normal method.

Eliminating the authority of parliament is Nanny’s other goal, David has given his mistress double the pleasure today. By the way, by mistress I mean Nanny (not the other one!).

Nanny's Loyalty Programme

Now I know that Nanny often gets a bad press these days. People look for every opportunity to “dis her” and her friends.

One media obsession is the level of “freebies” that Nanny, her family and friends receive. Holidays, clothing, and publishing deals; the press simply can’t stop going on about Nanny’s alleged abuses of power.

Now here I must make a stand for Nanny; she and her entourage do occasionally go shopping, she and her chums have even been known to spend money.

In fact recently, during one of these shopping trips, Nanny came across the supermarket loyalty card.

Now that got her thinking; if supermarkets can create loyalty among their customers, why couldn’t she do the same with her “charges”?

She was particularly impressed with the fact that these card schemes can collect data about customers’ shopping habits.

She put her trusted friend David “trial without jury” Blunkett on the case, asking him to come up with a suitable scheme. He did not disappoint his mistress (Nanny that is, not the other one), and has come back with a sure-fire winner (seen below).



The scheme will be called the National Loyalty Programme (NLP), and will be open to everyone in the country; not just those who shop at certain supermarkets.

Blunkett proudly discussed the scheme with the media the other day; he noted that the supermarket schemes were pretty inferior. After all they only collect data about their own customers’ shopping habits; this data is not shared with other agencies, or used for anything other than providing consumers with more choice.

Nanny abhors choice; in her view the more products and services available to people, the more confused they become. Far better to restrict choice, and let Nanny worry about what people can buy and use.

The NLP will therefore offer nothing to anyone; zero choice means zero confusion!

As regards data sharing; well, individuals’ details and habits will be recorded by the NLP and naturally will be shared with all of Nanny’s departments and agencies. A massive improvement on the supermarket schemes; which do not share data.

The real icing on the cake is the cost of running the scheme. Supermarket schemes are free to join, and as such are costly to run; supermarkets have to pay to administer their schemes, and provide their members with rewards. Well, as noted, the NLP will offer absolutely nothing to its members; therefore significantly reducing the costs of the scheme. However, and this is the best bit, the members of NLP will have to pay to belong to it. Preliminary figures suggest that the registration fee will be around £50 per head, plus a renewal fee every few years.

Nanny was so pleased with Blunkett’s scheme, not only will the fee cover the costs of administering it; the fee will in fact provide a surplus for Nanny and her friends, to use to further consolidate their grip on power.

Nanny knows that crafty old Blunkett has in fact created a means of levying a backdoor poll tax.

Selling the scheme will be easy; as Blunkett told the media the other day:

“The National Loyalty Programme is not only fun, novel and exciting; hell it’s compulsory!”

However, you need not fear that this will be steamrollered through. All you will be required to do at this stage is to submit all your personal details to Nanny, sign a form underneath the bit that says “for the rest of my life”; then you can think about it.

As Blunkett said:

“People can trust the state…honest!”

Newsflash - Enver Hodge Arrested!

Breaking News......The ever popular, and well "respected" Nanny's Minister for Children Enver Hodge was arrested earlier today.

Full news story here Enver Hodge arrest.

Nanny Bans Nursery Rhymes

Nanny is clearly feeling a little bored with life at the moment; she has commissioned, at great expense to her charges (that’s you and me folks!), a study into violence in nursery rhymes.

The study, carried out by the Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, found that the frequency of nursery rhyme violence was more than 10 times greater than in programmes shown on TV before the watershed.

The study focussed on 25 popular rhymes, including; Humpty Dumpty and Jack and Jill.

The scenes of violence included:

• Humpty Dumpty being hurt in a fall



• Jack and Jill tumbling down a hillside



• Simple Simon being thrown to ground by a cow



• Rock a bye baby crashing to earth, as the cradle falls (wouldn’t that be covered under a manufacturer’s warranty or something?)

The conclusion of the study was that television is not the only source of violent imagery for children.

Nanny will therefore be decreeing that the current nursery rhymes are unsuitable for children, and ban them. She will then issue new, “sanitised”, rhymes that are less harmful to young minds.

As you all know, this site is happy to co-operate with Nanny in any way.

Therefore, I am launching a special competition; whereby visitors to www.nannyknowsbest.com can write their own Nanny style “sanitised” nursery rhymes.

These new “sanitised” rhymes can be based on traditional ones, or be entirely “free form”.

Please submit your entries to me, marking them for the attention of the Rhyme Sanitation Department. The winners will earn the kudos, and “notoriety”, of having their names and creations published on this site.

Good luck!

Auntie Nanny's Little Britain

Nanny’s friends in that venereal (or is it venerable?) British institution the Bland Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), “affectionately” known as Auntie, have decided that one of their programmes being shown on BBC3 is too “risqué” for their audience on BBC1.

It seems that the cult comedy “Little Britain”, which is currently being shown on BBC3, will have to be re-edited when it is reshown on BBC1 in December.

Some of the scenes in the show will be replaced with new footage, shot especially for BBC1.




Auntie’s board of governors, seen above discussing the issue, have decided that some of the show’s references - including those made in Daffyd's "the only gay in the village" sketches - are unsuitable for what they deem to be a mainstream audience.

Now this is an interesting use of Nanny logic; Auntie, you must remember, runs both BBC1 and BBC3 both of which are broadcast throughout the UK. However, what she is saying is that the audience of BBC1 is not adult or mature enough to judge for themselves what they should or shouldn’t see.

Auntie does not think that her main audience are able to reach for the “off switch”, in the event that they see something that displeases them; whereas, in her view, the audience on BBC3 are able to make that judgement call.

The mainstream audience, in Auntie’s view, must only be spoon fed sanitised unstimulating mush. In other words, Auntie has a low regard for the intellectual abilities and maturity of her main audience; yet she is happy to take money from them.

You are of course aware that Auntie charges an annual licence fee, this is used to fund all her channels; including BBC3, which she believes caters to a minority (ie intellectual) audience.

This is a fine example of Nanny at her worst, where she applies a form of viewing “apartheid” between her own channels.

Only Nanny, in this case Auntie, is capable of deciding what you can and should watch; individual viewers are not capable of making intelligent, informed, choices.

Coming soon, to a television set near you, 24 hours live Eastenders!

Plonkers IV

Nanny’s friends in The Grauniad are up to their old tricks again. They well deserve their title of Plonkers, awarded to them by this site in October.

This time they have written a splendid piece of nonsense, justifying the nanny state. It gushes:

"The nanny state is the good state. A nanny is what every well-off family hires if it can afford it. So why do the nanny-employing Tories use the word as an insult? In the Commons and in their press, they bray like a bunch of prep-school bullies calling anyone a cissy if they do what nanny says..".

To read the full text of this garbage, please visit The Grauniad.

Unfortunately what the plonkers in The Grauniad fail to understand, is that Nanny’s desire for us all to be healthy in mind and body; is not out of selfless love for us as individual members of a strong society, but out of a desire to see a strong and productive workforce.

Why does she want a strong and productive workforce?

Simple:

• A strong and productive workforce means an increasing GDP.



• An increasing GDP means an increasing tax take for Nanny and her friends.



• An increasing tax take means more money for Nanny to spend on consolidating, and increasing, her power base.

Nanny believes in a strong state, that perpetuates her personal power; Nanny’s strong state acts to the detriment of those citizens who live within its borders.

BOGOF!

Nanny is getting herself into a “right old strop” about our eating habits. She doesn’t like us eating fatty or sugary foods, she doesn’t like us over eating and she hates “supersize” portions.

Finally, in a fit of pique, she has issued yet another directive.

BOGOF will be banned!

Those of you not familiar with the phrase BOGOF, need to be aware that Nanny is not swearing (heaven forbid!); she is in fact using the short form abbreviation for the commercial term “Buy One Get One Free”.

This is where supermarkets, and other retailers, offer the consumer a second product; eg a bar of chocolate for free, if they buy the first one.

Nanny has decided that this is an evil and wicked practice, it encourages us to eat far more than she thinks that we should.

In her eyes, we have no will power or free will.

Such is the concern about Nanny’s directive that Somerfield, the supermarket chain, have launched a questionnaire on their website; it asks visitors to give their opinions on Nanny’s interference in respect of BOGOF.

In my opinion Nanny is getting seriously out of hand, and needs to be taken down a “peg or two”.

Free Publicity

My thanks to The Daily Mail for giving this site some free publicity on their front page today.

Their article discusses the health white paper, and the nanny state.

Pity they didn't mention this site!

Nanny Reins in Rampaging Octopus

Today sees the launch of Nanny’s much leaked White Paper on Health.

In this “worthy tome” she sets out her agenda for banning smoking, junk food and the other sins of personal pleasure that she despises.

Now much has been, and will be, written about the ban that will proposed on smoking in public places where there is prepared food. There will doubtless be a splendidly robust discussion as to what constitutes prepared food. We will return to that in future articles.

However, what has not been widely reported is this “wee gem”.

Nanny’s special friend Ken “Octopus” Livingstone (Mayor of London), who has his tentacles in all aspects of London life, has suffered a major rebuke; and has had to be reined in by Nanny’s Health Enforcer John “Twenty Rothmans a Day” Reid (funny how Nanny, and many of her friends were smokers isn’t it?).

You see, Nanny’s Octopus was keenly backing plans to give all of London’s 32 councils’ powers to ban smoking in all public places. Enforcer John’s plans do permit smoking, as said, in licensed public places where there is no prepared food; however, he will not be permitting councils to issue their own banning order.

Why is this?

Well, believe it or not, Nanny is getting a little worried about people accusing her of creating a “Nanny State”. It seems that she is beginning to detect a sea change in peoples’ moods, namely that they do not like to be nannied.

If www.nannyknowsbest.com has contributed in anyway to Nanny’s feeling of discomfort, then I can only say I am proud of that achievement (albeit a minor one); and hope to continue to discomfort, and annoy, her for the foreseeable future.

Nanny's Traffic Lights

Nanny has come up with some daft ideas in her time; but this one, I think, takes the biscuit.

Note: biscuit is one of Nanny’s proscribed substances, as it contains sugar. In order to comply with Nanny’s rules; I have to say at this point that I do not endorse the consumption, or use, of biscuits except in medically prescribed situations.

Nanny is now waging war against all forms of food, which she sees as posing a clear and present danger to our health. You will of course be aware that the human race has been in existence for around 150000 years; it has been able to handle its food affairs reasonably well, up until now.

However, “Nanny Knows Best”; she has decided to disregard the last 150000 years, and will be implementing a “traffic light system” for food labelling.

A what?

A traffic light system.

Nanny will divide food into three groups:

-The Good

-The Bad

-The Ugly

Each will be assigned a colour code; red for ugly (ie very bad), amber for bad and green for good. Needless to say only the most sinful of food will be assigned red such as; chocolate, confectionery, doughnuts, crisps and fizzy drinks.

Now, in theory, that is fine. A nice red label telling you that a bar of chocolate is high in fat and sugar, no doubt imparts information that you were not aware of; doubtless it will stop you from buying this product.

However, what about foods such as cheese, butter and milk?

Under Nanny’s rules these would be labelled red as well; after all, they are fat aren’t they?

On this basis are we to stop eating butter, cheese and milk products?

Or maybe, as we humans have discovered over the last 150000 years, we just need to exercise common sense; eg one bar of chocolate a day won’t kill us, 150 in a day might.



Nanny, get a life; and leave us to live ours!

Nanny's Forbidden Foods

Nanny has decided that fast food adverts will be banned, she is fed up with people being encouraged to eat foods that she does not approve of.

Therefore, in her forthcoming White Paper, Nanny will equate fast food with sex; and ban advertisements on television, for these most sinful of products, before the watershed hour of 21:00.

Therefore in the spirit of rebellion, that Nanny so desperately seeks to quash, I have put together a small selection of photos of the "forbidden" foods; for you to drool over, in the privacy of your own home.

Enjoy them while you can, one day Nanny will ban these products outright!

Nanny's Forbidden Advert

Nanny’s friends in the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have ordered Tango to stop showing their current TV advert.

The advert shows a man wrapped in a carpet filled with oranges, which is laid on top of several concrete pipes.

The man is shown rolling down a hill, crashing into a tree and then being hit by the concrete pipes; causing the oranges to explode.

ASA has, in true Nanny style, acted even before a formal decision on whether the ad breached industry rules has been taken.

This bodes ill for the future; ASA has in fact only just taken over responsibility for broadcast material, previously it was relegated to deciding as to what we could read.

ASA is worried that the advert could lead to children copying what was shown.

Let’s think about that shall we?

ASA believe that children will be able to manhandle heavy concrete piping, and then make the heavy concrete piping roll down a hill so that it crushes them.

Precisely why would the child wish to be crushed by concrete piping, and precisely how stupid do they think British children are?

Those of you who would like to watch a few Tango ads, are welcome to use the links below to watch two classics and the forbidden ad.

I would remind you not to crush yourselves with concrete piping!

Classic Tango ad 1

Classic Tango ad 2

The Forbidden Tango ad

Blunkett's Bouncers

Nanny simply loves to tinker with Britain’s legal framework; she has a penchant for reorganising and abolishing the centuries of checks and balances, which have maintained a reasonably stable democracy in Britain.

However, she has often found that her desire to change was hampered by the very thing that she was trying to change; ie the British legal system.

Nanny needed a champion, someone who would remove this annoying obstacle to her will.

Enter David “trial without jury” Blunkett; a man who has made it his life work to increase centralised government control of the judiciary, and to abolish the basic legal rights that have been in place for centuries.

Blunkett, as we all know, has had a few “run ins” with the police over what he perceives to be their resistance to his policies; he feels that they are not helping him, and his mistress (I mean Nanny by the way!), implement their “master plan” for Britain.

Nanny and her champion Blunkett are not renowned for their patience; perhaps they perceive that their time is running out?

Therefore Blunkett in order to ensure that his legal rule changes will be enforced, without the foot dragging of the police, has decreed that he will appoint more community support officers and increase their powers.

In other words, he will be creating a private police force that will work directly for him; they will not be accountable, as the regular police force are, to the normal laws and regulations of Britain.

These community support officers, known “affectionately” as “Blunkett’s Bouncers”, will have the power to detain people for up to 30 minutes without a professional police officer being present.

Think about that for a minute, your neighbour or anyone else who joins “Blunkett’s Bouncers” will be able to detain you at their whim!

This uniformed band of citizens, shades of the Third Reich here I think, would also have other powers including:

• The power to demand names and addresses



• The power to confiscate alcohol



• The power to issue fixed penalty notices for certain offences

This is a very dangerous path to follow; the creation of a private police force, accountable to the Home Secretary, exposes the British people to being exploited both by unscrupulous Home Secretary’s and the members of “Blunkett’s Bouncers”.

By the way if you feel that a few “Blunkett’s Bouncers” may not be too much of a problem, think on; the current membership of Blunkett’s private police force stands at around 3000, he wants the numbers to rocket to a staggering 25000.

In fact, Blunkett is already formulating his recruitment campaign.



Worried now? You should be!

Blunkett's Bouncers, coming to a town near you!

Nanny's Wee Scotty Dogs

Nanny’s wee Scotties, in her Scottish parliament, have decided to ban smoking in public places in Scotland as from 2006.

These wee Scotties have of course never smoked themselves, paah! However, they have decided that, as far as their fellow citizens’ lifestyles and habits go, they know best.

Therefore, as from 2006, anyone found to be in breach of this no smoking dictat will be fined up to £3500; a nice little earner, by anybody’s standards!

However, there may be a few problems with banning smoking in Scotland:

• The police have told the Scotties that they will not enforce the ban. Not unreasonably, they feel that their prime duty is to protect the public from criminal activities such as; theft, violence and drugs.



• The Scottish public are not in favour of the ban; a recent poll found that well over 50% of those polled felt that they should be allowed to smoke in public.

In a normal democracy, the above points would make the politicians think again about the wisdom of their proposal. After all if the people that you are elected to serve do not wish for the law to be enacted, and those that would enforce the law say that they will not enforce it; then that makes the law unworkable, surely?

Unfortunately in Nanny’s Britain things do not work like that.

Nanny’s Scotties have come up with a solution to the above problems:

• They will instruct local councils to appoint yet another group of interfering busybodies to enforce the law; thus neatly sidestepping the need for the police. In other words, they will appoint their own private police force.



• The fact that the good people of Scotland do not want the ban is irrelevant, Nanny’s Scotties know best; the peoples’ opinion will be ignored.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen; the birth of a dictatorship!

Nanny's Special Christmas

Further to my recent post about Nanny banning religion (Nanny Bans Religion), as she attempted to abolish the word “Saint” from the name of a school in Islington, it seems that she has taken another goosestep on the way to a religious free state.

Nanny’s lackeys, in Mantle Community Arts, have acceded to her wishes with regard to quashing religious symbolism.

Coalville, in Leicestershire, was to have held its traditional Christmas lantern procession for 600 children.

To quote Mantle’s own words:

“The effect of so many lanterns brought together is magical. We aim for this project to foster a sense of community celebration, creativity and enchantment, bringing children and adults together to celebrate themselves, their artwork and their community..."

The £16K cost of this procession was to have been funded by Nanny’s National Lottery.

However, Nanny’s sycophants in Mantle Community Arts have decided that the event might be used by rebel elements in the clergy to sing carols and preach gospels. Nanny regards these as revolutionary songs and actions, which must be quashed.

Therefore, in true nanny logic, the Christmas parade will be moved to January; thereby avoiding any attempt, by the revolutionary elements in the clergy, to use the event for their evil religious purposes.

However, the good people of Coalville need not despair; Nanny will be providing them with an extra special Christmas tree this year, to brighten their dark soulless nights.

Please feel free to tell Mantle Community Arts what you think of their attempt to crush Christmas, by writing to them here: mantlearts@btclick.com

The Climate of Fear Pervading The NHS

Nanny has an obsession with meeting the arbitrary targets that she has set for health care.

Heaven help those hospitals, and treatment centres, that don’t meet her targets.

Such is the climate of fear that now pervades the health service that, instead of attending to the needs of patients, some health providers are diverting scarce resources to tend to the needs of Nanny’s bureaucrats.

A doctor’s workload now consists of piles of paperwork, rather than a queue of patients.

I understand that Radcliffe Infirmary is so terrified of incurring the wrath of Nanny and her sycophants, by not meeting her targets for patient treatment times; that they deliberately make patients wait in ambulances, outside of the hospital, until such time that they can be seen.

Why is this?

Simple, until the hapless patient passes through the doors of the hospital the clock for Nanny’s statistical analysis of patients’ treatment time does not start ticking.

Needless to say the patient may feel somewhat aggrieved by this treatment. However, in Nanny’s Britain, people come second; statistics and targets come first!

Nanny's Ultimate Fantasy

In a previous article, "The First Steps on The Road to Belsen", I wrote about Nanny banning people from smoking outside of her hospitals.

It seems that she is now taking steps to proactively enforce this ban.

An NHS trust in Woolwich South London will use Big Brother technology, to stop staff and visitors from gathering around NHS entrances to smoke. A sensor has been installed outside the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which will shout at anyone who dares to smoke the forbidden weed; it will remind them that it is a non-smoking area, and it will ask them to move away from the area.

Should the sensor encounter non-compliance with the “move away from the entrance” directive; Nanny’s automated back up will arrive, and physically “pacify” the area.

Judge, jury and executioner rolled into one; Nanny’s ultimate fantasy!

Coming to a hosptial near you!

Nanny's Smooth Talking Bar Steward

My compliments to the people of the North East of England; who gave Nanny and her smooth talking bar steward, John Despot, a resounding two fingered salute on Thursday.

Nanny had put forward the incredibly daft proposal for a Northern regional assembly. This potty scheme was the pet project of Mr Despot, who harboured dreams of emulating Scottish devolution by creating devolved English regions.

Despot campaigned hard in the North East, pulling no punches when it came to spreading his case for devolution.

However, the plan as brilliant as Mr Despot thought it was, had one fatal flaw; it was bollocks!

The voters easily saw through Despot’s lies, and identified the main stumbling blocks to North East devolution:

• It would cost £25M per annum to run



• It would increase Nanny’s bureaucratic empire



• It would add no value to the voters’ daily lives



• It would add another layer of politicians



• It would have no powers

Taking the above into account; they resoundingly rejected the plan, and more importantly the extra layer of politicians, by 696K votes to 197K votes.

One very important outcome of this referendum, that Nanny and her chums should be well advised to take on board, is this; people are fed up with politicians, they do not want any more to be added to the public wage bill.

By the way, the cost to the tax payers of Nanny’s little referendum was £11M. Do you think she will apologise to us for wasting our money?

Will she hell!

Meanwhile, Mr Despot is rumoured to be so devastated at being given the two fingered salute; that he is considering rejoining his ship and going back to his old job.



We all hope that he does this as quickly as possible, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him a bon voyage!