Nanny Bans Cherie II

Here is an update to my earlier story about Nanny banning Cherie Blair's interview on NBC's Today programme, from being aired in the UK.

In the show, Cherie said that she had no interest in following her old man into politics.

Now, at the time, it was not clear as to which of Nanny's trolls had banned the show from being broadcast in the UK.

I can now reveal the identity of the person who banned this show from being broadcast. It was none other than:

Cherie Blair herself.

I wonder why?

Big Brother Is Watching You

Nanny loves to show that she is a leader, and that Britain leads the world in "innovation" and "social engineering".

As the New Year approaches we can rest easy, in the knowledge that Nanny's Britain is about to take the lead in another area of technology.

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are to be recorded. This new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Nanny will use a network of cameras to automatically read every car number plate. Nanny plans to build a huge database of vehicle movements, so that her police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

Nanny's CCTV network will use the thousands of existing CCTV cameras which will be converted to read number plates automatically night and day, and to provide 24/7 coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-station forecourts.

Nanny has planned that by next March a central database installed alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon. Nanny's database will store the details of 35 million number-plate "reads" per day. These will include time, date and precise location, with camera sites monitored by global positioning satellites.

She already has plans to extend the database by increasing the storage period to five years, and by linking thousands of additional cameras so that details of up to 100 million number plates can be fed each day into the central databank.

The movements of all law-abiding people will soon be routinely recorded, and kept on Nanny's database for years.

Nanny's scheme is backed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), and will cost £24M for the equipment.

Already, over 50 of Nanny's local authorities have signed agreements to allow the police to convert thousands of existing traffic cameras, so they can read number plates automatically.

Nanny is also on the verge of making agreements with the Highways Agency, supermarkets and petrol station owners to incorporate their own CCTV cameras into the network.

Frank Whiteley, Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and chairman of the Acpo steering committee on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), said:

"Every time you make a car journey already, you'll be on CCTV somewhere.

The difference is that,

in future,

the car's index plates will be read as well.

What the data centre should be able to tell you is

where a vehicle was in the past and where it is now,

whether it was or wasn't at a particular location, and the routes taken to and from those crime scenes.

Particularly important are associated vehicles".

The question is, do we trust Nanny to use this data for our own good?

Something to cogitate on, whilst you are munching on the remains of your turkey.

Scary Numbers

We all know that in Britain around 7 million people now work for Nanny.

Well now folks, I have just come back from a well earned break in Edinburgh and was told this piece of information whilst up there.

In Scotland 50% of the adult working population now work for Nanny.

That is neither good for the economy, or for democracy.

Scared?

You should be!

Nanny Bans Cherie

Here we go folks, some seasonal cheer for you all; something that will really brighten up your Christmas.

Nanny has banned Cherie.

Yes, that's right!

Nanny has banned Cherie Blair from appearing on TV in the UK.

What!!!???...I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate at Christmas time?)

It's true...Nanny really has banned Cherie.

Cherie recently recorded an interview to be shown on American TV with Katie Couric, anchor of NBC Today.

In the interview Cherie ruled out a career in politics, when Blairy leaves Downing Street.

What a relief!

Asked if she had political ambitions of her own, Cherie said:

"No, because I have been there."

Cherie unsuccessfully contested the 1983 general election as a Labour candidate in Thanet, before quitting politics to focus on law.

US President Bill Clinton had said that he would support her if she ran for power.

Cherie continued:

"I don't want to duplicate something my husband's done.

I've got plenty of things I want to do in my own right."

Now, here's the interesting thing.

The interview with NBC was only allowed/granted by Nanny's trolls in Downing Street on the strict condition that it would not be broadcast in the UK.

BBC Two's Newsnight made a bold attempt to find out why this ban was put in place, yet the trolls would not comment.

Whatever the reason, I would like to thank Nanny's trolls for sparing us from this.

Merry Christmas everyone, God bless us one and all!

Season's Greetings

Nanny Bans Carols II

Here is an update on yesterday's carol singing protest outside of parliament.

About 100 singers turned up last night to test the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, by singing in Parliament Square.

The law bans demonstrating without police permission within a half-mile "exclusion zone".

No singers were arrested.

Nanny had decided to treat it as a carol service, not a demonstration.

Ah Ha!

However, as also noted yesterday, as this was a planned event that means it breached the licensing act.

Nanny certainly likes to cause confusion doesn't she?

On the subject of carols, I understand that police in Greenwich have asked that people perform citizens arrests on carol singers who try to collect money.

Greenwich police say that residents who feel intimidated by carol singers should perform a citizen's arrest on them, because they are breaking the law.

Police released a statement saying that anyone carol singing on a doorstep, without a charity box or a permit, is "begging".

The statement also asks residents to "detain such children", and then call the police.

That will work won't it?

You try "detaining" a group of 15 year olds!

The Reverend Elaine Cranmer from St Luke's Vicarage Eltham, said:

"It seems a bit over the top to me. It sounds like using a sledgehammer to crack open a nut.

I'm aware some people feel intimidated but carol singing has become a traditional part of Christmas."

Marie Hunt, who runs the Deptford 2nd North Brownie and Guide group, said that she has stopped taking her children carol singing because of the "petty rules".

Quote:

"It has gone too far now. The police are like Scrooge, they are just spoiling Christmas for the children.

When I was younger we used to go out all the time on our own but nowadays, the kids can't do it. They don't know where they stand.

It is political correctness gone mad."

The Greenwich police statement said:

"Please remember that anyone (but usually children) who rings your doorbell or knocks and then starts singing carols,

but have no official charity collection box or permit,

are simply begging.

Begging by children under 16 is an offence under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Anyone can detain such children and then you can call the police."

The law also states the parents or guardian of the singing child will be prosecuted.

Nanny truly has entered into the Christmas spirit!

Nanny Bans Carols

Nanny bans Carols and Susans and Alices etc..Ha! Ha!

Only Nanny's twisted little mind could have come up with something as daft as this.

It seems that carol singers have found themselves tied up by Nanny's new licensing laws.

Under the Licensing Act, which came into force last month and allows pubs to extend their opening hours, carollers do not need a licence if they just sing.

However, as with all of Nanny's rules there is a catch, if the carol singers make arrangements beforehand to sing in a particular place, they then have to apply in writing for a "temporary event notice" from their local council.

Can you believe this load of old bollocks?

Even I, who have run this site for over a year, have some difficulty in believing how stupid Nanny is being in this particular case.

Needless to say, Nanny's ever "popular" local councils have added to the confusion by interpretating the act in different ways.

In North Wales a carol service was originally cancelled when the supermarket, where it was to be staged, said that it needed a licence. However, it was then put back on again when the local council said the requirement under the new law was "nonsense".

However, a large event in Norfolk last weekend had to be called off at the last minute; after Nanny's unhelpful "jobsworth" trolls in the local authority ruled that it could not go ahead without a temporary event notice.

Churches Together, a group that organises inter-denominational carol singing and Christmas services, said:

"It has been suggested that the legislation needs 'testing' through prosecution of so-called test cases".

70 singers from local churches were to sing last Saturday outside Budgens in Poringland. However, it had to be cancelled because of confusion over the licensing requirements.

Nanny's trolls in South Norfolk district council said that a licence was needed, but that it was too late to apply.

Look you prats, all you do is turn a blind eye to the singing and don't prosecute.

Or are you too stupid and thick headed to do that?

I assume the latter.

The sad fact is that Nanny continues to hold power because she is supported by "jobsworth" cretins in local authorities, and other state organs, who are getting a power kick out of enforcing daft laws.

Seven million people now work for Nanny, no wonder she has so much power!

Suffice to say Nanny is an ass!

However, there are some people who are prepared to stand up to Nanny. I am pleased to note that today a group of people will test this stupid law, and indeed test another one of Nanny's nasty and iniquitous laws.

Carol singers are to defy a ban on unauthorised protests around Parliament.

The group will test Nanny's new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, by singing in Parliament Square from 1800 GMT today.

Nanny has stated that demonstrating without police permission an arrestable offence near Parliament.

Singers will include long-term anti-war protester Brian Haw and Maya Evans, the first protester to be convicted.

Mr Haw is the one protester exempt from the ban, due to a Home Office drafting error. He successfully argued in the High Court that as his 4 year vigil pre-dated the law, therefore he did not have to apply for authorisation to continue.

However, he will of course be breaching the Licensing Act..OOOHH!

Since the Serious Crime Act came into force in August, several people have been arrested and other protesters have been warned off.

Peace campaigner Ms Evans was the first to be convicted under the Act, after reading out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq at the Cenotaph.

Mr Haw will lead the Lord's Prayer at the service on Wednesday, joined by others including former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, and a 7 July bombings survivor.

A spokesman for the carol singers, Tim Ireland, said:

"We believe that the public has the right to gather in a public place and sing Christmas carols. The police may see things differently, we shall see."

I bet Nanny tries to use the Licensing Act to get them.

I wish all who attend this event, it is planned to continue for as long as Nanny doesn't intervene, the very best of luck.

You've Got To Pick a Pocket or Two..

At this time of year, when abundance rejoices, want is most keenly felt.

These words, first penned by Charles Dickens well over a century ago, are as true now as they were then.

Nowhere is want most keenly felt than in Nanny's world of rules and regulations. You see folks, all these rules have to be enforced, monitored and administered.

That costs money.

Nanny, although she happily keeps raising taxes, is still feeling a little "short".

She has been pondering how to raise more cash, then finally her special little Christmas troll Charles Fungus Clarke, the home secretary, came up with a real wizzo idea.

His idea is to lower the the cash seizure threshold under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

What's all that about then Ken?...I hear you ask.

Didn't you know?

Currently, if the police are investigating a suspect and they are carrying more than
£5K in cash, the police can seize the money.

The suspect then has 14 days to explain the source of funds to a magistrate. If the suspect chooses not to do so, then the police keep the funds.

Didn't know that, did you?

Now, dear old Fungus is considering lowering the limit from £5K to £1K. This amount, I think you will all agree, is what you could easily get through one night down the pub.

The amendment would widen the scope for donations to the police force's "tin box", as it is known; ie it would provide a very nice top up to the police force's petty cash.

The scheme is administered by Smiler Brown's Treasury, and is designed to return a percentage of the proceeds of crime back to the law enforcement agency that
seized it. This money is viewed as a short-term gain for the police force.

A member of the City of London Police is quoted as saying that they are looking for "..cash seizures for quick results..".

Indeed, in 2004 police officers in Suffolk forced a convicted drug dealer to hand over £60 in cash for which he could not account.

A pilot scheme will be run in Kirklees.

Offenders found with £1K or more face having their cash taken by the police using a court order under the new proposals.

Fungus said:

"Reducing the threshold so officers can seize cash stashes of at least £1K will allow the police to target local drug dealers and other small-time criminals whose activities destroy lives and blight communities.

Hard cash remains the currency of choice for criminals - bundles of notes totaling around 1m are being seized each week.

Much of the money we are confiscating from the criminals is being used to fund the fight against crime and to help support victims and crime reduction projects across the country.

This forms a key part of our Respect agenda

and our sustained effort to ensure criminals can no longer ride roughshod over the law and the values of the decent law-abiding majority by openly flouting their ill-gotten gains."

I am all for wiping criminal scum from the face of the earth.

However, does it not pose rather a risk to police impartiality, intergity and independence if the police are able to profit by keeping the money that they take from people in this manner?

Nanny Bans Santa II

Part of the magic of Christmas is for parents and their children to queue for hours on end in an overcrowded store, for the opportunity to visit a fat old man in a red costume, sit on his lap and then get a cheap plastic toy that breaks in five minutes.

Needless to say Nanny doesn't approve of this sort of thing, and has decided that it must be stopped.

Nanny is particularly concerned about the fact that children sit on Santa's lap, as we all know Nanny has told everyone that all adults are paedophiles.

This message is, because it is constantly repeated, now considered to be fact. Over the last couple of years regular "hue and cries" erupt in towns and cities across Britain, as the latest "paedo" suspect is identified by a baying mob.

These scenes are more reminiscent of the witch lynching mobs of the 16th century, rather than the "educated enlightened times" of the 21st. Indeed, one hapless paediatrician found himself on the wrong end of a mob only a year ago; because there was a sign outside his office containing the word paeditrician>

The ignorance of the mob, encouraged by Nanny, knows no bounds!.

Anyhoo, Nanny's attention has now turned to the threat posed by Santa, and the fact that children sit on his lap.

Quite clearly this poses an unacceptable risk, even though the child's parents are in the same room with Santa.

Small details like this do not concern Nanny, after all she is of the belief that the state is better at bringing up children than the parents.

Now department stores, toy shops and shopping centres have bowed to Nanny's will and have banned children from sitting on Santa's knee.

Instead, children must sit on a stool next to him and they are most certainly not allowed to touch him.

Alison Burney, of Dream Time Events, which provides the grotto at Bluewater shopping centre said:

"Unfortunately, people in this day and age just don't look favourably on a child sitting on Santa's knee.

So we train our Santas not to do it.

Having said that, if a toddler jumped into Santa's hands, then he wouldn't just drop the child."

That's reassuring!

At Lakeside shopping centre, Thurrock, a spokeswoman is quoted as saying:

"Children are not allowed to sit on Santa's knee

because all our Santas go through rigorous police checks,

and we're advised on the basis of that training to ask the Santas not to touch the children."

The magic of Nanny's Christmas!

The Price of Art

Nanny has a secret.

She won't tell you how much she paid for a piece of art.

The piece in question is a sculpture by Conrad Shawcross, called Continuum, which was on display at the Queen's House at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich.

Shawcross describes his work thus:

"a wooden spring-like structure..

moving through itself in perpetuity...

a conceptual model of the day."

That's nice.

Unfortunately, Nanny won't tell us how much she paid Shawcross for the temporary installation.

This is even more unfortunate because the museum receives £15M per year from us, the taxpayers.

Nanny's trustees have twice turned down a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, to reveal the cost of housing the artwork.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner and guardian of the new Act, also refused to publish the figure.

The commissioner's refusal to disclose the size of the payment is being challenged as a test of Nanny's Freedom of Information regime.

The so called "freedom of information" regime is already in trouble; the Information Commission is struggling to cope with a huge backlog of appeals against refusals by Whitehall, and other bodies, to disclose information to the public.

The case about Continuum is being brought by Matthew Davis, a freelance journalist from Brighton, who lodged a series of requests for information about the prices paid by galleries and museums for contemporary works of art.

Mr Davis intends to represent himself at the tribunal, the members of which are appointed by the Government. He is being opposed not just by the National Maritime Museum, but also by the Department for Culture Media and Sport.

We wish him well.

Office of Christmas Regulations and Procedures

I am pleased to announce that following suggestions arising from the earlier article today about Nanny's rules for office parties.

The Office of Christmas Regulations and Procedures (CRaP) has formally published the rules.








Copies of these CRaP products; printed on T shirts, mugs, posters etc can be purchased from Nanny's CRaP store at www.cafepress.com/ocrap

Ken

Nanny's Perfect Christmas Party

With the office Christmas party season now in full swing, Nanny has issued a number of guidelines as to how to hold the "perfect" Nanny Christmas party.








They are summarised below:

• No alcohol should be served, Nanny disapproves of alcohol



• No pork (eg cocktail sausages, scotch eggs, pork pies and sausage rolls) should be served, this may offend certain non Christians



• No meat should be served, this may offend vegetarians



• No mince pies or Christmas puddings should be served. These contain lard and suet, and as such would offend vegetarians



• No mistletoe should be used to decorate the office; this would encourage kissing, which of course could be construed as sexual harassment



• Kissing is banned, for the reason above and because of the risk of spreading avian flu



• Christmas should not be mentioned, and there should be no decorations, as this may offend the non Christians



• No form of dancing or physical contact should take place, as this may be construed as sexual harassment



• No crackers should be pulled, as the explosive content is contrary to Nanny's anti terrorist laws



• No food should be served, as people are far too fat anyway



• No presents should be distributed, as recipients may feel pressured to have sex with the gift giver. Also, presents may be of varying degrees of quality, as such some people may feel discriminated against



• No party games should be held, as some people will be classified as "losers" which of course is very bad for their self esteem



• No photocopiers should be in the vicinity, as people may be tempted to copy their backsides (which of course is a health and safety issue, as well as being construed as sexual harassment)

Happy Christmas everyone!

Space Cadets (Soon To Be Renamed Prats In Space)

The product of the Nanny state and Nanny's education system.

Nuff said!

Nanny Bans Santa

Christmas is coming,
The goose is getting fat
Stuff it!

Or so the old saying goes.

Anyhoo, Nanny and her sprites and elves have entered this season's festivities with their usual enthusiasm.

Nanny's sprites, working on Nanny's website www.teachernet.gov.uk, decided to offer some pre festive advice to those teachers planning Christmas activities for their pupils.

What was the advice?

Simple, ban Santa Claus!

It seems that according to Nanny, children need to be protected from "terrifying" Santa Claus. You see Santa is an overweight old man with a red face, who likes the company of children and asks them to sit on his lap.

Can you see the problem here folks?

That's right, in Nanny's Britain old fat people with red faces are considered to be sub human. Additionally, as every adult is in fact a paedophile, he is quite obviously a threat to the health and safety of the children.

Simple isn't it?

It is hardly surprising that, given the amount of negative Nanny spin gushed forth by the state about fat people, old people and the threats from paedophiles that children do find Santa a little frightening.

The website also said that staff organising school Christmas parties should take care not to arrange competitive games, with winners and losers; apparently this may upset the children, and make them feel they had "underperformed".

Message to Nanny, if you don't teach children to be competitive and to handle failure you leave them ill equipped to cope with the realities of life; in fact it could be argued that, by leaving them so ill prepared, you were in fact abusing them.

The advice on the website also had a go at pantomimes (where men dress as women, women dress as men and the principle "boy" is played by an attractive girl who gets to kiss an equally attractive female lead..now what on earth is wrong with taking children to watch that?) quote:

"For very young children, Father Christmas can be terrifying,

and if you are planning a visit from Santa, you'll need to make sure that fearful children are near an exit.

Trips to the pantomime can cause alarm, so the same planning applies.

Younger children in particular have a wide range of fears, many of which seem completely irrational to adults.

Many children dislike the dark or crowded rooms, so be sensitive to this if you are planning atmospheric lighting."

These people are allowed near children?

It is hardly surprising that we are breeding a nation of self centred, immature morons who are incapable of dressing themselves let alone looking after themselves.

The site went on to dig itself deeper into a hole by listing games that could be included in school parties, these games were devised by the "progressive" youth movement, the Woodcraft Folk.

Pass the sick bag, I think I'm going to throw up!

The advice said:

"Sometimes parties and organised games just reinforce differences and inequalities.

The last thing you want is for children to get anxious or upset because they feel they have underperformed, or not been successful.

If you do have games with winners, make sure that all children are given an opportunity to succeed where possible."

What utter...

wait for it..

wait for it...

BOLLOCKS!

Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: said:

"It is so sad that we have become so politically correct that we are trying to remove the magic of Christmas."

By the way children, can you guess what happened next?

That's right Nanny, as she always does when confronted by people who are actually prepared to stand up for themselves, took the site down and removed the "offending" pages.

Nanny then did her best to deny any responsibility, by saying that it did not represent official policy. A spokesman for the Department of Education squirmed:

"We fully support the traditional British Christmas.

This is not Government policy and was not produced by the department.

We have now withdrawn it as it does not reflect our views."

Questions:

-Why did Nanny put it up in the first place then?

-Isn't any one in charge at the Dept of Education?

The advice was put up because it accurately reflects the thinking of Nanny and her elves and sprites.

Nanny just doesn't have the courage to stand up for herself.

As such she deserves absolutely no respect.

CIA Airlines II

Oh dear, gremlins or something appears to be making mischief.

Since posting the CIA Airlines image yesterday, the site that hosts the image has collapsed twice.

How very odd!

Therefore, if you would like to see a larger version of the image please visit my emergency back up site www.kenbackup.blogspot.com

Sorry for this folks, sometimes things go wrong.

Ken

Hangovers Hurt - It's Official!

Tis the season to be pissed, la la la la la la la la la.

In the run up to Christmas we all over do it a bit, don't we?

Nanny is aware of this, and wants to help.

To this end she spent £40K of our money on commissioning a team of academics to prove what we already know, namely that excessive drinking gives us a hangover.

Researchers at Glasgow Caledonian University were given the grant to investigate "whether having an alcohol induced hangover impairs psychomotor and cognitive performance".

Apparently over 30 volunteers were asked to record how much they drank on a night out. The next morning they taken by taxi to a laboratory, where they were subjected to a range of tests along with an equal number of volunteers who had drunk no alcohol.

Quel surprise!


www.hungovercentral.com


Nanny found that the volunteers with hangovers performed poorly compared with their abstemious colleagues. They also had worse co-ordination, were more likely to feel tired and had trouble concentrating.

The study was paid for by the Alcohol Education and Research Council (AERC).

Dr Frances Finnigan, the psychologist who led the study, said:

"The message is, if you drink heavily the night before the chances are you will be impaired the next day at some level."

No kidding!

Money well spent!

CIA Airlines

Click on the image to view a larger version

Nanny's Cunning Linguistics

As we all know, Nanny is very concerned about the level of crime in Britain these days.

She states, on a daily basis, that crime is unacceptable and that she will do everything in her power to eradicate it.

ASBO's abound, and we now have more CCTV cameras than any other country in the world. Nanny also claims that she wants the police to be more efficient and effective at fighting crime.

One measure that she is adopting, to improve the effectiveness of the police, is to set a requirement for all new recruits to North Wales Police to reach a set standard in the Welsh language as part of their training.

A from 2006, the force has added a level two qualification in spoken Welsh to the skills required of new officers.

The level two qualification is a stage below GCSE standard Welsh.

Chief Inspector Ray Hughes said it was important to serve the communities of north Wales in both English and Welsh.

He said:

"It goes back to the Welsh Language Act of 1993 which created two official languages in Wales, namely Welsh and English, and gave them equal status.

We have a Welsh language scheme and a strategy which states that we will give both languages equal status and we are aiming to become a bilingual organisation.

This is to ensure that we are able to provide a service

in the language of choice for those people living in the communities of north Wales."

Adding:

"We are serious about this, we are not playing with it.

We think it's important that we are able to serve our communities in the language of their choice."

The Welsh Language Board said it supported the North Wales Police initiative.

What a load of bollocks!

The time and money wasted on this would be better spent on crime prevention.

Reality check here, everyone in Wales can speak and understand English; whether they like it or not, they will have to continue to learn and understand English if they are to interact with the rest of the world.

This "initiative" is a waste of time and money.

Nanny Bans Fat People III

I find it interesting that, for once, something that I wrote about earlier (in November to be precise) is now being picked up by the mainstream media.

In Nanny Bans Fat People II I noted that:


"The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (perversely named NICE) have issued guidelines that suggest that medical help could be refused to heavy drinkers, smokers and those who are overweight."

Now it seems that NICE issued a formal report on Thursday repeating that message. NICE, which advises on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments for the NHS, said that in some cases the "self-inflicted" nature of an illness should be taken into account.

Nice stressed that people should not be discriminated against by doctors, simply because they smoked or were overweight. Its ruling should apply only if the treatment was likely to be less effective, or not work because of an unhealthy habit.

Nice is a powerful body, primary care trusts regularly wait for many months for a Nice decision before agreeing to fund a new treatment.

Thursday's report, Social Value Judgment - Principles for the development of Nice guidance, said no priority should be given to patients based on income, social class or social roles at different ages when considering the cost effectiveness of a treatment.

That's nice!

Patients should not be discriminated against on the grounds of age either, unless age has a direct relevance to the condition.

However, the report said that if self-inflicted factors meant that drugs or treatment would be less clinically and cost-effective, this may need to be considered when producing advice for the NHS; ie they will ration treatment.

The report said:

"If the self-inflicted cause of the condition will influence the likely outcome of a particular treatment,

then it may be appropriate to take this into account in some circumstances."

NICE noted that it can be difficult to decide whether an illness, such as a heart attack, was self-inflicted in a smoker.

Quote:

"A patient's individual circumstances may only be taken into account when there will be an impact on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment."

Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said:

"There is no excuse for cash-strapped hospitals denying treatment to people whose lifestyle they disapprove of.

Treatment decisions involving people's lifestyle should be based on clinical reasons, not grounds of cost.

The NHS is there to keep people healthy, not to sit in judgment on individual lifestyles."

A spokesman for Nice said:

"The only circumstances where that (treatment) may be taken into account is where that treatment may be less effective because of lifestyle choices."

Remember, you read it here first!

Nanny Bans Marlowe

I must commend Nanny's view of her own powers, not only does she seek to change the present but now she seeks to change the past.

Stalin used to do the same thing, he would doctor photographs of people that had "disappeared"; in order to eradicate them from history, thus ensuring the past always reflected his view of the present.

Nanny is now playing a very similar game.

Theatre producers at the Barbican in London have decided to rewrite parts of Christopher Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great, written in the 16th century, to avoid upsetting Muslims.

Tamburlaine the Great includes a reference to Muhammad being "not worthy to be worshipped", and a scene where the Koran is burnt.

The production at the Barbican has altered these scenes over fears they might offend.

Stage director Terry Hands thinks that this idea is bollocks.

Quote:

"I don't believe you should interfere with any classic for reasons of religious or political correctness."

However, Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic where the production initiated said that not changing the original text "would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of one of the world's great religions".

He ignores several fundamental points:

• Muslims are not stupid, they are able to differentiate between a play written in the 16th century and a modern day bigot



• A religion, if it is to survive, must allow itself to be debated and criticised. Only then will its intellectual rigour be tested and proven



• You can no more dis-invent your past than you can dis-invent the wheel



• This form of unrequested censorship merely isolates and patronises those that it was intended to protect

Nanny does not have the right to judge and alter the past.

Nanny Bans Crucifix

As we approach Christmas, it is heartening to know that Nanny never lets up on her anti Christian Crusade (there's a bit of tautology in there for you folks:)).

It seems that Nanny's friends at Sinfin Community School, Derby, have got themselves in a bit of a state over the wearing of a crucifix.

Sam Morris, 16, was sent home from Sinfin Community School after she refused to remove a gold cross on a necklace.

Nanny's rationale being that wearing a crucifix was not compulsory for Christians, so the necklace breached dress codes (which ban the wearing of jewellery).

Now that is fine to have a jewellery ban. However, as with Nanny there are always exceptions.

In this particular case other pupils are allowed to wear kirpan daggers and metal bracelets, as they are classed as religious symbols.

Ann Widdecombe MP said:

"To persecute a young girl like this for her religious beliefs,

whatever they are,

is unacceptable."

Sinfin's deputy head Howard Jones said:

"Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion.

Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols."

Tell that to the Pope!

As Derby City Council said, whilst the ban may be lawful, is it was not "desirable".

Nanny, by enforcing different rules between different groups, has ensured that instead of bringing people together she has pushed them apart.

A very foolish policy.

Nanny Bans Brunel

Nanny seems to be getting above herself; not only does she assume that she has the power to mould the way that we act and think in the present, but now in a display of pure ego she is trying to alter the past.

Nanny's friends at Heinemann, the publishers, have decided to don the mantle of "Time Lords" and try to alter the past.

Specifically they are very concerned about Isambard Kingdom Brunel, one of Britain's finest engineers, and his habit of smoking 40 cigars a day.

That's an impressive input!

Anyhoo, we all know what Nanny thinks about smoking, Heinemann have decided that photos of the Brunel with his trademark cigar are simply not acceptable anymore.

Specifically they are gunning for the photo taken by Robert Howlett of Brunel, standing in front of the SS Great Eastern with a cigar in his mouth.

Heinemann have recently published an educational book called The Life of Isambard Kingdom Brunel; the photo on the front is Howlett's, yet is it s "sans" cigar.

Heinemann have adopted the old Stalinist trick of editing out parts of photos of which they disapprove. They claim that the cigar has been erased, because teachers and school librarians will not buy books for young children if the covers picture people smoking.

Andrew Kelly, director of Brunel 200, a body organising celebrations of Brunel's life in 2006 to mark the bicentenary of his birth, said:

"The publishers say they feel the image could offend some teachers of young children.

This is ridiculous. It's daft. They have even had to change the shape of his mouth to do it."

I dare say there will come a time when stove pipe hats will be considered to be a danger as well, and as such Brunel will lose his.

You can no more disinvent your past, than you can disinvent the wheel.

Drink Yourself To Death This Christmas

Just a friendly reminder, now that Christmas is rapidly approaching.

The most effective way of annoying Nanny is to do things that she hates.

Specifically drinking.

Please take this opportunity to stick two fingers up at her and buy some booze; not only will it annoy her, it will also provide me with a few pennies if you use the booze link in the right hand menu to make your purchases.

Thanks.

Ken

Nanny On Speed II

It seems that the recent post about Nanny getting tough with speeding has over stimulated some you!

Therefore, in the interests of keeping the discussion on speeding going, here is another Nanny speeding story; this time though she gets hoisted by her own petard.

Sergeant Ted Bloodworth, of Bedfordshire Police, was clocked speeding in one of his force's mobile offices. He was photographed in the specially adapted van, as he passed through a 40mph roadworks zone in neighbouring Cambridgeshire.

Under his force's policy, he can appeal to his commander; saying there was a legitimate reason, or face court proceedings.

The lesson here is, if you are going to speed, don't use a mobile office.

You're Nicked

Nanny takes her responsibilities with respect to enforcing her rules and regulations on her highways very seriously, as Oliver Smith found to his cost the other day.

Smith went out for a drive in Leyland Lancashire, in a car with no tax disc and a broken indicator; to compound matters further, he was driving on the pavement!

Quite rightly Nanny pounced on him, and one of her policeman friends gave Smith a right old lecture on road safety.

Oh, by the way, I should at this stage point out that Smith is only 22 months old; he was driving a battery powered toy car, that can travel up to the awesome speed of 2 mph.

Indeed, Smith, was driving under the supervision of his grandfather Derek.

Nanny lectured Mr Smith (senior) about road safety before warning him that, under Nanny's new laws, Smith (junior) could be charged for having no tax, insurance or MoT certificate.

After delivering the lecture, Nanny's policeman issued a verbal warning then drove off.

Needless to say the Smith family are more than a little peeved that Nanny has the time to lecture toddlers on the Road Traffic Act.

Even more galling is the fact that Nanny got it wrong.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1998, any mechanically-propelled vehicle has to be registered with the DVLA and have proper insurance, MoT and road tax.

However, electrically-propelled pedal cycles and vehicles such as Oliver's jeep and certain classes of mobility scooters are exempt.

Oliver's father Richard said:

"I am also amazed that the officer in question did not know the law

and neither did his boss at the main police station when I telephoned to clarify the matter."

A spokesman for Lancashire Police said:

"I can confirm that a child's toy car that can only travel about 2-3mph does not come under the motor vehicle legislation."

Nuff said!

Nanny On Speed

Nanny makes many promises on all manner of subjects to all and sundry, one of these promises was that she would cut the emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010.

As with most of the promises that Nanny makes, the reality is often very different from the wish.

As such, Nanny is looking for ways of trying to meet her target. Fortunately she knows of one way which will not only help her meet this target, but will also give her a nice little revenue boost as well.

She is planning to crack down on motorists who speed on motorways.

Nanny estimates that around 15 million motorists a year break the motorway speed limit; allegedly the faster a car travels over 70mph, the less efficient its engine.

It is reassuring to know that Nanny will be diverting scarce police resources from their unnecessary work on catching muggers, rapists and burglars to the more eco useful work of catching speeding motorists.

Nanny will of course profit rather handsomely from the increased revenue that the fines will bring in.

Cliff Richard Decreed To Be A Health And Safety Risk

Those of you who have been entertained by Cliff Richard, bus driver turned singer, over the past few centuries should be warned.

Nanny has decreed that he poses a health and safety risk!

That at least is the conclusion of the people who run Birmingham's National Indoor Arena (BNIA).

You see, for the fans of Cliff, nothing adds more pleasure to their experience of a live concert than camping out in car parks; in order to build up the pre concert mood.

Cliff recently performed at the BNIA, 16th and 17th of November, and his fans were expecting to do what they always do pre concert; namely camp out in the multi storey car park.

Not this year chums.

BNIA venue bosses decided that such an activity was a health and safety risk, as the BNIA was also be packed with families watching Disney on Ice.

An NEC Group spokeswoman said at the time:

"Historically, we are used to Cliff's army of fans camping in the car park during the spring as they wait for his tennis tournament tickets to go on sale.

But at that time of year we're normally very quiet, so having tents instead of cars in the multi-storey isn't really an issue.

Disney on Ice is traditionally staged at the NIA during half-term, so there are health and safety issues to consider, and we couldn't guarantee their safety at that time.

We are expecting a lot of people to turn up very early on October 30 to get their place in the queue."

Only in Britain!

The Dangers of Avocados

Nanny sees dangers in all manner of products, actions and foods; that normal people would never see.

For instance, I wonder how many of you have innocently eaten an avocado without realising how dangerous this particular fruit (yes it is a fruit, not a vegetable) is?

Fortunately for us, Nanny sees beyond our limited horizons; she has identified that avocados are in fact highly dangerous.

At least that seems to be the conclusion following an out of court settlement between Michael McCarthy, a trainee chef, and the Dalmunzie Hotel, Glenshee, Perthshire.

McCarthy, when he was working in the kitchens of the hotel, was attempting to cut an avocado; it seems that the avocado was a tad unripe, his knife slipped and he cut himself.

McCarthy needed surgery after the incident, and claimed that it meant he had to give up his dream of a career as an RAF chef. He now works in a call centre.

Needless to say, being brought up in the Nanny state gave McCarthy a good idea as to what his "rights" were. He tried to sue the hotel for £25K.

That's the way laddie!

He claimed that the hotel should have warned him of the danger that an unripened avocado posed.

In the end the hotel decided to reach an out of court settlement for £3K.

So you see folks, avocados should now have warning labels.

He was a silly chap; he should have sued them on the grounds that avocados are a particularly erotic fruit, in form and texture (well that's my view anyway), as such handling such an arousing fruit would be against his religious (he would have to make one up) sensibilities. He would have got far more money out of them then!

I wonder how many chefs have cut themselves in the kitchen? I know that I have on a few occasions.

-Should they then sue the kitchen that they work in?

-Should they sue the knife manufacturer?

-Should they, perhaps, sue the shop that sold them the knife?

Yesterday, I was robustly grating some ginger; guess what? I grazed my knuckles.

-Should I sue the grater manufacturer?

-Should I sue the person who sold me the grater?

-Should I sue the ginger grower?

-Should I sue the person who sold me the ginger?

-Should I sue myself, for being so clumsy?

Thoughts anyone?

So many people to sue, so little time left to do it in! That's all part of the fun of living in a Nanny state.

Prat Of The Week

This week's Prat of The Week Award goes to one of Nanny's henchmen, Terry White, from the Labour Communications Unit.

White has decreed, in an email to Allan Murray a member of the public, that sports fans who wave the flag of Saint George are racist.

This follows on from a comment made by an ex-minister, Gisela Stuart (German born), who claimed that the rise of Englishness is a threat to democracy.

Mr Murray had written to Nanny saying:

"Why is it that as a party you dislike the English so much?

I am fed up to the back teeth with Labour's endless dumbing down of the English.

The Labour Party are trying to wipe England off the UK map."

White responded in a rant worthy of Nanny herself:

"England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past.

It is a fact that the right and extreme right in Britain cloak themselves in the English flag, the cross of St George and claim to be the true representatives of the English.

Wherever there is hooligan behaviour, usually linked to extreme right-wing political groups eg, at football matches here and abroad, it is the flag of St George that is displayed."

Utter....wait for it....bollocks!

Nanny is using the tired old argument that we should be guilty for our past, and to atone we must never mention our nationality again (except by way of shame).

Piffle and balderdash!

You can no more undo your past, than you can disinvent the wheel.

Yet Nanny is more than happy to encourage "racial awareness", and a yearning for separate identities, by encouraging devolution in Scotland and Wales. I won't even begin to discuss the Smooth Talking Bar Steward's shambolic attempt at a Northern Regional Assembly!

When you start to unpick the fabric of a United Kingdom, that took many centuries of bloodshed and toil to unite, you will get a backlash.

Nanny has realised that she may have spoken out of turn here, and has done what comes naturally to her; she has disowned White. A Labour spokesman said:

"We cannot condone these comments and they in no way represent the views of the Party. We apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."

Too late, you have exposed your warped thinking to the world; now suffer the consequences.

Those of you who wish to tell White and Nanny what you think of them, can contact them at the following address:

Terry White
The Labour Party
16 Old Queen Street
London SW1H 9HP

08705 900 200

info@new.labour.org.uk



Give them hell!

Nanny Bans Fat People II

It seems that my post yesterday about Nanny Banning Fat People, where I suggested that obesity was but the thin end of the wedge, may have been somewhat prescient of the shape of things to come.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (perversely named NICE) have issued guidelines that suggest that medical help could be refused to heavy drinkers, smokers and those who are overweight.

Principle 10 of the guidelines on Social Value Judgements state:

"NICE and its advisory bodies should avoid denying care to patients with conditions that are,or may be, self-inflicted (in part or in whole).

If, however, self-inflicted cause(s) of the condition influence the clinical or cost effectiveness of the use of an intervention, it may be appropriate to take this into account."

-Who decides what is self inflicted?

-Who decides what constitutes obese?

-Who decides what constitutes heavy drinking?

Nanny!

A poll by the website www.doctors.net.uk found one in five doctors said they had withheld treatment from a patient because of their "unhealthy" lifestyle.

Decisions are already being taken without our consent/knowledge, based on subjective judgements about our lifestyles.

The future is now!

Nanny Bans Fat People

Nanny, as we all know, has had a long hatred for all of those people who are different to her. One of the recurring themes of her daily harangues is that of food, specifically what we eat and how much we eat.

Needless to say, those of us who do not conform to her "analy retentive" beliefs on this subject are castigated as being second class citizens.

Specifically, those people who Nanny would describe as being "overweight" are subjected to daily lectures about getting more exercise and losing weight.

Up until now, the lectures and the implied ostracism were the "only" things that the "overweight" had to put up with. However, Nanny has now added a new weapon to her armoury in her war against the "obese". She has now decided that those people that she classifies as "overweight" will be denied certain operations on the National Health Service (NHS).

At least that's what her acolytes in Ipswich Primary care Trust have decreed. These charming people, unelected and unaccountable, have decided that the overweight will be denied hip and knee replacements; until the appropriate amount of weight has been lost.

Their rationale?

They need to save money, and fat people take longer to heal after such an operation; therefore they propose not operating on fat people.

Easy isn't it? Especially if your not "fat"!

However, I can see a few "flies in Nanny's ointment" over this:

• Who precisely decides as to what constitutes fat? Are these arbiters of fatness going to reveal themselves in public, so that they can debate the issue? I bet they don't.



• The NHS currently works on the principle that people pay, via the national insurance contribution, for a guaranteed health system that will treat (within the available resources) all manner of diseases and all people. There has been no list of exceptions issued, or communicated, to the people paying into the system.



• I suspect that the faceless bureaucrats introducing the "fat bar" had more than a little smile of smug self satisfaction, as they issued their decree. You see Nanny has so conditioned us to despise fatness, that "fat" people are rapidly becoming second class citizens. Once someone is deemed to be less worthy/human than you, it is so easy to treat them a little differently, isn't it? Need I draw reference to Nazi Germany?



• Today we ban fat people from having operations; tomorrow it will be smokers, drinkers and the elderly (they are going to die anyway, so why waste money on them?) who end up on Nanny's "not approved" list. In fact, let us go the whole hog in respect of saving money, and only treat people on the NHS who are healthy. In other words, if you are ill or injured the NHS won't treat you; isn't that the most logical way to save money?

In truth, the British people have been lied to over the last 40 years or so by politicians of all parties as to the abilities of the NHS. As people live longer, and medical techniques advance, the system will simply not be able to afford to treat every single ailment; unless there is a radical overhaul, and debate about what it should be able to do.

Most politicians are cowards, they have stifled the truth and the debate for fear of losing office. The British people need to debate openly about what the NHS is actually there to do, and how it can be funded.

My view, for what it is worth, is that a basic system should be implemented that guarantees a.o. single rooms for all, and treatments for regular and common illnesses eg hip replacements, apendix removals etc. Where the disease or illness is beyond the "norm", eg heart replacement, there should be a private funding top up made by an individual's private health scheme. Where an individual does not have one of these policies, he/she would be offered pain relief and the necessary basic care to ensure that his/her final days were as dignified as possible (including the option for suicide).

Doubtless many will disagree with the above proposal; but that's the point, the issues are not easy. However, if Nanny does not even allow us a debate about them; by the time we reach 65, there will be no health service left at all and it will be suicide pills for all.

Nanny Wastes Money Again!

Full marks for Nanny's ability to come up with even dafter ways of wasting our money.

Eric Laurier and Chris Philo, two human geography researchers at Glasgow University, have spent three years investigating the rise of the "cappuccino culture" in Britain, at the taxpayers' expense.

They have come to the stunning conclusion that high street cafes are convivial places, where people go to enjoy others' company.

The cost to the taxpayer of this waste of time and effort?

£140K, paid for by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Dr Laurier admitted:

"We were studying the everyday life that we all know. The things we are reporting on are things we know already.

There is nothing there that would make you say, 'Oh gosh'".

Among the report's conclusions are that cafes are often nicer places than pubs for women with small children to go to, and that people will stop going if the coffee is not good.

A spokeswoman for the ESRC said that the project was "socially relevant".

A spokesman for this site says "Bollocks!".

Prat Of The Week

This weeks Prat of The Week Award goes to Imran Khan.

What?

Imran Khan, one of the world's finest cricketers...have you gone mad Ken? I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on the net?).

No, not that Imran Khan, but Imran Khan the employee of Direct Line Insurance.

Khan has taken Direct Line to an employment tribunal for religious discrimination. It seems that Direct Line have done an unspeakable thing to him.

They have offered him bottles of wine as a performance incentive.

Louise Cummings, Khan's team leader, said she introduced the incentives as a means of "improving staff morale and performance".

Quote:

"If I had realised that I had hurt anyone's feelings, then I would have taken steps to rectify that immediately."

Khan is claiming that the bottles of wine on offer put him at a disadvantage because, as a Muslim, he cannot drink alcohol and was therefore unable to claim the prizes.

He is therefore seeking damages for "hurt feelings" under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

A cynic might suggest that Khan was just "trying it on".

Tariq Sadiq, speaking for Direct Line, said that another Muslim worker, who had won an alcoholic prize in a similar scheme, had "simply" exchanged it for an alternative.

I am sure that had Mr Khan used his brains, he could have found a suitable alternative.

I was about to say that as a prize for winning Prat of The Week, a bottle of Noilly Prat will be winging its way to Khan; but he would probably find that offensive.

So he will get nowt!

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!

Ken

Cheers

Now that Nanny has allowed pubs to open beyond 11pm, for the first time since the First World War, has anyone noticed any difference?

Have England and Wales (note they have had late licensing in Scotland for years) been torn apart by drunken rampaging gangs?

No!

As I look out of my window today, I see no evidence of the total breakdown of civilisation that was predicted by the doom-mongers.

Cheers.

Ken

By the way, there is a very real threat to our drinking liberties; it comes from Systembolaget in Sweden.

Systembolaget is the state run alcohol monopoly, you can only buy booze in Sweden through their stores. They are designed to cut down your right to choose when and what you drink; by only opening between 9:00am and 5:00pm on working days, and a few hours on Saturday.

I lived in Sweden for 5 years, believe me Systembolaget is awful.

They feel that their monopoly is threatened by the fact that Swedes can now go abroad, and buy cheap booze (welcome to a free market economy!); therefore they have put together this little film Systembolaget.

Be afraid!

Nanny Boosts Takeaway Sales

Nanny has been lecturing us for a very long time about the dangers of takeaway foods, such as fried chicken and burgers.

They will make us fat and kill us, apparently.

Anyhoo, this constant haranguing has negatively impacted the sales of these foods to such an extent that it is seriously threatening the stability of the economy.

Did you know that approximately 30% of British GDP is generated by the fast food industry?

No, I didn't either.

Nanny, needless to say, has had to back track a little on her anti takeaway stance.

Therefore, she has decided to give the takeaway industry a one off boost in sales today.

Ever since the First World War, when munitions workers were too pissed to build the bombs and shells, Nanny has deemed that pubs in Britain must close at 11pm.

This Thursday this daft old rule will finally be abolished, and those pubs and clubs that have applied for late licences (and have been approved) will be able to stay open beyond 11pm.

However, as with all of Nanny's laws, there is a quirk in the way that the Licensing Act will be implemented.

The change in the law comes into force at midnight on Thursday.

Can you see the problem here folks?

Get it?

Got it?

Good!

Yes, that's right!

The pubs will still have to shut on Wednesday at 11pm, under the old law; drinking up time being 20 minutes, means that there will be a 40 minute gap between closing and re-opening time for those with late licences.

This legal oddity has left the police wondering what to do.

A spokeswoman from Scotland Yard said:

"I didn't realise that it's stupid. Life's never simple, is it?

We are duty-bound to enforce the no-drinking rule but it just seems craziness."

You see folks, there is a cunning point to this legal oddity, Nanny has in fact planned this 40 minute gap all along.

During the 40 minute break in drinking, people will inevitably go to the nearest takeaway.

A one off boom for that much maligned industry.

Nanny, you are a genius!

Note: the figures pertaining to the GDP of the British economy, quoted in this article, may in fact be utter bollocks.

Nanny Bans Carols

Christmas is coming,

The goose is getting fat,

Nanny needs a spanking,

There's no doubt about that

It seems that for Nanny, Christmas is becoming just too Christian these days.

Her chums in the Home Office are threatening to withdraw funding for a memorial carol service for the victims of crime, because it is "too Christian".

The service has been held at St Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square, for the last 11 years. It was set up to help grieving relatives of homicide.

However, Nanny's gnomes in the Home Office have threatened that they will withdraw funding unless the service tones down its Christian content.

Whatever happened to a good old fashioned commercial Christmas eh?

Nanny Bans Tinsel

It's funny how things that we have taken as being harmless over the years, can take on a new and dangerous form once Nanny has got her teeth into them.

One such innocent object, now classified by Nanny as dangerous, is tinsel.

Gill Pyatt, a headmistress at an unnamed school (if anyone knows the name of the school, please can you let me know), has banned her pupils from wearing tinsel in their hair at Christmas after a student accidentally scratched her eyeball.

However, according to the rumour mill, Ms Pyatt plans to ban all Christmas celebrations at the school.

According to Metro, some parents claimed that they were told Christmas would not be marked at all this year because of the large number of Muslim pupils.

What a silly thing to do.

Transport For London - A Contradiction In Terms

Congratulations to Nanny's friends in Transport for London (TFL), who are following the Disability Discrimination Act to the letter in respect of the Croydon tramlink.

The new steps at Morden Road, which were to have made the access to the stop slightly shorter, have been demolished.

This is even more daft than it sounds, as they had never been opened!

Not content with this act of vandalism TFL have now sealed off the steps from the bus stop to the Eastbound platform at Sandilands.

This means that people are once more forced to climb up the shrubs beside them as a short cut, increasing the risk of trips and falls.

Where's Health and Safety when you need them?

It seems that the new steps at Sandilands are rumoured to be not compliant with the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). However, it should be noted that the stop is
DDA accessible by virtue of the level access at each end.

The steps are merely an addition to the existing access.

However, Nanny doesn't give a toss about reality; just the letter of the law, which of course she creates in the first place!

Nanny Bans Toddlers

Nanny has an obsession with education, she claims that she wants the highest standards of education to be available for all.

The fact that, in many cases, the education system is failing the children of this country seems to have passed her by.

Anyhoo, as with many of Nanny's obsessions they tend to be somewhat schizophrenic and contradictory.

Nanny's chums in Fareham Borough Council have got themselves rather worked up over noise pollution. They won't have the peace and quite of their borough disturbed by extraneous and unwelcome noises.

Quite right!

Excessive traffic, noisy neighbours and noisy industrial equipment are a blight on society.

However, Nanny applies her rules to all noise creators; without fear or favour.

As such, Fareham Council have decided that 70 toddlers constitute a noise pollution threat. The toddlers play in a nursery garden, created by £2K public donations, next door to Jim Habens.

Habens has complained to the council about the noise, and the council have acted.

The toddlers must now only play in the garden for two half-hour slots a day, and the nursery Wendy house will have to be sound proofed.

Apparently, if these rules are not followed, the council will then implement a noise abatement order.

I wonder if this is really the best way to start children out on their long road of educational learning and discovery?

ID Cards Are Bollocks

Ken says ID cards are bollocks.

Dame Stella Rimington, ex head of MI5, says that ID cards are bollocks (Bloody hell! A link!).



Why can't Nanny see that ID Cards are bollocks?

Nanny Bans Celebrities

Nanny has decided to ban celebrities; what a bloody good idea!

Unfortunately her ban only extends to those celebs who endorse, what Nanny describes as, "junk food".

Nanny's chums in the Department of Health have issued an advisory document that says:

"Role models for children should not be used to endorse or personally to promote products (high in fat, salt or sugar) or promotional offers to children."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the role of parents to decide what children should eat?

The state should have no part to play in dictating, in a consumer society, who can buy what food product.

Nanny's dictat may end campaigns such as the Walkers crisps advertisements starring Gary Lineker, and David Beckham's £1M a year appearances for Pepsi (no loss there then).

The ban also extends to cartoon celebrities such as The Incredibles, who are used to promote Golden Nuggets cereal, and Spiderman who for reasons best known to himself eats Penguin biscuits rather than flies.

The proposals affect TV and cinema adverts, as well as internet campaigns and product packaging aimed at children under 12.

Needless to say Nanny does not think that her proposals go far enough. Health campaigners want a total ban on advertising "junk foods" to children. They believe voluntary codes will leave "wriggle room" for manufacturers, who will still be allowed to use celebrities to promote "healthy" foods and balanced diets.

Nanny classifies some brands of sliced white bread (which we all know to be the work of the devil!) and chicken tikka masala as "healthier choices".

Interestingly, because Nanny cannot issue a law that covers all potential loopholes, non celebrities that have been created especially for the promotion of "junk food" will not be banned.

In other words, Ronald McDonald and Tony the Tiger live to fight another day.

If only Nanny could kill off that irritating clown, then she might have maintained some credibility!

Nanny Bans Pens

The penis...Oops sorry...spelling mistake!

Start again Ken.

The pen is mightier than the sword, or so the old saying goes.

Evidently Nanny believes in these old sayings, as her chums in the British Standards Institution (BSI) have decreed that fountain pens are too dangerous for children under the age of 14.

Rather frightening to know that for decades children have been using these dangerous instruments, now to be told by Nanny that they can't. I myself had one at the tender age of 10, and ink blotted and smudged exercise books galore with it.

It seems that the BSI are worried that children, who apparently these days are congenital morons (if Nanny were to be believed), will swallow the cap.

Nanny has got so excised by this latest threat to civilisation that she has persuaded Waterman, the well known pen manufacturer, to insert a small slip with its pens which reads:

"This product is not intended for use by anyone under the age of 14 years."

Regrettably, owing to the failure of Nanny's education system, many children are in fact unable to read/understand this warning.

British Standard 7272, drafted in 1990 and updated several times, sets out strict guidelines on how pens should be made.

It says a pen cap should have a small hole to allow a child to breathe if he or she swallows it. Pens with no hole are seen as unsuitable for under-14s.

Needless to say nothing is ever simple in Nanny's Lah Lah Land, some adult pens are now defined as jewellery and therefore fall outside of BS 7272.

Kevin Jones, the headmaster of St John's College School, Cambridge, with 460 pupils aged four to 13, said:

"Perhaps I will have to employ pen police."

Don't joke, I am sure that there will be a some form of Nanny Citizens' Militia formed to deal with this threat.

Nanny Continues To Ban Christmas

I don't know why Nanny has such a bee in her bonnet about Christmas, but here is yet another example of her acting as a kill joy.

Nanny's chums in Waveney council in Lowestoft are planning to scrap grants for festive lights, because Christmas does not fit in with its "core values of equality and diversity".

Pardon my language, but what a load of....can you guess what I am going to say?..

UTTER BOLLOCKS!

A report drawn up by the council, then admits that the move could lead to officials being accused of "not supporting the spirit of Christmas".

Waveney council normally provides grants totalling £10K for festive lights. Its report states that because Christmas focuses only on the Christian faith, continuing the funding would "not fit well with the council's core values of equality and diversity".

The council is proposing to cut the lights grants to £5K next year and to stop them altogether by 2007.

Mark Bee, the council leader, tried to pretend that that the cuts were merely to save money. He said:

"I consider the wording of the document unfortunate and I will be taking it up with the officer on Monday..."

Too late, the proverbial cat is out of the bag Mr Bee!

So stupid, non Christians are in no way offended by the Christmas celebrations; this sort of ban is just patronising and daft.