Nanny Bans Daffodils

It seems that Nanny must have some form of hayfever, or had a particularly unpleasant experience with flowers in her childhood, as she has decided to ban daffodils.

According to Nanny's chums at the Strood Civic Centre, daffodils are "politically biased".

Uhh?

Staff at the centre told Valerie Jewess, who was taking in a bunch of daffs to display there, that she could not display her flowers as yellow is the colour associated with the Liberal Democrats.

Whilst I realise that we are in the middle of a General Election, I do think that is taking things a little too far.

After all, each party (both mighty and small) have a particular colour in their brand; you cannot ban all colours.

Or maybe you can?

Nanny Censors Grauniad

Nanny has, for some time now, been whipping up the media and the public into a frenzy over alleged Islamic bomb and terrorist plots.

Nanny knows that a compliant, and fearful, public will nod through her legislation covering id cards and trial without jury; indeed it will probably even re-elect her.

However, once in a blue moon a journalist will write an article that warns us that all is not what Nanny would have us believe.

One such article was written by Duncan Campbell, an investigative writer and a scientific expert witness on computers and telecommunications, for our old friends in The Grauniad.

His article covered the recent "Ricin Trial".

Here is a link to the story:

Grauniad

A link Ken?

That's not like you?

Well, click the link and see what happens.

Yes, that's right, The Grauniad have pulled the story.



Why?

It seems, that Nanny has a served a Public Interest Immunity Certificate banning publication.

Wonder why?

Don't worry though, it is still around on the net; and to save you the time and trouble of finding it, here it is in full.

Enjoy the feeling of freedom; and being able to read what you want, not what Nanny tells you.

Fake Terror - Ricin Ring That Never Was

Yesterday's trial collapse has exposed the deception behind attempts to link al-Qaida to a 'poison attack' on London By Duncan Campbell The Guardian - UK 4-15-5

Colin Powell does not need more humiliation over the manifold errors in his February 2003 presentation to the UN. But yesterday a London jury brought down another section of the case he made for war - that Iraq and Osama bin Laden were supporting and directing terrorist poison cells throughout Europe, including a London ricin ring.

Yesterday's verdicts on five defendants and the dropping of charges against four others make clear there was no ricin ring. Nor did the "ricin ring" make or have ricin. Not that the government shared that news with us. Until today, the public record for the past three fear-inducing years has been that ricin was found in the Wood Green flat occupied by some of yesterday's acquitted defendants. It wasn't.

The third plank of the al-Qaida-Iraq poison theory was the link between what Powell labelled the "UK poison cell" and training camps in Afghanistan. The evidence the government wanted to use to connect the defendants to Afghanistan and al-Qaida was never put to the jury. That was because last autumn a trial within a trial was secretly taking place. This was a private contest between a group of scientists from the Porton Down military research centre and myself. The issue was: where had the information on poisons and chemicals come from?

The information - five pages in Arabic, containing amateur instructions for making ricin, cyanide and botulinum, and a list of chemicals used in explosives - was at the heart of the case. The notes had been made by Kamel Bourgass, the sole convicted defendant. His co-defendants believed that he had copied the information from the internet. The prosecution claimed it had come from Afghanistan.

I was asked to look for the original source on the internet. This meant exploring Islamist websites that publish Bin Laden and his sympathisers, and plumbing the most prolific source of information on how to do harm: the writings of the American survivalist right and the gun lobby.

The experience of being an expert witness on these issues has made me feel a great deal safer on the streets of London. These were the internal documents of the supposed al-Qaida cell planning the "big one" in Britain. But the recipes were untested and unoriginal, borrowed from US sources. Moreover, ricin is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is a poison which has only ever been used for one-on-one killings and attempted killings.

If this was the measure of the destructive wrath that Bin Laden's followers were about to wreak on London, it was impotent. Yet it was the discovery of a copy of Bourgass's notes in Thetford in 2002 that inspired the wave of horror stories and government announcements and preparations for poison gas attacks.

It is true that when the team from Porton Down entered the Wood Green flat in January 2003, their field equipment registered the presence of ricin. But these were high sensitivity field detectors, for use where a false negative result could be fatal. A few days later in the lab, Dr Martin Pearce, head of the Biological Weapons Identification Group, found that there was no ricin. But when this result was passed to London, the message reportedly said the opposite.

The planned government case on links to Afghanistan was based only on papers that a freelance journalist working for the Times had scooped up after the US invasion of Kabul. Some were in Arabic, some in Russian. They were far more detailed than Bourgass's notes. Nevertheless, claimed Porton Down chemistry chief Dr Chris Timperley, they showed a "common origin and progression" in the methods, thus linking the London group of north Africans to Afghanistan and Bin Laden.

The weakness of Timperley's case was that neither he nor the intelligence services had examined any other documents that could have been the source. We were told Porton Down and its intelligence advisers had never previously heard of the "Mujahideen Poisons Handbook, containing recipes for ricin and much more". The document, written by veterans of the 1980s Afghan war, has been on the net since 1998.

All the information roads led west, not to Kabul but to California and the US midwest. The recipes for ricin now seen on the internet were invented 20 years ago by survivalist Kurt Saxon. He advertises videos and books on the internet. Before the ricin ring trial started, I phoned him in Arizona. For $110, he sent me a fistful of CDs and videos on how to make bombs, missiles, booby traps - and ricin. We handed a copy of the ricin video to the police.

When, in October, I showed that the chemical lists found in London were an exact copy of pages on an internet site in Palo Alto, California, the prosecution gave up on the Kabul and al-Qaida link claims. But it seems this information was not shared with the then home secretary, David Blunkett, who was still whipping up fear two weeks later. "Al-Qaida and the international network is seen to be, and will be demonstrated through the courts over months to come, actually on our doorstep and threatening our lives," he said on November 14.

The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an "al-Qaida manual" into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn't an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act.

To show that the Jihad manual was written in the 1980s and the period of the US-supported war against the Soviet occupation was easy. The ricin recipe it contained was a direct translation from a 1988 US book called the Poisoner's Handbook, by Maxwell Hutchkinson.

We have all been victims of this mass deception. I do not doubt that Bourgass would have contemplated causing harm if he was competent to do so. But he was an Islamist yobbo on his own, not an Al Qaida-trained superterrorist. An Asbo might be appropriate.

Offensive Pies

Dear oh dear, we have become a nation of old Nannies haven't we?

The Advertising Standards Authority have said that the most complained about advert, in the last few months, was one for Mr Kipling's mince pies.

Seemingly people did not like the connection made in the advert, between a nativity play and a hospital birth.

The weaker a religion becomes, in terms of support and theological underpinning, the more paranoid its actions and statements.

Ooohhh...more controversy!

Nanny Bans Hymns

Oh dear, it seems that even the clergy have succumbed to Nanny's brain washing.

Is nothing sacred?

The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe a Church of England bishop, has demanded that churches ban the singing of "I Vow to Thee, My Country"; because he says it is heretical, and has racist overtones.

What utter nonsense!

Lowe seems to be under the delusions that this very popular hymn, which has been sung for generations, is in fact a symptom of the increase in English nationalism.

Lowe then, for good measure, likens it to the rise of Nazism.

The hymn is a popular choice for Remembrance Day services and other national occasions.

Needless to say Lowe doesn't much care for the hymn's associations with the British empire; they are "questionable" in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society.

Like it or not Bishop, there was an Empire which gave good and bad things to the world; you cannot dis-invent the British Empire, nor should you sweep it under the carpet.

It is precisely because of the Empire that we have a multi cultural, and tolerant, society today.

OOHH a bit of controversy!

Bishop Lowe says that the words are "totally heretical", because they suggested that people should pledge their allegiance to their country before God.

Quote:

"My country, right or wrong is not an appropriate sentiment for Christians to uphold,".

Bollocks!

Everyone knows that God is an Englishman, therefore the vow is not contradictory.

Nanny Bans The Bible

The world, or rather Britain, has gone mad; truly truly mad.

It seems that in a fit of insanity, Stirling University Students Association (SUSA) have succumbed to Nanny's indoctrination and voted to ban the Bible.

Why?

Simple, because they believe it could offend non-Christians.

SUSA will remove up to 6,000 copies of the Gideon Bible from more than 2,000 halls of residence rooms.

Their rationale being, that representing one faith was not in the spirit of equality.

Al Wilson, president of the SUSA, said:

"The one thing the students have come up with is that they do have a Gideon Bible in their rooms but they feel that's not really fair on those who practice other faiths."

Unless I have missed the point here, no one is being forced to read it; if you don't like the message, then don't open the book.

The worrying thing is that these students are meant to be the "intellectual elite" of this country!

Students always like to claim that they are open minded, and receptive, to new ideas; it is more often than not the case that they have the most closed minds, and ingrained prejudices.

The future looks very bleak indeed.

Kiss My Hob

Nanny comes in many forms including; councils, the health and safety executive and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

These organisations love to spend their time looking for areas of our lives into which they can poke their interfering noses.

The ASA have taken a particular dislike to celebrity chef Ainsley Harriott, or shall we say an advert in which he is currently appearing.

In this advert, for Fairy Power Spray, Ainsley is seen to be kissing his hob as he speaks lines that could have been crafted by Shakespeare:

"Everyday you squirt, wait and wipe. Love it."

Well, aside form the obvious damage to the English language, there seems to be little wrong with this harmless advert.

Not so, according to ASA.

You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, in ASA's eyes this advert represents a clear and present danger to people and children who may be encouraged to kiss their own hobs and consequently burn themselves.

As such, despite the highly unlikely scenario where anyone would be stupid enough to kiss their hob, ASA have forced Procter and Gamble to restrict the times at which the advert is shown.

There are many dangers in a kitchen, but I would have though that hob kissing does not rank amongst the top 10 threats to health and safety.

Twizzlers' Revenge II

It seems that despite Nanny's high profile campaign against Twizzlers (turkey based food that has been fed to schoolchildren), she is not averse to feeding them to sick children in hospitals.

According to information gleaned using the Freedom of information Act, the Freeman hospital in Tyneside has been happily feeding the sick inmates of its children's ward this processed shit without any remorse, or thought as to the health implications.

Naughty Nanny, a tad hypocritical of her to do this don't you think?

St George Slays The Dragon

The majority of articles on Nanny Knows Best show the seemingly unstoppable encroachment of Nanny into our lives, at times it seems that there is nothing that can be done to stop her.

However, once in a while, a ray of hope (such an awful phrase don't you think?) illuminates the darkness.

E tenbris lux.

One such ray comes in the form of Phil Moffatt's victory over ever popular, and "respected", Liverpool council.

Mr Moffatt, owner of Churchill's Food Emporium in Tuebrook, has traditionally flown the flag of St George every St George's day (which is tomorrow folks). However, Nanny's chums in Liverpool council had tried to stop him doing it this year.

They claimed, and I doubt that this was the real reason, that the flags constituted a health and safety issue. They were going to fine him £1K, if he went ahead with his plan to fly 20 flags this year.

Mr Moffatt stood firm, and won.

Nanny has backed down, and Mr Moffatt will be able to fly 20 flags.

This shows that Nanny can, like the dragon, be slain.

My compliments to you Mr Moffatt.

Nanny Bans Napkins

I assume that on reading the above title, you would naturally think that I had imbibed a tad too much of "falling down water".

However, I can confirm that this is not the case.

Nanny's chums in health and safety have cast their beady little eyes on the activities of a Gloucestershire firm of meals on wheels, which provides pensioners' meals.

The hapless company had tried to do a good deed, by providing free of charge paper napkins to their customers. These napkins would have safety information printed on them, such as; warnings about thieves and bogus traders.

However, Nanny is having none of this; only she is allowed to issue safety warnings.

The matter was raised at a meeting of the "crime and disorder reduction partnership", and duly huffed and puffed about.

The conclusion?

Nanny banned the company from issuing napkins.

The rationale?

The old folks might eat them...Obvious really isn't it?

The pensioners it seems were not impressed by this piece of Nanny nonsense; and insisted that they were capable of eating their meals without eating the napkins, or for that matter, the cutlery.

Unfortunately Nanny was having none of this, the napkins it seems were put through a rigorous risk assessment before being unleashed on the public at large.

Oddly enough, and how unsurprising, the napkins passed the risk assessment (no doubt conducted at great cost to the taxpayer); they are now freely available in the public domain.

Maybe this problem could have been avoided if the napkins had been printed with a warning:

DO NOT EAT THE NAPKINS

Nanny's Strange Priorities

Nanny is rather a strange old lady, isn't she?

Some things, which are trivial to normal folk, really get her dander up; yet others, which you would consider to be important, don't seem to excise her as much as they should do.

One such case in point is her interpretation of the new European hygiene laws, in relation to abbatoirs.

Nanny's chums in the ever watchful Food Standards Agency (FSA), those fine people who gave us the Sudan scare a wee while ago, are making sure that they zealously interpret every letter of this new law.

It is claimed by the Forum of Private Business that more than a third of abattoirs may face closure, because of the actions of the FSA.

The Forum say that some of the abattoirs are being expected to install better hygiene equipment than hospitals.

Given the MRSA issue this seems a tad odd, don't you think?

The Forum are so worried about the situation, that a group of its members will travel to Brussels to find out for themselves how the new standards should actually be interpreted.

Nanny really ought to get her priorities sorted out.

Nanny Gets A Dose Of The Crabs II

Guess what?

Following on from my article yesterday, about crabbing being banned from the Felixstowe Ferry jetty; it seems that Nanny has had such a bad reaction from the public to her daft plan, that she has changed her mind.

Suffolk Council have cancelled their dictat, crabbing is no longer to be banned!

The signs that had been put up last week, prohibiting crabbing at the jetty, have now been removed.

Suffolk County Council admitted that:

"this was a rather unsubtle outright ban..".

Nanny now claims that she wants something a bit more "diplomatic and user friendly,".

In other words Nanny, as usual, hadn't thought through the consequences of her actions.

This just goes to show that if people are prepared to kick up a fuss, Nanny's daft ideas can be "kicked into touch".

Nanny Gets A Dose Of The Crabs

There is nothing more pleasurable for dear old Nanny than to poke her interfering nose into a harmless pastime, that has been innocently enjoyed by "her charges" for centuries.

Nanny seems to get a real buzz out of this form of interference.

Anyhoo, this time she has decided to set her sights on a jetty on the River Deben; where children have been catching crabs since Norman times.

The local council, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that this activity is highly dangerous.

Guess what?

They have banned it!

This highly "dangerous" activity has been taking place on a 50 yard wooden pier, which has served as a passenger ferry terminal for Felixstowe Ferry and Bawdsey, for the last 1000 years.

During the 1000 years, children have used it for crabbing.

However, Nanny does not give a toss for history or indeed for the fact that there have been no serious injuries there.

Nanny, after all, does know best!

Indeed she has not only banned crabbing, but fishing and swimming as well.

What a miserable, selfish and joyless person Nanny is.

Auntie Un Bans Dr Who

Following on from my article yesterday, about Auntie banning Dr Who for those who are under 8, it seems that she has had a change of heart.

Auntie has now decided that the series is in fact OK for those who are under 8.

As I noted yesterday, Auntie now bends and twists in the wind like a dead leaf. The furor that the decision to ban Dr Who brought about in the media caused Auntie to rethink, and change her mind.

This is good news for common sense.

However, Auntie's flip flop, speaks volumes about the weak and unprincipled leadership that currently holds the reigns of power at Broadcasting House.

Auntie Bans Dr Who

As we all know, Nanny and Auntie (the BBC) are great friends. They share many similar ideals and views; especially the idea that they know what is best for the public as a whole.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise to hear that Auntie has managed to get her bloomers into a twist over the new series of Dr Who.

This timeless (get it? Timeless! Time Lord..oh please yourselves!) classic has been brought out of retirement by Auntie, in her campaign to rid the TV screens of Ant and Dec (ITV's Saturday night attempt at "entertainment").

Aficionados of the learned Dr, know that the optimal viewing position for the show is that of crouching from behind the sofa.

Unfortunately Auntie, who doesn't really like the show anyway, does not seem to realise this.

Hence her pronouncement this week, that Dr Who is not suitable for those children under the age of 8; Auntie, in fact, says that they should be banned from watching it.

This outburst was at the behest of 50 parents who rang in to complain that their little darlings would not go to bed after last Saturday's episode, which featured zombies in Cardiff (there's a joke there somewhere folks!).

Let us put this in context, 50 people out of an audience of 8 million...Auntie is scared by that!

She does not deserve to have a broadcasting licence, if that is how she reacts to such a muted response.

Now I would venture the following, if Auntie is so keen to warn people about the dangers of Dr Who then she should do the same for other programmes.

My parents, who are in their eighties, love to scare themselves witless by watching Crimewatch. Once they have spent an hour or so ingesting the latest scare stories of criminality, so expertly reconstructed by our dear old friend Auntie, they are in a right old state.

Therefore I humbly submit that Crimewatch should also have a warning, stating that it is not suitable for people over the age of 60.

On the subject of my parents, you will recall that I have said before that my father (who served in the Atlantic convoys during World War II, and therefore has experience of fighting dictators) is of the opinion that Britain has sunk to the level of a tin pot dicatoriship.

I can confirm that, subsequent to my recent visit to the parental bunker, he still holds this view. He urges us all to do our bit to fight back, and restore freedom to this land.

Ooh Matron!

My compliments to the good people of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital, they have just instituted a strict anti MRSA policy.

They have banned Nanny and her chums at Westminster, all politicians in fact, from entering the wards.

Seemingly politicians are a source of disease and infection.

Splendid!

Now if only we could institute this policy nationwide, and make it applicable to all areas of life, we would be on to a winner.

Points Make Prizes

Nanny, as we all know, loves a well ordered and disciplined society.

Nothing gets her "dander up" (can I say dander on a public blog?) more than seeing people being "undisciplined" and disrespectful of her laws.

We are all sick and tired of the muggings, robberies and vandalism that seem to be endemic in society today; I for one would welcome a sensible, and workable solution to these issues.

Unfortunately for us, Nanny has focused her gimlet eye on more "pressing matters"; namely motor traffic offences.

Nanny's chums in Thames Valley Police are being awarded "points" for arresting motorists. The hapless bobbies have been told that they must score 200 points per month, if they are to avoid being given a "bollocking".

Nanny says that this idea will help monitor the effectiveness of individual officers.

Any fool could tell her that this is nonsense, and that all will do is turn the police into "jobsworth" arrest "on the spot" merchants; no better than the legion of privatised wheel clampers that Nanny unleashed onto the streets a few years ago.

As with any quiz show, different "achievements" ie arrests give different points.

-Rape and burglarly score 10

-Using a mobile phone in a car scores 5

-Not wearing a seatbelt scores 5

-Catching an illegal immigrant scores 2

I think we can all see where this will go, can't we children?

As one officer with of 20 years' experience reportedly said:

"How can catching two people without seatbelts be deemed as important as catching a rapist or dealing with a threat to kill?"

Welcome to Nanny's police state; where it's not who is arrested, but how many arrests that count!

Nanny Joins Ghostbusters

Following on from the death of the Pope, Nanny has had a spiritual awakening; in other words she has decided to interfere in yet another aspect of people's lives.

This time, her chums in the Norfolk education authority have drawn up guidelines for teachers who give instruction in Religious Education (RE).

Seemingly the phrase "Holy Ghost" is now considered to be "spooky". Therefore, it has been banned.

Instead teachers should use the phrase "Holy Spirit".

Then, for good measure, Nanny goes on to instruct that the first 39 books of the Bible should not be called "the Old Testament"; because it makes them sound old-fashioned.

Erm, sorry, wasn't the Old Testament written a few thousand years ago?

How can you "modernise" that?

The Catholic faith is then given an image makeover, Nanny says that Communion bread and wine should not be referred to as "the body of Jesus" or "the blood of Jesus"; because it suggests "a cannibalistic consumption of human flesh".

What utter bollocks!

Who the hell hires, and pays, these morons?

Norfolk county council's cabinet will be approving these ideas this week, and they will be introduced in all the county's schools by September next year.

Added do's and don't include the advice that teachers should avoid equating Islam with terrorism, by not showing children photographs of Muslims holding swords or kalashnikovs.

The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem must not be called such as, and this is particularly stupid, it implies that Jewish prayer is negative and moaning.

Photos of Hindu holy men, who are emaciated and covered in mud, are to be avoided; as it gives the impression that Hinduism is for "weirdos or masochists".

Sikhs also get the full "Nanny treatment", teachers are to avoid showing kachs; seemingly they look like merely voluminous underpants, and can give rise to a poor response.

The above nonsense shows how by giving a few morons a little bit of power, they can wreak havoc.

If you want to tell the Norfolk Education Authority what you think of their scheme, please use this link.

Nanny Bans The Maypole

Oh dear, it seems that Nanny has taken an extreme to dislike to yet another harmless British tradition.

This time she has set her sights on that centuries old pastime of dancing around the Maypole on May Day.

Now what could possibly be wrong with that, I hear you ask?

Well, according to Nanny's chums in the Health and Safety department of Sandwell Council in the Black Country, it breaches health and safety regulations.

Therefore, they have banned schoolchildren from dancing around it on May the First.

Miserable bastards!

Anyhoo, it may not have escaped your attention that the Mayypole is a phallic symbol.

Rumour has it Nanny will be banning penis's (or is it penii?) next.

Yikes!

Nanny Bans Rhubarb

My compliments to Nanny for her most imaginative use of an ASBO, to date.

It seems that Nanny has developed an extreme disliking for rhubarb; I guess she must have had a bad experience at school or something?

Anyhoo, as Margaret Porter discovered, Nanny is in no mood to be trifled with (get the pun? trifle, rhubarb...eh? Oh forget it!) when it comes to rhubarb.

It seems that, for reasons that only Margaret Porter can understand, she (Ms Porter) chose to hit her 72-year-old brother William with some sticks of rhubarb.

Nanny is having none of this, she has imposed antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) on Ms Porter.

It seems that Ms Porter's rhubarb and indeed marrows have won prizes, therefore it would probably be an honour to be hit with one of these.

Unfortunately Nanny does not agree.

She was given a six-year ASBO, and ordered to do 40 hours of community service. Lucky for her that she didn't deploy her marrows; she might have been sent ot jail.

Another effective use of an ASBO, and indeed of police and court time!

Nanny's Flashcam

Following on from yesterday's story about Nanny's predilection for technology.

I have yet another example of her techno obsession, to regale you with.

This time Nanny has become enamoured with a device known as a FlashCam-530.

What on earth is a FlashCam-530 I hear you cry?

Well I shall tell you.

The FlashCam-530 is a device which is attached to a lamppost, and can sense motion up to 100 feet away.

When motion is detected, the FlashCam starts taking photographs. A bright flash goes off, and a loud voice message warns the intruder to "leave the area now" and that his/her photograph is being taken.

The system, so I believe, was developed in the USA. Nanny is now intent on "rolling it out" across the streets of Britain.

She intends to use it initially, and there is word to watch, against graffiti artists, prostitutes, drug dealers and miscellaneous types of people whom Nanny has a grudge against.

Now, that is fine in principle. However, you may wonder precisely how a piece of technology can distinguish between a drug dealer and a person just out for a walk.

Seemingly Nanny has quite thought of the answer to that yet.

In other words, it can't!

It's primary design function is to secure restricted areas, eg water treatment plants.

That doesn't bother Nanny though. You see, what she and her minions really want is for people not to be on the streets at all.

You see, it makes it easier for us to be controlled if we are all safely locked up in our homes.

Finally, I leave you with this tale about the effectiveness of these devices. It seems that, despite issuing warnings about being too close and flashing away merrily, some 60 of these were nicked in Wakefield.

Another fine idea Nanny, unfortunately it is bollocks!

Nanny's Peeping Toms

Nanny, as we all know, is greatly enamoured by the latest developments in surveillance techniques and technology.

She is enchanted at the possibility of being able to monitor the activities of her "charges" twenty four hours a day.

Needless to say she assures us that it is all for our own protection, and that we have nothing to fear from CCTV and her other weapons of observation.

Well, she would say that wouldn't she?

Unfortunately, for the good people of Sefton Merseyside, these assurance have proven to be a little hollow.

It is reported that police are investigating a trio of Sefton council employed "Peeping Toms", who allegedly trained a council CCTV camera on a woman's flat in Bootle.

The hapless modern day peepers have been suspended, "pending a full internal investigation into alleged breaches of the council's policies and procedures".

The more powers and technology that Nanny hands out to her minions in our "beloved and respected" councils, the more likely it is that they will abuse them.

This is the way that dictatorships begin, you have been warned!

Nanny Bans Cakewalk

Nanny really does seem to hate to see people having a good time.

I don't know why, maybe she had a bad childhood or something?

Anyhoo, this time she has set her health and safety chums to work at Felixstowe's funfair.

Nanny's inspectorate have decided to close the "cake walk" in the Crazy House, after 72 years of operation, because it does not meet current safety regulations.

There is one small fact that needs to be stated at this point.

Can you guess what that is children?

Yes, that's right, in its 72 year history there has not been one single accident on the moving walkway.

Charles Manning, owner of Charles Manning's Amusement Park said:

"It's a real shame but we have had to close it and it will no longer run..The inspectors were worried there was a risk that someone could fall underneath the cake walk and be injured, and they said it no longer met the health and safety regulations.".

Seemingly the cakewalk is one of the last ones in existence.

Nanny will, if she is not stopped, wreck this country.

Computer Says No

My apologies for not posting any Nanny stories yesterday, I was unfortunately involved in a titanic battle of wills with the computer system at Lastminute.com.

I will elaborate.

Last week my partner (Eva) booked a flight to Stockholm with Lastminute.com, she duly received the confirmation for the flight which was to take place today.

However, on Friday evening at around 6:15 she received an email from Lastminute which started off in the not too promising fashion "Hello Frost..".

The fact that her surname is in fact Hellqvist, seemingly was of no importance to the author of the missive.

Said author then went on to explain that the ticket for the flight had been cancelled, as there were in fact no seats available. Why, one wonders, did the Lastminute computer system sell us a ticket for these non existent seats?

The author then suggested that we call him for clarification.

Ah, if only things were that simple!

We called but, needless to say, the office was shut!

Saturday duly dawned, and we had less than 24 hours to try to get Eva a flight; cue the dramatic music.

We accessed dear old Lastminute's site and found a few flights that were still available, though these were naturally more expensive than our original booking; how convenient!

We tried to book, but the computer said "No"; the flight (despite being shown only 10 nano seconds before) was now full.

We tried another search and came up with another flight, alas to no avail; computer said "No".

We tried four more times, each time the computer gave us a flight that we could book; each time we then pressed the booking button computer said "No".

Anyhoo, very helpfully computer provided us with a phone number to ring.

I rang, and found myself talking to a real live customer "care" operative; to my view a more apt description of said individual would be that of witless, patronising "scrote".

Said scrote, informed me that I had rung the wrong number, and that he was not the right person in the mighty Lastminute.com empire to handle my booking.

I pointed out that computer had given me the number.

He pointed out that computer was wrong.

He gave me another number to ring.

I asked to be transferred, scrote said he couldn't do that.

Okey dokey, I rang the new number.

Joy of joys I found myself talking to the computer, which was equipped with a voice recognition and touch tone operating system. I went throughout the sequence to get to the "book flight only to Europe" part of the menu.

At this point, can you guess?

Yes, that's right, computer said "No".

Seemingly, if you can believe the computer, Lastminute do not take human bookings for Europe flights only; I was told by computer to use the computer to make the booking, computer then hung up on me.

Well bit of a problem wouldn't you say?

I decided to ring my old chum the witless, patronising scrote; and pointed out the "catch 22" problem with computer and the booking system.

Scrote informed me that I must have used the system incorrectly, and that the system worked perfectly. I pointed out that I was not an idiot, comments on this assumption please?, and that the system did not work. Scrote informed me that the system worked perfectly, and that I was the only person ever to complain; therefore I was at fault, not the system.

Orwellian "Big Brother" logic if ever I've heard it!

Scrote then again refused to transfer me.

Right, time to don my armour of burnished bronze, we do not get treated like this!

I rang computer again, this time claiming that I wanted to book a holiday. Computer graciously allowed me to talk to a human.

The human I spoke to was a charming lady, who told me that I had come through to the wrong part of Lastminute (this we knew!), and that I should have gone to the flight booking area (this we also knew!).

I explained the problem, fortunately she had the wit and the intelligence to check for herself; and informed me "that there seems to be something wrong with the computer"...ah ha!

Progress!

Now we at last were getting somewhere.

She said that she could not transfer me to the right department, fascinating phone system they have in Lastminute wouldn't you say?

However, she would get someone to ring me back.

She kept her word, and another person rang back. He was also helpful and intelligent.

I explained the problem with the cancellation and the trouble with computer. He then spent a while trying to confirm if Eva's original ticket had been cancelled. This came to now't, as the person who emailed Eva was not known to him, and the department in which he allegedly worked was shut until Monday.

So we "winged it" and decided to make a new booking.

After a few more phone calls we finally succeeded in getting a new flight booking by 3:00pm that afternoon (some 6 hours after we started trying to make a new booking!).

Well, they do call themselves "Lastminute"!

Needless to say the new flight was around £60 more expensive!

The moral of this story is that Nanny exists in many forms, be it political or commercial, all of them designed to belittle and crush the individual.

Now, for those of you with nothing better to do today, I have a little game for you.

Let's annoy computer, try to make a booking for a European flight only (not holiday, not hotel) using the following phone number 08712223200.

I bet computer says "No".

Vox Pop

Hello everyone,

I thought that for today, since any story that I post would inevitably be thought of as an April Fool's day joke, that I would turn the site over to you.

Mike sent me the following statement:

"Old Labour was about nationalising industry; New Labour is about nationalising people"

True or false?

What are your views?

Please post them in the comments box.

Thanks

Ken