Nanny Knows Best

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

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Nanny Bans Yobs

Nanny Bans YobsMuch is being made in the press, by Nanny and by other politicians of the "yob" culture that seemingly has engulfed Britain.

We are being bombarded with stories about yobbish behaviour, ranging from stories about youths "hanging around in shopping centres" to violent assaults.

It is clear that something needs to be done to "correct" this situation.

Nanny is happily issuing a veritable avalanche of legislation that she claims will address this issue. ASBO's, "respect" and street patrols are being used to fight the yob epidemic.

Unfortunately not all of Nanny's chums are on message, Professor Morgan of the Youth Justice Board has said that the current debate about youth crime was sending out "contradictory messages".

On the one hand children were represented as the "country's aspirations", and on the other the were "condemned as thugs in hooded tops".


"We use the word 'yob' without distinguishing between very young children - who haven't chosen their parents, their neighbourhoods or their circumstances and can't walk away from them, and young adults...I don't think the word 'yob' should ever be used in relation to young children."

He said respect - the new buzzword for Labour's third term ambition to cut anti-social behaviour - was a "two-way street" and needed to be earned by adults.

I have a degree of sympathy with Professor Morgan's point about contradictory messages; the more you inflate a teenager's ego by telling him/her that they are the centre of the universe, the more likely they are to behave in a spoilt and uncontrollable way.

Even the phrase "yob" may be wrong.

Let us take the well publicised case of the 3 teen mothers (age range 12 to 16) who all live in the same council house, they are sisters, who have all had babies and who now claim £31K per year from us the tax payers.

Their mother blames the school for their pregnancies; funny that, I thought that getting pregnant involved having sex.

Are they yobs?


They are feckless scum.

Let us forget the nonsense about labels and using the levers of state to control teenagers.

Teenagers, as we all know, are useless lumps of overheated hormones that need to be strictly controlled until their frontal lobes have developed enough to enable them to control themselves.

The most effective form of control comes from the family, not Nanny and the state.

The most effective means of making the family take responsibility for the behaviour of their offspring is to make the family suffer when their offspring misbehave.

Nanny thinks jail and fines may be the answer to this.


The most effective way to make a family of scum bags suffer is to remove their TV set and to lock them up in their own house, without the TV, together.

Once deprived of the electronic mogadon the family would be forced to interact with each other, and the parents would see precisely how loutish and unpleasant their children had become.

I am sure that a few weeks of enforced interaction between the generations would stimulate the parents enough, to take the necessary corrective measures to bring their offspring back onto the "straight and narrow".

A firm hand from a parent is far more effecitve than an "intervention" from Nanny.


  1. Anonymous12:02 PM

    Unfortunately when the kids see their lazy, feckless parent(s) being kept in Lamberts, cider and Trisha without the encumberance of having to work it is no suprise they choose to secure their future on their backs and disgorge another generation of benefits leaches.

  2. Don't worry, they are working on getting a larger council house.

    The papers reported that one of them has already had 1 abortion and 1 or 2 miscarriages.

    Re the under age sex, the male involved was 35 years old at the time.

    I thought that this was illegal?

  3. Anonymous1:23 PM

    Its the children I feel sorry for, lumbered with stupid names, idiotic relatives and little more chance in life than to be parents by the time they're in their mid-teens. Its heart breaking when you consider the worthy, hard-working couples up and down the country desperate to adopt children and who would be able to give them a much better upbringing then these feckless children.

    Also, state benefits should not be monetary handouts; coupons (or similar) so the money can be spent on food, clothing, equipment etc. for their children and nothing else. Similarly, no more council houses for 16yrs with 2 kids - hostels instead. Suddenly the prospect of getting pregnant at 16 wouldn't look so attractive.

  4. Anonymous5:57 PM

    Well said AJ! Instead of flogging off surplus MoD housing to their developer chums, the government should put these irresponsible girls in, with the bare minimum of necessities issued (the way servicemen's wives always had to).

    No money, but free on site child care so they can get off their behinds and WORK their way up in life like the rest of us.

  5. Anonymous8:49 AM

    Melanie Phillips (link here has quite a bit to say on the subject.

    As for the law being absolute ... see what happens if you are caught driving down a motorway at 3AM in the morning at a speed of 80MPH. The law is absolute but have sex with an underage girl and produce a baby that you refuse to support and that's .... Ok .... somehow.

    The lunatics have taken over the assylum, truly.