The Trouble With Roads

Dear old Nanny is getting a little old and senile I fear, symptoms of this can be seen in her mutltiple displays of schizophrenia eg:

• Banning smoking, yet still happily taking tax revenue from the "evil weed"



• Frowning on gambling, yet opening a chain of casinos



• Stamping out binge drinking, whilst allowing 24 hour opening

Now Nanny's chums in the Highways Agency (HA) are displaying worrying signs of schizophrenia.

The HA, which aims to spend more than £1.5BN on road improvements in the next two years, is telling its own staff to leave their cars at home and take the train to work instead.

A tad contradictory wouldn't you say?

All the more so, given the shambolic state of Nanny's rail network.

Anyhoo, the executive agency of the Department for Transport is offering the 640 employees in its Birmingham office a 50% discount on rail season tickets.

Unsurprisingly only 70 have taken up the offer so far.

Steve Williams, HR director at the HA, said:

"We wish to reduce the amount of waste materials from our offices - such as paper and office products. We also wish to support the environment alongside our roads."

It is estimated that UK businesses lose at least £15BN a year because of the country's poor transport infrastructure.

Money well spent Nanny!

Nanny Bans Jokes

I am beginning to suspect that dear old Nanny doesn't really have much of a sense of humour.

That certainly appears to be the case with her chums in Newcastle Upon Tyne Council.

They have announced a rather bizarre plan, to make comedians sign a contract agreeing to avoid jokes which might offend minorities.

Have they not understood that the very nature of humour and comedy is that it does make people feel uncomfortable by highlighting pain, idiosyncrasies and misfortune?

The members of the council, rather than addressing more pressing issues, have devoted their considerable intellects to banning performers whose acts are considered by some to be; offensive, racist, sexist or homophobic.

Step forward another of Nanny's humourless apparatchiks, public sector union Unison, who want to ban the comedian Roy Chubby Brown from playing the City Hall.

Chubby has performed there for the last 20 years but Unison, as befits a friend of Nanny, knows best; and does not believe that the fact that the show is a commercial success (ie people want to see it) should in anyway detract from their mission of interfering in people's lives.

The equalities board of Newcastle council has recommended that the council bans from its venues:

"acts contrary to the council's visions, values and social inclusion agenda, and which conflict with its community leadership role".

The bottom line is that Nanny, like all dictators, hates free speech; comedy is an essential part of free speech.

Nanny's Religious Hatred

As you are no doubt all aware, Nanny has rather a busy legislative programme ahead of her over the coming few months.

Not only has she to get her much vaunted ID card bill through parliament, ban smoking and end world poverty; but she also has to impose her religious hatred bill on her long suffering "charges".

Many argue that the religious hatred bill is yet another attempt by Nanny to stifle free speech and debate.

However, I read yesterday about this disgusting incident which may make a case for the religious hatred bill.

A Sikh couple were trying to hold their wedding at the Baylis House Hotel in Slough this weekend.

The guests had turned up, for what was meant to be a happy day for the couple; yet the day quickly descended into chaos, as a group of 40 youths arrived in a bus and deliberately disrupted the wedding and celebrations.

The priest was attacked and the holy book, which was to be used by the priest to perform the wedding, was stolen.

Needless to say, Nanny's police managed to arrive too late to do anything; doubtless they were too busy chasing speeding motorists and enforcing smoking bans.

The police found a scene of chaos when they arrived, the priest lying in the car park and the couple clearly shocked and upset at the disaster that had befallen them.

The police then stood guard whilst the wedding was bravely re planned with hotel management.

How in Britain could such an attack take place, or indeed be allowed to take place?

The above is clearly a prime example of what Nanny's religious hatred bill is trying to stamp out.

People should be allowed to practice their religions without fear of persecution.

Oh, by the way, I think I forgot to mention one small thing.

The 40 thugs who attacked the wedding were in fact Sikhs themselves. This group, calling themselves "Respect for Guru Granth Sahib Ji Campaign", have been recently disrupting Sikh weddings for religious reasons.

Their prime objection is the fact that the Sikh book of scriptures should not be in a place where alcohol, meat and cigarettes are available.

Seemingly this band of "religious enforcers" scour the net for weddings and other gatherings where the book may be present, and then rush to the scene to rescue the book.

Now this case presents something of a problem for Nanny. In the event that her religious hatred bill was actually up and running, who should be prosecuting whom?

Should the gang of 40 thugs prosecute the couple for bespoiling their sacred book?

Should the couple be prosecuting the gang for disrupting their wedding, on the grounds of religious intolerance?

Should interfering busybodies be prosecuting both parties for bringing the Sikh religion into disrepute?

Those of you who manage to come up with an answer, that can satisfy all, should please forward it to Fungus Clarke. Doubtless he is desperately trying to find some shred of logic, with which to cover the glaring intellectual and moral inadequacies of Nanny's religious hatred bill.

The lesson from this sorry tale is really rather simple. Despite what the politicians claim is the intention of their legislation, and despite teams of lawyers working all hours to take into account all possible scenarios, life is never what you expect.

The more legislation there is, that attempts to control how we live our lives, the greater the opportunity for those with an agenda to use it for their own ends.

To my view, if Nanny is sincere in her claim that she wishes to create an equal and tolerant society; where people of all faiths can practice their religions without fear, less is more.

In other words, remove the blasphemy law from the statute books. This will place all religions on the same level.

Healthy religions, that are comfortable with engaging in open and rigorous debate as to the meaning of life and other issues, will flourish. Those religions that attempt to stifle debate will die.

The trouble is Nanny introduced the religious hatred bill to buy off the Muslim vote, not to protect religious freedom, or am I being just a little too cynical?

Nanny's Gestapo

Nanny really hates smoking, maybe she had an unfortunate experience with a cigarette in her childhood?

Anyhoo, as we all know, Nanny is implementing new powers effectively criminalising smoking in public.

Now banning something is all well and good, but actually policing and enforcing the ban is another matter.

That would require some considerable resources.

As we all know the police are already working flat out chasing those who drive too fast; they then have to worry about lesser offences, such as burglary and robbery, before they could even hope to enforce a smoking ban.

Have no fear, Nanny has a cunning plan.

Nanny's new best friend, Caroline Flint, the Reich health minister has announced an "intelligence-led approach to enforcing the law".

What precisely does Frau Flint actually mean by "intelligence-led"?

Well, in a nut shell, Frau Flint will recruit a network of informers who will be encouraged to report breaches the ban in places such as; company smoking rooms, bus shelters and the outsides of office blocks made no-smoking areas.

Those who transgress will be fined £50.

There will also be penalties for companies that fail to display "No Smoking" signs in areas newly outlawed.

Establishments that attract repeated complaints could be subject to "sting" operations by council enforcers.

Frau Flint confirmed that the policy would be vigorously enforced, with the assistance of informers from the public.

The Reich Minister went on to say:

"I don't think we are talking about brigades of people out on the streets..What we are talking about is an intelligence-led approach to enforcing the law."

The Reich Minister will place the burden of enforcement on councils, which will receive extra money for the task; with informers calling a telephone hotline manned by officials at the town hall.

Those of you with even a rudimentary knowledge of history will recall that this form of "intelligence gathering" formed the bedrock for the Third Reich. People were encouraged to inform on each other; as such political debate was stifled, as no one could trust their friends neighbour's or families.

The system was used by many to pursue private vendettas and to pay off old scores. The same will happen here.

Nanny has gone too far this time.

It is now up to us all to ensure that this disgusting proposal is wrecked, and made to be unworkable, by overloading the system with false reports of smoking.

Those of you who wish to raise the above issues with Reich Minister Flint should email her at flintc@parliament.uk

Nanny's Cardboard Cops

Nanny is very worked up about the increase in violent criminal behaviour in Britain. Not least because it negatively impacts her crime statistics.

One method of reducing criminal activity, or at least making people feel safer, is that of putting more "bobbies on the beat".

However, Nanny already has 7 million people working for her (such as community support officers, you know those people in funny blue uniforms who act like policemen but aren't); and frankly cannot afford to employ more front line staff, such as police on the beat, especially when she has a whole host of expensive new bureaucratic and middle management places that are to be created.

Therefore she has come up with the next best alternative.

Cardboard cut-out cops!

Yes that's right, cardboard cut-out cops.

Two of these new additions to Nanny's forces have been stationed in the A&E department of York district Hospital, in an attempt to deter violent behaviour against staff.

The cut outs have been supplied by the Safer York Partnership.

Now please don't snigger, that's very rude, the cut-outs have actually had some effect. They have increased public awareness about the issue of violent attacks on hospital staff.

Unfortunately, since being introduced 8 months ago, they have made no difference at all to the number of assaults on staff.

In other words they are inneffective.

Erm, isn't it the idea of these things that they should reduce the number of attacks?

To my mind, there is really rather a simple method to reduce the number of attacks on staff by patients.

Don't treat the violent patients, throw them out of the hospital and let them suffer/die.

It's cheap, simple and 100% effective.

I think that would get the message home to these violent morons pretty quickly.

Nanny Hates Democracy

The recent collapse of the EU constitution (see "The EU Constitution The Longest Suicide Note In History"), as a result of the democratic actions of the French and Dutch, has led me to ponder a while on Nanny's schizophrenic views on democracy.

How sad am I?

On the one hand Nanny says that she is very supportive of democracy. She did, after all, happily invade Iraq; in order to overthrow a dictator, and to provide the Iraqi's with the peace and prosperity that they now enjoy.

Additionally, Nanny and her chum Gordon "Smiler" Brown have happily latched on to St Bob's plan to rid Africa of debt; that'll work!

Think I'm cynical about Africa?

Read my recent article "Make Poverty History", on my In Your Face site, and make your own minds up.

Smiler Brown has even encouraged people to demonstrate at the forthcoming G8 summit in Gleaneagles. That could turn quite ugly, so I can't but help feel that the good citizens of Gleaneagles may be a tad pissed off with Smiler.

However, grandstanding on the world stage means that Nanny and her friends can happily forget the local consequences of their actions. Playing the "we believe in democracy" card works very well for lazy politicians, who need a "big popular cause" to be seen to be associated with.

However, when the "chips are down" and things don't go the way that Nanny wants she reveals her true colours.

Nanny's chum Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, recently said in response to the vote against the EU constitution:

"the experience begs the question of whether it was ever appropriate to submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites".

In other words Nanny thinks that you, the voters, cannot be trusted with voting on what he perceives are important issues.

Nanny thinks you're thick!

His comment reveals the real thinking that goes on behind Nanny's smile.

Nanny's Polio Epidemic

Nanny is getting very restless these days about those of her "charges" who, despite all of her stern warnings, still insist on smoking.

Nanny feels that if they won't listen to her, then firm action will have to be taken in order to ensure that they stop this habit.

Nanny's best new friend, Patricia Hewitt the health secretary, is desperate to please Nanny. As such, she is contemplating the idea of a blanket ban on smoking in all public places.

This would mean that all pubs and restaurants would have to obey the ban.

Now this hardline stance, coming from a politician, may seem a tad unusual. After all politicians, especially those in Labour, have very few principles; and tend to "go with the flow", rather than set themselves up for potential failure.

Needless to say the idea and driving force behind this policy is not really Hewitt's, but Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer.

Sir Liam has rather a "fixed view" about smoking, he likens it to polio.

Now this is rather an odd view for a man of medicine I would have thought. After all, polio is an infectious disease that is indiscriminate in who it attacks. Only those who have been inoculated can feel confident that they will not succumb to it.

Smoking, on the other hand, is a social custom that is voluntarily undertaken. Those that do not wish to smoke, simply do not smoke.

However, mere facts like these do not deter men on a mission like Donaldson; ignoring many other health problems, Donaldson said a ban was the most pressing issue in public health:

"If we have to do one big thing, that has to be to eradicate tobacco like we eradicated polio."

So much for freedom of choice!

I assume that once Donaldson and his puppet, Hewitt, have eliminated smoking they will go after drinks and food.

That would be the next logical step.

Needless to say, since the proposals were reported in the press, Nanny has tried to pretend that this is merely a consultation exercise.

However, for Nanny "consultation" means badger and bully people until the mood shifts in her favour.

The deal is done, and the decision already made.

Nanny Bans Fruit Trees

Summer is upon us, and with it comes the perennial danger of fruit laden trees.

You know how dangerous fruit is, don't you?

Nanny does.

Trees are prone to drop their fruit upon the ground, and thus present a serious slip hazard.

I myself slipped on a banana skin the other day.

I kid you not!

I am in two minds as to whether I should sue Croydon council, for allowing me to be placed in such a risky situation; by not ensuring that the banana skin had been removed before I set my majestic feet upon the pavement, or just shrug it off as part of life.

Anyhoo, I digress.

Nanny's chums in Havering council have got themselves into a right old tiz about their crab apple trees.

It appears that the fallen crab apples presnt a slip hazard for the good people of that borough. The fact that no one has ever raised a complaint before about these crab apples, matters not a jot to Nanny.

Nanny has a solution, she will cut down the trees in order to eliminate the risk.

They will be replaced, at a cost of £150K, by non risk species of trees.

No wonder council tax bills are for ever rising, the people who are entrusted with the budgets are morons.

A Little Light Reading

Those of you who fancy a light read, whilst you are waiting for your Sunday roast (see yesterday's suggestion), may enjoy the brief article I have penned for my "In Your Face" site; it analyses the reasons for the failure of the EU constitution.

Don't worry, it is not heavy going and is quite short.

You can read it here "The European Constitution - The Longest Suicide Note In History".

Something For The Weekend?

It seems that my earlier post "Nanny Bans Eating" has caused something of a stir, and indeed some rumbling tummies.

Now that the weekend is upon us, it may be time to settle those tummy rumbles and stick two fingers up at Nanny.

How?

Easy, indulge yourselves with one of my succulent recipes.

Given the nice weather, I recommend my recipe for Roast Saddle of English Lamb.

By eating this not only will you annoy Nanny (it is after all red meat), but you will also annoy the French.

Two for the price of one!

Those of you who want to read 120 of my other favourite recipes should visit "Accountants Can Cook".

Have a good weekend everyone!

Ken

Archbishop Tut Tut

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Tut Tut, gave a lecture to media professionals this week; in it he "tut tutted" at them, and expressed his worries about the state of journalism and the internet.

To some extent I have a degree of sympathy for some of the views of Archbishop Tut Tut, with regard to the sometimes more hysterical (not funny ha ha) aspects of media coverage.

He made a reasonable comment with regard to the need for people to question precisely what constitutes information, and what is mere intrusive and unpleasant story telling for the sake of selling copy.

Unfortunately, Tut Tut conveniently ignores the fact that there are many stories that the media have up their sleeves about Nanny and her chums; yet do not tell us.

This "self censorship" is practiced for a number of reasons, including:

• The information cannot be proven



• The information will be best presented at a later date



• The information is being used by the media as a bargaining tool



• The information is not in the public interest

Don't believe me?

I know of one big story that the media has deliberately suppressed, that would be front page headlines, but would be regarded as privately intrusive.

No, I am not going to tell you what it is.

However, Archbishop Tut Tut then rather let himself down by exposing his Nannyistic tendencies.

Much like many others in Nanny's coterie, he dislikes the concept of freedom of expression.

He launched an attack on the internet itself, saying that it harbours "paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry".

Which is undoubtedly true, for many of the billions of pages that litter the net. However, it is the fact that anyone can post anything on the net that keeps it in balance.

There may be a billion pages dedicated to the most unpleasant, bigoted garbage you can possibly imagine; yet these will be countered by a billion pages of creative, insightful observations.

Archbishop Tut Tut then displayed his true colours by describing the net as a free-for-all, that was "close to that of unpoliced conversation".

Now read that phrase "unpoliced conversation" again and again; think about what that is really saying about Tut Tut's line of thinking.

What he actually wants, and what Nanny and her coterie would sell their souls for, is for the net to be controlled.

In other words he wants censorship, so that only "respectable" opinions and thoughts can be aired.

Who would decide what is respectable?

Nanny!

Can you imagine what it would be like if Nanny controlled what could be posted on the web?

Nanny Bans Eating

Nanny, seemingly, never stops telling us what particular food stuffs are bad for us.

I don't know, maybe she gets some form of sexual thrill out of trying to scare and worry people about what they eat.

Anyhoo, yesterday red meat took centre stage; as Dr Elio Riboli, from the little known European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, said that their study found that those people who eat 3kg of red meat every day are likely to suffer from indigestion and flatulence.

Dr Elio pointed out that they had to issue a fatuous report every few years, in order to justify their existence.

Well, I can tell you, Nanny is outraged she is really mad now!

There seems not to be a day go by, when another horror story about food does not appear on her desk.

Remember these scare stories folks?

-Eggs are dangerous because you can get salmonella, and they raise your cholesterol

-White bread is bad because it is white

-Brown bread is bad because it prevents you from absorbing calcium

-Beans make you fart

-Beef on the bone turns you into a mad cow

-Sugar...don't get me onto the subject of sugar

-Salt, well Sid the slug can tell you all about the dangers of salt

-Salmon contains mercury

-Chicken can infect you with SARS

-Ham contain nitrates and other nasties

-Chili powder is a definite "no no"

-School meals turn you into the working classes

-Milk, butter and cheese contains fat; and we all know what that does to you

-Carrots turn you into an Antique Roadshow Presenter

-Vegetables and fruits contain pesticides

-Genetically engineered foods are dangerous, because Prince Charles says so

Oh dear! The list simply goes on and on.

Well Nanny is fed up, and bored, with constantly telling us about the danger of what we eat.

Therefore she is going to ban eating altogether.

She believes that not eating at all is the safest way forward for her "charges". Not eating is perfectly safe; after all, it hasn't done Michael Jackson any harm has it children?

OK, maybe I am making a little bit of this up (not the list though). However, there really was a report issued yesterday about the dangers of red meat. Seemingly if you eat too much, you increase the chances of getting cancer by 30%.

Now think about that for a minute.

Increase the chances by 30%, what does that actually tell you?

Bugger all!

The study doesn't tell you what your chances of getting cancer are, if you don't eat red meat; eg they may be zero, in which case a 30% increase is still zero.

The report is useless.

Here is another useless report. In 2003 the WHO World Cancer report said that tobacco and diet accounted for 43% of all cancer deaths.

Well think about that fatuous statement for a minute.

We all die of something, be it cancer or heart failure; doctors like to have a reason to put on the death certificate.

Following that reasoning of causality, doctors need a rationale for the cause of cancer. Since they don't know, they use food and fags as a convenient excuse.

All people eat, drink and some smoke; yet we don't all have cancer. However, WHO are stating that because we eat and smoke that this is the cause of cancer.

Their reasoning is unsound.

The human race has been in existence for around 150000 years, and has eaten its way through all manner of noxious substances.

Yet it has flourished.

Nanny, despite being around for only a few years, seems to think that she knows better than 150000 years of evolution.

Nanny and her food fadists should be ignored, and should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

Enjoy your life; after all, you only have one.

Fadism At Its Worst

Doubtless you are all aware of Nanny's obsession with banning smoking. The fact that a large number of health care professionals smoke, drink and take drugs is conveniently ignored.

It seems to be a case of do what we say, not do as we do.

Up until now, you may have been forgiven for thinking that at least the policy of banning smoking was based on some form of credible scientific evidence.

Maybe not.

The president of the Faculty of Public Health, Prof Rod Griffiths, is coming to the end of his first year in office.

He has aired his views on banning smoking.

He is quoted as saying that the Department of Health in England is now in the awkward position of appearing to defend the rights of smokers. The public health community would have to work hard to bring this situation to an end, to ensure all workers are protected from harmful second-hand tobacco smoke. Without a comprehensive ban, England will begin to look incredibly "out-of-date", he said.

Quote:

"If we can have a ban on smoking in New York and San Francisco then we can achieve a ban anywhere. Scotland and Wales are making moves in this direction and England will soon be looking very out-of-date. London is possibly the most cosmopolitan city in the world and it ought to be leading the way on this."

In other words, he is trying to implement a health policy on the simple basis that because others do it we must follow suit.

How very scientific!

Fadism at its worst.

Nanny's Fake ID Cards

As we all know, Nanny's chum Fungus Clarke has boldly taken up the mantle of ID cards; which was thrown away by Blunkett.

We are told, now that the terrorist threat has been shown to be bollocks, that these miracle cards will prevent fraud.

Clever old Nanny, always looking for ways to manipulate the story so that she can get her own way.

Unfortunately, Nanny, this rationale is also flawed.

Fraud experts have rejected this notion, as being fanciful in the extreme.

Dr James Backhouse, director of the London School of Economics Information Systems Integrity Group, said that ID cards will in fact help fraudsters.

Quote:

"ID cards will exacerbate the situation..

The US has a very big identity fraud problem and this is partly because the system relies on social security numbers as a universal form of identity."

As ever, Nanny tries her little tricks but her lies are easily shot down.

Just to remind you why ID cards are bollocks, please check out an earlier article on this site "Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks".

Nanny's Mickey Mouse Subject

Roll up, roll up!

For the easiest exam in Nanny's Britain.

Yes folks, Nanny is literally giving away thousands of GCSE qualifications in media studies this year.

As we all know, Nanny believes that everyone should go to university; something to do with keeping the unemployment figures down.

Unfortunately, owing to Nanny's inability to teach children how to read the word "cat" by the age on 9 (see earlier post "Nanny Bans Words - Epilogue"), she is having something of an uphill struggle; even with "piss easy" subjects such as media studies.

Therefore she came up with a real barnstormer of an idea.

Why not just give the qualifications away?

That way everyone can gain enough GCSE's to enter university.

Soon we will all have degrees, and life will be perfect!

Nanny has decided to allow children, sitting the media studies GCSE, to see the exam papers 4 weeks before taking them.

Sixteen-year-olds taking the media studies GCSE were given the full set of questions a month in advance, to allow them to prepare for the three-hour exam.

This exam accounts for 50% of the total marks.

Media studies is taken by 40000 pupils, how odd!

Needless to say, some people (myself included), are suggesting that this makes media studies even more of a "Mickey Mouse" subject than before.

Nick Seaton, the chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said:

"This seems to negate the purpose of an exam and increase the disdain in which many of our exams are now held".

Adding:

"It really makes a mockery of the system and undermines the achievement of those who have worked hard".

Last year 97.6% of candidates passed the paper, with 60% achieving A grades.

We are breeding a nation of empty headed morons.

This of course suits Nanny perfectly, nobody will have the wit or intelligence to challenge her.

Another Shameless Plug

Those of you with nothing better to do with yourselves today, can drop in to Voice of America.

There, at 16:00 GMT (17:00 UK time), you can hear me pontificate about the Michael Jackson trial.

You can hear the station via this link www.voanews.com/talk

Personally speaking, I would recommend that you sit outside and have a pint in the sun.

Win a Speed Trap Locator

Nanny On The Cross

Nanny, as we all know, is very worried about causing religious offence.

She is keen to pass a bill that would outlaw any form of "religious hatred", needless to say precisely what constitutes "religious hatred" has yet to be defined.

As with everything that Nanny does, details are left to fate and to bureaucrats to decide.

In the spirit of her new found "religious zeal", Nanny has been getting rather worked up over the offence that the crucifix may cause to non Christians.

After all, we are a Christian country, it is very wrong of us to expect others to tolerate our beliefs and practices.

Nanny's chums in Torbay Council have decided that the display of a five foot crucifix in their crematorium is offensive, and therefore have decided to remove it.

It has also announced that the chapel would in future be known as the ceremony hall.

Alan Faulkner, Torbay Council's executive member for Environmental Services, said:

"We live in a diverse, multi-faith society and many people have no specific beliefs at all. The facility at Torquay Crematorium is a ceremony hall, it is not a chapel."

Mr Faulkner said that crematorium staff had received a number of requests to have the cross removed, even though this posed a danger to staff; who had to climb a ladder to take it down.

Ah ha!

Nanny had to break Health and Safety rules to remove the cross, maybe she will get sued?

Faulkner added:

"While I am a Christian, I fully support this decision as I recognise we have a duty as a council to cater for everyone. It is not our intention to offend or upset anyone by removing the cross from the wall."

Needless to say, Nanny has offended a large number of people.

However, as you may have already gathered, Nanny doesn't give a monkeys!

Is Your Horse Gay?

Common sense has deserted Nanny yet again.

One night in May, Sam Brown a student celebrating the end of his finals at Oxford happened upon a mounted police officer.

For reasons best known to himself, he asked as to whether the horse was gay.

Being a good student, when not receiving a satisfactory answer, he repeated the question a few times.

The police were not amused, and despite trying to apologise Brown found himself "nicked".

It seems that it required 6 officers to take track him down, he boldly tried to make a run for it, and bring him to justice.

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said that the "homophobic comments" were offensive to the policeman and his horse.

Nicky Ellis, the VP (Welfare and Equal Opportunities) said:

"Obviously it's very hard to judge without having been there, but if the comments were made in a certain way, they may well have come across as homophobic, and if so, it is important that the police take this seriously".

Nanny is concerned that we don't take the issue of animal homophobia seriously enough. As such she is instigating a public awareness campaign, called "Gay Horses".

This is based on the classic TV show from the sixties "White Horses".

Remember that show?

It was made in 1965 as a collaboration between RTS (Radio Television Serbia) of Belgrade and BR-TV of Munich.

It followed the adventures of Julia, a fifteen-year old girl, played by Helga Anders, who leaves Belgrade to spend a holiday with her uncle Dimitri, on his stud farm where, with the help of head groom Hugo, he trains valuable white Lappizaners.

In the opening story, Boris, one of the horses is stolen by gypsies who dye his white coat brown so that no one will recognise him. Julia and Hugo set off to find Boris and upon his recovery an affinity is formed between girl and horse thus setting the scene for the 12 hour-long adventures that followed.

Anyhoo, the show had a fine theme tune called "White Horses".

It went something like this:

"On white horses let me ride away

To my world of dreams so far away

Let me run

To the sun etc"

Nanny will use this tune and song in her campaign, the word white will be substituted by the word gay.

Try it for yourselves, sing along now, it's very catchy.

You can play the music via this link "Gay Horses".

I predict that Nanny will have something of a hit on her hands!

The Remains Of The Day

I am not a fan of Nanny, as you well know. However, I would like to issue an urgent request to Nanny to ban one particular scourge of modern society.

Namely, left over Doner Kebabs.

I went drinking in Croydon (see www.croydoniscrap.com for the real horrors of my home town) with my neighbour last night, and ended up munching on a Doner Kebab back at Frost Towers at around 1:00am.

I am this morning confronted with, what I can only describe as, an affront to civilisation and good gastric digestion.

Namely, the remains of the Kebab.

I do not believe that this is good for society, or indeed for my hangover.

I implore Nanny to issue some form of edict, banning such scenes in the future. Surely the only way that we, as a civilisation, can advance is to eradicate the scourge of left over Kebabs once and for all.

I ask this not for my sake, but for the sake of future generations.

Size Matters

Nanny is always telling us that the new laws that she keeps passing are designed for our own safety and protection.

She is confident that we will eventually become used to the idea of animals receiving ASBO's, and uniformed civilians telling us what to do.

I don't know, you see the problem with this hypothesis is that it relies on the laws being sensible; and the officers of law enforcement applying them in a sensible manner.

Therefore, when you read a story like the one that I am going to relate to you, the hairs on the back of your neck begin to stand up.

I take you now on a journey to a communal garden centre, in a town far far away.

Er, Yarmouth actually!

There, brothers Stephen and Andy McSweeney (10 and 11 years old) were indulging in a spot of Star Wars with their light sabres.

This caused great alarm to the neighbours who, fearing an attack of the clones, decided to call 999.

The police duly turned up, flashing lights ablaze, and gave the youngsters a good talking to; they then issued them with "stop-and-account" notices.

Yes, that's right, a 10 and 11 year old were issued with "stop-and-account" notices for playing with light sabres.

Now this didn't go down too well with the boys' mother, Karen McSweeney, who feels that the police were a tad heavy-handed.

Mrs McSweeney said she thinks police may have been called to deal with older youths fighting in the street, which is plagued with rowdy teenage behaviour.

She believes the youths may have ridden off on mopeds before police arrived, and that officers only thought it was her sons because there was no one else about.

Police yesterday defended their action, stating that under legislation brought in this April they now have to issue stop-and-account notices each time they investigate criminal damage.

Now, you may well think that the police were justified in doing what they did; light sabres can be pretty fearsome weapons.

Maybe, you cry, Ken your over reacting!

I have of course left out one small piece of information about this little incident.

Namely, the size and condition of the light sabres.

They came from a box of Coco Pops, were made of flimsy plastic, and were no more than 6 inches in length.

You see, in this particular case, size really does matter!

The law can only work if people respect it.

Nanny is doing her level best to undermine people's respect for the law, and for those that have to enforce it.

Nanny Shoots Her Own Fox

You may recall that Nanny went to great lengths, a while back, to try to stamp out fox hunting.

Fox hunting is now illegal.

As with any illegal act, one might assume that Nanny's forces of law and order would be actively prosecuting those who perpetrate it.

Umm, well not so, this you must remember is Nanny's Britain; a looking glass world where things are never what they really seem to be.

It seems that Nanny's chums on the police have been told not to stop illegal fox hunts, when the hunting season begins, because of health and safety regulations.

Guidance drawn up by police chiefs instructs officers to take the most cautious approach when investigating reports of illegal hunts, for fear that they might injure themselves. They have been told not to go near hounds or horses, and not to confiscate dead animals as evidence in case of injury or infection.

Nanny has instructed officers to carry out risk assessments before embarking on an investigation.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Er no, it's not.

Police must also ask farmers for permission to go on their land, and not to use police helicopters in case they "cause alarm to horses".

Oddly enough this makes the Hunting Act of 2004 was completely unenforceable.

Gloucestershire and Devon and Cornwall police chiefs have stated:

"Police officers will not routinely be deployed to hunt meetings."

If officers are deployed it will only be after a detailed risk assessment completed on the deployment of that officer, or team by a responsible person. Appropriate support must be considered.

Officers sent to investigate a hunt should:

"record all available evidence (visual or verbal) in the most appropriate manner, by pocket notebook".

Nanny makes it makes clear that the police should not try to catch an illegal hunt taking place, but wait until it has run its course before investigating.

The police must use the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to see whether they have access to a particular piece of land.

Nanny concludes by saying that it might be "more appropriate" for an individual or organisation to take a civil or private action against an illegal hunt, rather than have police embark on a criminal investigation.

Were I a cynic, I might assume that Nanny wants her police force to follow up crimes that are easier to "solve"; which make good statistics for her annual crime survey and which are revenue beneficial.

You know, like speeding offences.

However, I'm not a cynic; am I?

Nanny Gives Us All A Headache

Nanny does seem to like interfering in the minutiae of our daily lives. I wonder why it is that she seems to have nothing better to do with her time.

There are more important issues such as; pensions, the health service, transport and the ever rising costs of the public sector to address.

However, instead, she devotes her time to trivia.

I found myself on the receiving end of one aspect of her obsession with trivia the other day.

I went to my local pharmacy to buy 3 packets of a migraine relief treatment for my partner Eva, who is over in Sweden at the moment and cannot buy it there.

Unfortunately, Nanny's rules only permit the purchase of one packet. Seemingly, in her mind, I am not adult enough or intelligent enough to be trusted with more than one packet.

Needless to say the good people at the pharmacy also thought that this rule is absolute nonsense. After a discrete chat it was decided, in the spirit of the war time black market, that I could purchase the requisite 3 packets.

As the good people of the pharmacy said, were I stupid enough to overdose on the pills at least I wouldn't have a headache.

This silly little rule brought to mind another trivial rule, brought in by Nanny, that lacked common sense and was of course unenforceable.

Those of you with long memories will recall the beef on the bone ban, this was equally easily flouted; the Frost family always managed to acquire their Sunday roast on the bone during that daft period.

Nanny Bans Canopy

The Duke of Norfolk has got into a bit of a row with his Roman Catholic bishop, The Right Rev Kieran Conry, over the abolition of a centuries old tradition.

It seems that the bishop has had an attack of Nannyitis, and has decided to remove an ornamental canopy from the Corpus Christi procession from Arundel Cathedral to the castle.

The canopy has been in use, without incident, since the 1880's. However, the bishop has decided that it now represents a health and safety hazard.

Apparently, if newspaper reports are accurate, the Duke exploded; that in itself, I would have thought, was also a health and safety issue!

Nanny Bans The Bible Again

It seems that Nanny's chums, in the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust, have got a wee bee in their bonnets over the placing of bibles by the side of patients' beds.

Nanny has decided that bibles may offend non Christians, and as such will meet today to decide as to whether they should be banned.

Nanny issued a statement, from the Trust, saying:

"University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust is committed to religious diversity and equality,".

Adding:

"The trust can confirm that discussions are currently taking place between the Chaplaincy, Infection Control, Service Equality and Volunteer Services departments to determine whether religious texts will continue to be provided in patients' bedside lockers at Leicester General Hospital, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital".

It is nice to see that, given the scarce resources of the NHS, they have time to focus their efforts on such an absurd topic.

The weasles on the Health Trust have also claimed that the bibles may prove to be a source of the superbug.

Bollocks!

If that were really a serious issue, then all other forms of printed material would be banned in hospital wards.

These people are pathetic!

No one forces the patients to open or read the bibles.

The only type of person who could possibly be offended by the existence of a book, would be that type of person who took part in the book burnings in Nazi Germany.

Where first you burn books, next you burn people!

Nanny Bans Cocks

Is it me, or has Nanny surpassed herself this time?

Inverclyde Council, worried about the corrupting effect on children, have banned the use of the word cock.

Don't believe me?

Check out their site listing for entertainment, scroll down a bit and you will see "bleeptails".

Instead of worrying about the damaging effects of cocks, Inverclyde might care to apply their minds to another issue.

They have been blasted by the Accounts Commission as being the "worst in Scotland".

Well done lads!