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.

Sunday, July 31, 2005

Cherie Rebels Against Blairy

Cherie Rebels Against BlairyCherie Blair, wife of Blairy Poppins, shocked and surprised her audience during a speaking visit to Malaysia last week by admitting to the fact that she has rebelled against "her old man".


"For years now I have come to enjoy the trappings of office:

Luxury flights and holidays

Private education for my children

Free gifts from foreigners

The use of therapists for my emotional angst

The use of conmen to handle my private financial matters

This situation would have continued unabated for the rest of my life, had I not come across that most excellent website

"Nanny Knows Best"

run by one of Britain's leading intellectuals and political commentators Ken Frost

I am now a regular visitor to the site, and have come to realise the threat to our freedom posed by my husband and his party

To this end I have decided to speak out in the hope that people will wake up to the threat to their civil liberties, before it is too late"

Warming to her theme Cherie went on to say:

"Nothing I say here could possibly be construed as making light of those horrible acts of violence, or of the responsibility imposed on the UK and other governments to keep the public safe,

or of the difficult and dangerous task performed by the police and intelligence services

She added:

"at the same time it is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation".

She also highlighted a House of Lords judicial ruling that blocked the holding of foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge.

"What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law,"


Friday, July 29, 2005

Nanny Bans Beer Goggles

Nanny Bans Beer GogglesNanny is really worried about the media's obsession with beauty and good looks.

She agonises that ordinary looking mortals, such as you and I, are not given a fair "crack" in this media obsessed age.

Therefore Nanny has decided to intervene in that most image obsessed industry, the drinks industry.

She has ordered drinks companies to stop using attractive people to advertise their products; instead they must now hire paunchy, balding men for advertisements.

Nanny's sleepy old watchdogs at the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) have issued a list of undesirable male characteristics that advertisers must abide by, in order to comply with tougher rules designed to separate alcohol from sexual success.

Lambrini is the first drinks company to come under attack from Nanny. Watchdogs rejected its latest campaign, because it depicted women flirting with a man who was deemed too attractive.

The poster featured three women "hooking" a slim, young man in a parody of a fairground game scene. Harmless fun to lead its summer campaign, Lambrini argued.

CAP said:

"We would advise that the man in the picture should be unattractive, overweight, middle-aged, balding etc...

We consider that the advert is in danger of implying that the drink may bring sexual/social success, because the man in question looks quite attractive and desirable to the girls. If the man was clearly unattractive, we think that this implication would be removed

What a bunch of prats!

Beer GogglesAs anyone with half a brain knows, around 75% of sexual liaisons in the UK would not occur but for the effects of drink. People viewed through beer goggles are infinitely more attractive than when viewed in the cold light of day.

Drink is the glue that brings people together, and ensures that they stay together.

Let's raise a glass or three this evening to the benefits of beer goggles, I know I will!

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Nanny Bans The Potter

Nanny Bans The PotterDear oh dear, you would have thought that with all that is going on in the world Nanny would have better things to do with her time than interfere in a planned fun day at a primary school.

Well you would be wrong.

Nanny likes nothing better than to stick her hooter (nose) into the minutiae of her "charges".

This time she has decided to interfere in the activities of the Holt Primary School in Skellingthorpe.

The school was to hold a Harry Potter day, whereby the pupils would dress as witches and wizards to mark the publication of the latest JK Rowling book.

However, the powers that be (ie the Rector and the Head Teacher Paul Martin) decided that this was not on; seemingly Nanny thinks that this day would lead the children into "areas of evil".

Needless to say Nanny's decision has succeeded in annoying everyone, children were said to have been left upset and confused by the cancellation of the day.

In a letter to parents, Paul Martin wrote:

"When I received a letter from the rector which suggested that I was 'seeking to lead our children into areas of evil', I felt that the situation was escalating disproportionately.

May I reassure parents that my staff and I only wished to raise the profile of reading.

We did not wish to cause any offence or upset and the fact that it has turned sour is entirely regrettable.

I now wish to put this behind us and pull together to make the end of term a happy and positive experience

Absolute nonsense!

Children can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Bewitched, Sabrina etc all perfectly freely.

How on earth could the Harry Potter book lead them down the path of evil?

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Nanny Deploys Enver In Fight Against Terrorism

Nanny Deploys Enver In Fight Against TerrorismDear old Blairy Poppins, despite spending £1800 a day on make up to cover up his stress, is turning into a very worried man since the recent terrorist bombings in London.

In fact Blairy is so worried, that he has decided to deploy one of his most fearsome weapons in the "war against terrorism".

What can this be? I hear you ask.

None other that Enver Hodge (Nanny's Employment Minister).

You remember Enver don't you?

She had something of a success in the 1980's and 90's with her childcare policy in Islington. In Islington a number of children, in Nanny's care, were abused by some 32 members of staff; yet Hodge did not act. Indeed when the Evening Standard started to report the issue in 1992, she accused it of "gutter journalism".

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

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

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

To read more about Enver visit The Enver Hodge Approach To Parenting

Therefore, as you can see, Enver is a fearsome weapon indeed. The terrorists should be shaking in their shoes.

As such Blairy has commissioned her to "help" Muslim youths improve their employment opportunities.

Somehow or other Nanny has got it in to her head that unemployment causes people to go out and blow up their fellow citizens.

Funny that, I don't remember any bombs going off when unemployment was over 3 million!

Anyhoo, Enver has told a seminar in London that it is vital to discover why young Muslims with promising starts fail to get jobs.

According to independent research discrimination is one problem, but strong family ties and an unwillingness to relocate also play a part.

Enver said that it is important to find ways of encouraging young Muslims to feel integrated into British society, in the light of the terrorist attacks in London on 7 July.

Sorry Enver that is total bollocks.

The solution to the lack of jobs and alienation felt by the Muslim community, and indeed the means to prevent future attacks, lies within the hands of the Muslim community themselves; it is not for Nanny to interfere and make matters worse.

By singling our Muslims for special treatment, Nanny:

1 Shows fear

2 Is rightly or wrongly perceived to be rewarding illegal behaviour

3 Further alienates the Muslim community by making them out to be victims, in need of special treatment

4 Causes resentment from the non Muslim community

I suggest that Blairy and Enver visit In Your Face and read "The Cricket Test Revisited" for more details.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

An Apple A Day

An Apple A DayNanny's chums in the ever popular and helpful European Court have decided to tighten the rules on the sale of vitamins and minerals.

Needless to say, when Nanny says "tighten" she means BAN.

The ban will affect around 200 supplements, and put restrictions on the upper limits of vitamin doses.

It seems that Nanny wants to see vitamins and minerals controlled in the same way as conventional medicines.

You see, there is a danger that if you take too many high doses of vitamins you may injure yourself.

Well that is of course true, but surely the same can be said for eating eg too many carrots (you can turn orange from beta carrotine overdoses).

Doesn't this just come down to a matter of common sense?

Unfortunately Nanny wants to take away every aspect of responsibility that we have over our lives, and deny us freedom of choice.

That's the real issue:


Anyhoo, Nanny will be implementing her rules in August of this year; supplements will only be able to include vitamins and minerals taken from an approved list.

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), the Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA) and the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) have launched an appeal.

They argue that the legislation is too restrictive, and will threaten thousands of perfectly safe products.

Remember this, the real issue is FREEDOM.

The Dangers of Swimming

The Dangers of SwimmingNanny must have hated swimming as a child, for she certainly seems to have it in for swimmers these days.

Her chums at Huntingdonshire District Council have come up with an observation of the "bleedin obvious"; namely that people who swim may drown.

No kidding!

To this end, they have stated that those who swim in lakes and rivers face a "very real" threat of drowning.

As if that were not enough, they also warn that people who swim there may catch Weil's disease.

Pat Knight, countryside services manager, said:

"It is important people of all ages are informed of the risks and take responsibility for their own actions.

Swimming is not permitted in the untreated waters and must only occur in supervised swimming pools.

When an injury or incident occurs it causes distress to many people

Nanny has placed her Council Rangers on full alert.


Anyone found swimming will be told to get out of the water.

As if Nanny has not said enough about the dangers of swimming, she also warns that you might get cramp if the water is too cold.

Remember folks, "The risk of drowning is very high."

However, Nanny does say that we should travel and work as normal in London.

Her risk scale needs some adjustment I would say.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Plonker of The Week

Peter O'Neill Plonker of The WeekSometimes, because they have been so conditioned by Nanny into not thinking, people blurt out the most absurd nonsense.

Regrettably many of the these "blurters" have some form of menial position of power over the rest of us.

This week one of Nanny's plonkers took a particularly daft notion into his head, and tried to make it public policy.

My plonker of the week award goes to Peter O'Neill, a Labour councilor in Wolverhampton.

O'Neill, for reasons that escape me, had decided that the popular tune "Land of Hope and Glory" was in fact too political (something to do with the Tory Party and the Falklands War!); consequently he sought to ban it at the forthcoming Remembrance Day celebrations.

However, he was prepared to replace it with something equally uplifting; he was going to allow the popular tune "Sailing", as performed by Rod Stewart in 1975, to be played.

Needless to say this daft idea was shot down in flames by all and sundry.

O'Neill has now been forced to apologise for his lapse of common sense.

He apologised for causing offence and said that it was "a mistake".

He claimed that he was concerned at the falling numbers of people attending the Remembrance celebrations, and wanted to attract younger groups to the event.

May I ask how the playing of a 1970's hit will attract younger people?

O'Neill said that he "fully accepted" that Land of Hope and Glory "belonged to the British people", not the Conservative party.


"I admit I was wrong. My own personal view is that it is associated with Conservative party conferences

I was wrong. That music belongs to the British people. The strength of feeling I have heard has made me painfully aware of that.

I did not wish to cause offence to anyone".

Mr O'Neill said he now wanted to draw a line under the affair.

Of course he does!

I am sure that had there not been such a fuss, he would have had it banned.

That's the trouble with Nanny, you have to remain ever vigilant.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Perils of Petunias

The Perils of PetuniasNanny, I think, must be suffering from hay fever; that at least can be the only rational explanation for her bizarre banning of petunias and hanging flower baskets.

It seems that for the last seven years Ian Collins, landlord of the Ring of Bells pub in Norton Fitzwarren, has adorned the front of his pub with a stunning display of hanging baskets and window boxes.

Ian has won numerous prizes, including Prettiest Village Pub on four occasions, and he has visitors from around the world to see his floral displays.

However, all this means now't to Nanny's chums in the local council.

The health and safety officials of the council have decided that the hanging and wall-mounted baskets and pots, are a clear and present danger to people. Seemingly some of the petunias and begonias have spilled onto the pavement, and walkers have had to step into the road to avoid them. dangerous!

Mr Collins has been told to take down his petunias.

Er 34 people die each day in Iraq because of Nanny's efforts to make the world safer, why on earth is she bothering herself with this nonsense?

Nanny also claims that Mr Collins's baskets are hanging below the 8.2ft minimum height, laid down by health and safety regulations, and people could bang their heads on them.

Er could people not just duck their heads?

On that subject my own delightfully useless council, Croydon Council, may like to take a stroll down Dingwall Road (which resembles a post nuclear attack); and try to walk fully erect (can I say erect?) under the trees that "adorn" the wasteland by the side of the railway car park.

You can't be erect, you have to bend your head.

Time they were cut boys!

Anyhoo, I digress, Mr Collins said:

"I have done this for seven years and we have won the Prettiest Village Pub in the Taunton Deane area four times.

I have never heard any complaints and in fact it has been just the opposite.

People compliment me on the display as it brightens up the village. We have had people from Jamaica and America who take pictures to send home.

I spend about £500 a year on flowers but I enjoy doing it because it allows me to put something back into the community

The problem for Mr Collins, and the rest of us, is that Nanny hates the idea of people doing things on their own initiative.

You see that would mean that we were thinking for ourselves...that is not allowed these days.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Another Shameless Plug

Shameless PlugFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: "The Living Brand" Launches "The Trial of Saddam Hussein"

London, July 21st 2005 "The Living Brand" is pleased to announce the launch of "The Trial of Saddam Hussein", which can be found on will follow the trial of Saddam Hussein, former dictator of Iraq.

It will cover the progress of the trial, as well as provide coverage of relevant background stories and events.

For additional information, contact: Ken Frost at "The Living Brand"

About "The Living Brand" is a living interactive website that, in conjunction with forthcoming books, aims to stimulate the intellectual and gastric juices; as well as entertain.


Ken Frost "The Living Brand"

Failure Banned

Nanny Bans FailureIn Nanny's world we are all created equal and treated equally, that usually means badly, no one is disadvantaged and we all achieve our wildest ambitions.

Clearly Nanny must have watched "Willy Wonka" a little too often.

Anyhoo, it has come to the attention of some of Nanny's chums in the teaching profession that reality does not always come up to Nanny's ideal.

No kidding!

They have seen that some of their precious little schoolchildren, having numbed their brains by playing too many video games and eating too much shit, have not managed to get themselves through Nanny's ever easier exam system.

Media Studies for example, despite being easier to pass than a pile of dog shit, still manages to confound some of Nanny's less able brained children.

No problem, Nanny's chums in the teaching profession have come up with a solution; they will ban failure.


Ban failure!

Yes failure will be forever consigned to the dustbin of history (which we don't study anymore anyway), instead the phrase "deferred success" will be used.

Retired teacher Liz Beattie, who worked in primary schools for 37 years, came up with the idea. Has she nothing better to do?

It is very scary to think that this women spent 37 years near children.

In Liz's view, children who are told they have failed can be so demoralised they give up on education.


"It's important to get them fired with enthusiasm for learning, not having them hanging their heads and feeling unhappy about their marks.

It's a good thing to get rid of total pass or total fail


Failure is as much part of life as birth, death and sex.

You can no more eradicate failure than you can disinvent the wheel.

Notwithstanding the total absurdity of her suggestion, she will put forward her proposal at the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) annual conference in Buxton, Derbyshire, next week.

Her motion, which will be seconded by a colleague from Yorkshire, reads:

"Conference believes it is time to delete the word fail from the educational vocabulary to be replaced with the concept of deferred success."

Liz, PAT Suffolk secretary, even believes that the motion will be passed.

I guess that if it doesn't pass, she will consider it to be a deferred success rather than a fail?

She is also of the belief that it is important not to exclude less able pupils.

She said:

"Testing systems are building failure for a lot of kids. Children that find learning difficult don't do well in tests, as they lack confidence.

If they find academic teaching difficult then we should teach them something else which they are good at

It is time that this lady went back to her retirement, and left the important matter of teaching our future to those with a little more sense.

Failure is character building, those who fail develop and mature far more readily than those who live their lives in the gilded cage of success or mediocre underachievement.

You only have to look around you at the sort of characters (immature, whinging, spoilt, fit for nothing and incapable of looking after themselves) that our "self centered" education system has spawned, to see that this nonsense if passed will do immense damage.

Those that cannot succeed should be streamed out from those who can succeed, so that the more able students are not held back.

A convoy only moves as fast as the slowest ship.

Society is being held back by retrograde 60's policies, Liz started her career in the 60's, such as this "deferred success" nonsense.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is Father

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is FatherNanny has decided to adopt a carrot and stick approach in her never ceasing battle to train our delinquent youth.

Nanny has decided to give teenagers smart cards, a neat way of tracking them, which will allow them to have discounts at cinemas and leisure centres in return for good behaviour.

Nanny's chum Beverley Hughes, the children's minister, said it was right to reward good behaviour while showing teenagers that they would lose out if they broke the law.

Children who do voluntary work will be able to earn extra credits for their cards, while those who get into trouble will have their cards deactivated and lose their credits.

Ooh Minister, that's very strict of you!

Why not just put the little toe rags in the stocks?

Hughes said:

"It is about celebrating when young people are doing well, as well as being able, through sanctions or not involving young people, to point to the fact that they have responsibilities as well as rights

and if they don't meet their responsibilities they jeopardise those rights."


Surely it should be the norm for children to behave properly?

However, as with all of Nanny's schemes there is always a Nanny note of dissent.

Prof Al Aynsley-Green, the children's commissioner for England (what?), said:

"I am concerned that we recognise that the small minority who engage in anti-social behaviour are frequently those who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

Withdrawing incentives such as opportunity cards must be the very last resort and should be used sparingly

Poppy cock!

The lesson of consequences is vital if children are to develop and mature. Protecting them from consequences does them irreparable damage.

Anyhoo, these schemes are all well and good but Nanny is yet again trying to undermine the role of parents.

Children should be trained in the fine arts of good behaviour by their parents, not by the faceless bureaucracy of the Nanny state.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Terrorism's Raisin D'etre

Terrorism's Raisin D'etreBefore you all email me telling me that I can't spell, there is a very good reason for the use of the word "Raisin"; which you will see as you read on.

Anyhoo, as you know Nanny and her control freakery can come in many forms; central government, local government, health and safety, the BBC and individuals all have their part to play in the creation of a Nanny state.

One grouping that is more than overburdened with people who have "Nannyistic" tendencies, is that of religious organisations; Archbishop Tut Tut ably demonstrated his Nannyistic tendencies a while ago, as he talked of "unpoliced conversations".

Normally, this site does not stick its nose into the affairs of religions; people have a right to worship who they want, in the way that they want, so long as they don't attempt to impose their views on others.

However, there are occasions when some religions attempt to push their views onto the rest of us. Under those circumstances they then become legitimate targets for Nanny Knows Best.

The other week extreme Islamists bombed London, and decapitated themselves in the process. This act, although some have attempted to "justify" it by blaming British foreign policy, is nothing more than an expression of blind hatred for the West.

The perpetrators despise every aspect of Western culture and way of life, their sole aim is to kill us off.

The perpetrators have been brought up in a closed society that, for instance, claims to value women and the sanctity of the family so much that they insist on making women wear burqas.

A cynic might ask why, if the idea of the burqa is to protect the sanctity of the family, men do not wear them as well.

However, I am not going to start to nit pick on the specific views of the extremists. I would just like to point out one glaring error in their teaching.

In order for young men to be suitably insentivised to commit suicide, their teachers have pointed them to a part of the Koran; which allegedly says that those who die for Islam, will go to paradise and will be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Enough virgins, I suppose, to get the hearts beating of even the most pious of extremists.

The trouble is, this piece of the Koran appears to have been mistranslated.

It is not 72 virgins that await them, but 72 raisins.


Why on earth would 72 raisins be construed as worth dying for?

Well, according to Ishad Manji (author of The Trouble With Islam) who has pointed out this error, in 7th century Arabia raisins were exalted.

The trouble is, in 21st century Britain, a raisin means diddly squat.

So there you have it, suicide bombers are dying for raisins.

They have committed a worthless and futile gesture that will avail them nothing.

Oh one more thing, why has only one moderate wing of the Islamic faith issued a fatwa against suicide bombers?

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Nanny Bans Speed Cameras

Nanny Bans Speed CamerasIn a rather bizarre twist of fate, Nanny has decided to ban one of her own "Nannyist" safety measures.

She has decided to halt the installation of 500 new speed cameras, as she awaits a review of their effectiveness.

The review will be carried out by University College London.

Road safety group Safe Speed has been banging on, for quite sometime, about the fact that fewer cameras meant fewer deaths.

Safe Speed said Department for Transport figures showed the growth in fixed and mobile speed camera sites grew by under 1% for 2003 to 2004, compared to 33% between 2002 and 2003.

Founder Paul Smith said that was the "true reason" road deaths fell last year. He went on to lambast Nanny's obsession with speed cameras, pointing out:

"Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to drivers, police and local authorities alike. In almost every case there's something else that's more important to road safety than strict speed limit compliance."

Nanny's colleagues have privately admitted that the fall in road deaths may be simply the normal recovery that would be expected after a peak in crashes known as "regression to the mean".

Cameras can be installed only where there have been a spate of serious crashes. Under the law of averages, it is unlikely that the number of crashes would continue at the same rate.

Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of statistics at University College London, said:

"I am deeply sceptical of the data that has been concocted to support the increase in cameras."

In other words, Nanny has lied to us about the effectiveness of these cameras.

The reason?

Speed cameras provide Nanny with an exceptionally easy source of revenue.

Let's go back to the days of having a man walking in front of the vehicle with a red flag.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Nanny Bans Terrorists

Nanny Bans TerroristsGood news folks, you can now sleep peacefully in your beds again; there will be no more terrorism in Britain.


Nanny has banned terrorism.

Well, let me be more precise, Nanny's chumps (sorry chums) in the BBC (Bombers' Broadcasting Corporation) have banned the use of the word "terrorist".

It seems that the Bombers' Broadcasting Corporation has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings; in order to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists".

The first reports of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists, but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

It seems that the Bombers' Broadcasting Corporation guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Scuse me, but if they weren't terrorists what were they?

Scum maybe?

The BBC's guidelines have managed to undermine its reputation.

Nanny needs to get it into her thick head that we don't need to understand anything more about these people, other than the fact that they hate us and want to kill us.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Money Well Spent!

Money Well SpentThe good news is that, ever mindful of the costs of her special projects, Nanny has been keeping costs as low as possible in regard to her planned ID card scheme.

The costs incurred to date have so far amounted to a mere £17M, according to information gleaned under the Freedom of Information Act.

Out of this, "drop in the ocean", £12M was paid directly to PA Consulting.

Astute observers will note that the ID cards bill has not yet reached a third reading in the House of Commons.

Who cares!

Nanny doesn't!

PA estimated the development and procurement phases of the project would cost £18.74m over the length of the two-year deal.

The figures also disclosed that at least 62 consultants are working alongside 43 civil servants and one secondee.

In the FOI statement the Home Office said:

"The PA Consulting contract involves work on the design, feasibility testing, business case and procurement elements of the id cards programme.

The nature of the contract for this service is such that an outturn value is not defined; packages of work are agreed monthly. The Home Office has made no commitment to any contract value.

Although the total value of the contract will not be known until the contract is concluded..

I can tell you that the estimated prices given in the successful tender by the contractor were £9.87m for the development phase of the programme and £8.87m for the subsequent procurement phase

Roughly translated, that means "we don't know how much it will cost, because it is not our money and we don't care".

The Home Office said the "average daily cost for each consultant working on the programme was £1,093".

Remember folks, it's your money that Nanny is spending.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Nanny Bans Skirts - Update

Nanny Bans Skirts-UpdateYou will recall my earlier post, entitled "Nanny Bans Skirts", about the decision of Broadstone Middle School to ban skirts.

Seemingly they are trying to "degender" their pupils.

How unpleasant!

Anyhoo, I am pleased to see that the parents of the children who attend this school are not taking this absurd ruling lying down.

They are fighting back, and using Nanny's own Human Rights legislation to fight her with.

The parents have hired Gregory Carlin, director of the Catholic organisation Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition, to fight their case.

The Coalition normally investigates crimes, such as sex slavery.

Carlin says the regulation breaches human rights.

He will use the counter argument to the ban, of sexual harassment and gender subordination in court; he believes that the school has no chance of winning.


"Girls have a legal right to be girls..A rule that targets one sex or another is wrong. It discriminates against girls...

I am going to write to the school outlining we will take them to court if they implement the policy

Adding that well worn phrase:

"It's political correctness gone mad."

Maybe, if the school has half a brain, they will rescind this dictat before it ends up in court.

That of course would require Nanny to show some common sense; something that she seems have in rather short supply.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

True Grit - Update

Following on from my earlier article today, entitled "True Grit", I am pleased to see that the US military have been reading this site; and have taken heed of what I said.

In the last hour it has been announced that the order forbidding US troops to enter the M25 Cordon Sanitaire around London has been rescinded.

Well done!

Now that I have the attention of the US, please could the Administration in Washington fix this other loose end?

It seems that for the last 18 months the US have not had an ambassador stationed in London.

This seems to be a tad odd, given the fact the US and the UK are meant to be "standing shoulder to shoulder" in the so called "war against terror".

Maybe it would be a good time to fix this absurd omission?

True Grit

True GritIn the wake of last Thursday's attack on London we have seen the expected messages of resolve and determination from our politicians to carry on as normal, and not to allow the terrorists to win.

Quite rightly so, in my view.

However, despite this, one of Blairy's close chums in the so called "war against terror" seems to have let the side down; and has had an attack of the "health safeties".

It seems that the thousands of US military personnel, based in the UK, have been banned by commanders from travelling to London and the inner ring of the M25.

The reason?

Seemingly London is just too dangerous.

That's odd, some 8 million people live within the M25, myself included; what are we meant to do in this "cauldron of terror"?

Personnel, most of them from US Air Force units at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, and family members who are from the US are being urged to stay away.

Defence Secretary John "20 a day" Reid said the US Embassy had told him the advice was being urgently reviewed. He said that he was "trying to get to the bottom of this".

It seems that the US air force said that the order had been made in the interests of the safety of its troops.

RAF Mildenhall spokesman Matt Tulis said:

"We are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them...This is the best course of action right now."

Rather incongruously he then said:

"Obviously it's in the interests of the air force to ensure its personnel are as vigilant and as safe as possible...

While it's important for some to carry on business as usual, the interests in keeping the air force out of harm's way until we have a bit more knowledge about what has happened is greater than the need to send them back into the city

He added:

"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you".

This ludicrous ban sends totally the wrong message to both the terrorists, and to the citizens of Britain (the allies of the US).

It highlights a lack of harmony in the methodology of Nanny and Uncle Sam as to how they intend to pursue the "war on terror".

Rather alarmingly it also contradicts the message sent by President Bush who yesterday, at the FBI Academy in Quantico, said that the US would "not retreat in the face of terrorists" .


"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you.....We continue to take the fight to the enemy and will fight till this enemy is defeated," he told the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

He finished by saying:

"The only way that terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve...These kind of people who blow up subways and buses are not the kind of people you can negotiate with or reason with or appease. In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until this enemy is defeated".

The chain of command must not be seen to contradict itself.

BilkoRegrettably the orders issued to the US service personnel in the UK transform the image of the US military from that of "gung ho" John Wayne to "risk averse" Sgt Bilko.

I am not in the US military therefore I will be ignoring these orders, and risking life and limb by going into Central London (Canary Wharf) later today for a large steak.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Ken Vents His Spleen On The Nanny State

Ken Vents His SpleenDear all,

I have decided to vent my spleen, by way of this article, against the Nanny State.

Thank you for your indulgence.


Britain has over the past few years allowed the "claw like" grasp of the Nanny state to take hold, and to stifle individual freedom and liberty. A Nanny state exists where the state believes that it knows what is in the best interests of those who it was elected to govern, and takes it upon itself to interfere in the minutiae of their daily lives.

Britain's Nanny state, by means of legislation and media propaganda, has set about its mission to control our daily lives with a messianic zeal. It has taken upon itself the right to lecture the British public about every aspect of their daily lives on subjects including; smoking, drinking, eating, exercise and health.

Many commentators ascribe the rise of the Nanny state in the UK to the rise of the blame and compensation culture, that has crept in from the USA.

To my view, whilst this may be a symptom, it is most certainly not the cause. The blame for the rise in the Nanny state rests "Full Square" on the shoulders of the state itself, ie the government.

Nannyism affects every aspect of our daily lives. Not one of us can escape the media onslaught that the government has subjected us to over the recent years, in respect of issues as diverse as; smoking, drinking, exercise and salt/sugar intake.

Aside from this media onslaught, the dead hand of bureaucracy has been toiling to produce an avalanche of petty rules and regulations; designed to control our every action, and to restrict our freedom.

I present a few examples below of Britain’s Nanny state at its worst:
  • The omnipotent Health and Safety executive ensures that every task that we undertake, even those as simple as raising a flag or climbing a ladder, cannot be performed without the requisite "jobsworth" training course being undertaken and certified.

  • Councils fell trees in the fear that, if they don't, people will slip on the fruit that falls on the ground. Wyre Forest Council, in a display of Orwellian control freakery, outlawed harmless words and phrases such as "Bristol fashion" because of an ill informed study suggesting that they have connections with the slave trade.

  • The government, in order to ensure that their pledge of "higher education for all" is achieved, manipulates the pass marks and the exam system so that all who take them can pass; witness the absurd media studies exam, where candidates will be given the paper one month in advance.

  • John Prescott, as though he has not got enough to do as he demolishes hundreds of thousands of houses in the North so that he can build new ones in the South, has taken it upon himself to regulate the temperature of hot water in our homes; lest we scald ourselves when taking a bath. He plans to legislate for thermostatic mixing valves to be fitted in all new homes as from 2006, these valves will prevent the water temperature rising beyond a pre-determined Nanny level.

  • Gloucester Local Education Authority have banned children from wearing safety goggles, as they present a drowning hazard. Seemingly the LEA believes that teachers will be distracted from the cries of drowning children, as they attempt to aid others put their goggles on.

  • The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust has banned Gideon bibles from patients’ bedsides, as they believe that they will offend non-Christians.

  • School children are now restricted from taking part in field trips and off site courses, for fear of some dreadful calamity that might befall them. In my opinion, this risk aversion does the children more harm than good, the only way that children can learn and develop into mature and responsible adults is for them to be exposed to the risk of failure and danger. Life and risk is not to be feared, but to be embraced.
Nanny has gained power over us because people have become afraid of failure and of risk. Politicians, instead of managing risk, have sough to zeroise risk. This is of course an impossible goal. However, today's politicians are intellectually lazy and unprincipled. They neither have the ability, nor the will, to stand up to those who hanker after a risk free society; they baulk at telling the voters that not only is zero risk impossible, but that it is in fact dangerous.

It is only through risk taking that mankind develops; from the first tentative steps that a child takes, when it is learning to walk and to fall, to the development of revolutionary new products such as aeroplanes and IT systems. Nothing in our history has been achieved without risk and failure.

We are now faced with the third term of the Blair government. This promises to bring in yet more legislation aimed at governing the minutiae of our lives; smoking, id cards (allegedly to protect us from id theft), religious bigotry and the never-ending campaign against certain proscribed foodstuffs will all be featured in this third term.

Many say that they do not mind or care as, for example, they don’t smoke or eat fast food. That argument was used once before, and led to disaster. I would remind you of the following, which was written by a far wiser person than myself:

"First they came for the gypsies, but I did not speak up

Why should ?

I am not a gypsy.

Then they came for the communists, but I did not speak up

Why should I?

I am not a communist

Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up

Why should I?

I am not a Jew

Now they are coming for me

Who is there left to speak up for me

The Nanny state, by over regulating our lives brings both the state and the law into disrepute. Nanny’s much vaunted ASBO's are rapidly becoming a mockery. No one can take the law seriously, when ASBO's are given to farmers because of the actions of their livestock; as happened when Brian Hagan was issued with an ASBO, by Norfolk constabulary, to prevent his pigs from escaping. A society that has no respect for the law becomes ungovernable, and faces destruction from within.

The Nanny state by regulating people's lives, and by robbing them of the responsibility for their own lives, makes the population reliant on the state. Britain now has over 7 million people working in the public sector, ie they are working for the benefit of the government not for their own advancement. They are now totally dependant on the state for their livelihood, the perfect bedrock for the foundation of a dictatorship.

The opposition parties are, and have been for a number of years, paralysed. The Tory Party is selecting yet another leader, yet it has still not worked out what it actually believes in. Whilst the Liberal Party has deluded itself into thinking that it did rather well at the last election, and as such has taken an undeserved holiday. It is now down to the people of Britain to take a stand against Nanny, and to say enough is enough.

Ken Frost

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Thank You

Thank You

This weekend sees the main national commemorative events marking the end of the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific, 60 years ago.

The Royal British Legion are using this 60th anniversary to say thank you to the men and women of both the armed forces, and civilian services, who lived and fought for our freedom and liberty during that time.

I would like to make my own personal note of thanks to my parents, and grandfather, who were involved with the war effort at that time.

Grandfather, who is now dead, served in the Royal Navy in the First World War and the merchant navy in the Second. My father served in the merchant navy, on the Atlantic convoys during the Second World War; whilst my mother worked in a factory, making electronic equipment.

Whilst that war is now long since over, the threat to liberty remains; as evidenced by the attacks last Thursday on London.

It is an appropriate time to remember that London has been a major city for over 2000 years.

It has survived fire, flood, plague, rioting, the Luftwaffe and the IRA.

Thursday's attack will not destroy it, London will survive long after the intellectually and morally bankrupt theocracy that planned the attack has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


Friday, July 08, 2005

The Dangers of Egg and Spoon Races

The Dangers of Egg and Spoon racesNanny's chums in the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations have decided that the risk to children from paedophiles is now so great, that even the humble egg and spoon race poses a threat to the safety of children

They have issued an edict to head teachers telling them that cameras at such events must be banned, lest a paedophile is amongst the audience.

Er, surely only parents and friends of family are allowed to attend school events anyway?

Would it not be reasonable to assume that the parents can quite easily monitor their own guests for "threatening/risky" behaviour?

Or is it being suggested that the parents themselves are paedophiles?

Now, of course, I realise that it is entirely possible that some parents are paedophiles.

However, by making the assumption that all adults are paedophiles, unless proved otherwise, merely distort the "risk matrix" and gives the child an unhealthy sense of fear.

Fearful children become fearful adults, who are not capable of facing life's threats and dangers.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

The Danger of Showers

The Dnager of ShowersI came across this little vignette from the USA the other day.

It seems that scientists over there have devoted their intellects to studying the effects of taking showers.

Their conclusion?

Taking regular showers could give you brain damage.

The scientists believe that breathing in small amounts of manganese, found in water, may harm the central nervous system.

Dr John Spangler, of Wake Forest University in New Carolina, said:

"If our results are confirmed, they could have profound implications for the world. Inhaling manganese, rather than eating or drinking it, is far more efficient at delivering it to the brain."

Manganese damages the brain causing learning difficulties, tremors and changes in behaviour.

Much like drinking.

Dr Spangler's team claim that a 10 minute shower a day, for 10 years, would expose children to three times higher doses than would be needed to damage a rat's brain. Adults with more years in the shower would receive doses 50% higher.

The fact that manganese is in food, rocks, soil, water and the air seems to have escaped the scientists.

Now, the reason that I am quoting an American study on this site is quite simply to give you all ample warning.

As sure as eggs are eggs, Nanny (or rather her chum the Smooth Talking Bar Steward Prescott) will come up with a daft new rule; which can be tagged on to the thermostat legislation that has recently been introduced.

Best have those showers now, whilst you are still allowed to.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Anti Binge Drinking Policy is Bollocks - It's Official!

Anti Binge Drinking Policy is Bollocks - It's Official!Full marks and indeed my admiration to Louise Casey, Nanny's senior adviser on anti-social behaviour and head of the Home Office anti-social behaviour unit (an Orwellian sounding body if ever there was one).

She seemingly "said it how it is" last month, whilst delivering an after dinner speech to chief constables and senior civil servants.

During her barnstorming performance Casey joked about working while drunk, and said anti-binge drinking messages were "nonsense". She also poked fun at Home Secretary Charles "Fungus" Clarke during this splendid speech.

Speaking in Stratford-upon-Avon, Ms Casey told her audience:

"I suppose you can't binge drink anymore because lots of people have said you can't do it. I don't know who bloody made that up, it's nonsense."

She added that some ministers might perform better if they "turn up in the morning pissed".

Hear! Hear!

In Casey's view, "Doing things sober is no way to get things done,"; can't argue with that can you?

She is after all in charge of managing ASBO's.

Then, in a career enhancing move, she lambasted Downing Street; which she said was "obsessed" with conducting extensive research before formulating policies.

She joked that she would "deck" Downing Street policy advisers if they kept spouting jargon at her.

She said the tea lady was more powerful than ministers.

A Home Office spokesman said Ms Casey was achieving a great deal in leading the campaign to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Quite so!

It seems to me that Ms Casey's remarks were right on the nail, full credit to her for having the guts to defy her Mistress (Nanny that is).

Unfortunately for Casey, Nanny does not allow freedom of thought, expression or argument; she will doubtless find herself sacked after this.

She is very welcome to appear on this site, as a guest contributor.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Nanny's Satellite

Nanny's SatelliteNanny gets a little jumpy these days if she can't see what you're up to.

To some extent she has already addressed this problem; by her extensive use of CCTV, speed cameras and her proposed ID card scheme which will contain all manner of data including your medical history.

However, Nanny doesn't feel that this is quite enough.

Therefore she is planning a new innovation, a satellite spy in the sky which will monitor motorists speed.

That doesn't sound too bad does it?

A satellite that monitors speed cannot really do any harm, can it?

After all, what is the harm of merely watching?

The attention seeking morons who submit themselves to Big Brother don't seem to be harmed by it, do they?

However, watching becomes dangerous when an element of control is added.

Nanny plans to add that control factor, by fitting cars with a speed limiting device that will be controlled by her satellite. When Nanny's satellite decides that you are speeding, it will automatically apply the brakes.

How reassuring!

Drivers in London could be among the first to have the devices fitted. They would be bribed to attach these devices, by being offered a discount on the congestion charge.

Nanny's plan follows a six-month trial in Leeds which used 20 modified Skoda Fabias. Academics at Leeds University, who ran the trial on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), say that lives could be saved.

The test forms part of a two-year research project into "intelligent speed adaptation" (ISA), which the department is funding at a cost of £2M. Results of the initial trial will be presented to ministers this week.

Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, said limiters might make motorists less alert:

"If you take too much control away the driver could switch on to autopilot."

Unfortunately that is exactly what Nanny wants, a nation of dumb arsed morons who do not think for themselves; ie Big Brother contestants.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Nanny Bans Skirts

Nanny Bans SkirtsNanny get's some strange ideas into her head at times.

This time she has taken it upon herself to interfere in the clothing of school girls.

Nanny's chums at Broadstone Middle School in Poole have decided that the skirts, worn by the girls, represent a safety hazard.

Incredible isn't it?

Therefore Nanny has banned the girls from wearing skirts, and insisted that they wear trousers.

Nanny also points out, in a very Victorian manner, that the trousers will ensure that the girls can "maintain modesty".

Seemingly Nanny's friends on the board of governors want to ensure that the girls could join the same lessons as the boys.

May I ask what they were being excluded from before?

Some parents are unhappy at the ban, and think that it has been imposed because some girls were wearing short skirts.

Head teacher Marilyn Warden said skirts were not appropriate during lessons such as music and drama.



"In order to give girls the same opportunities as boys for a safe, active and healthy lifestyle, while maintaining their modesty, it has been considered by our school governors that trousers for all pupils is a practical and appropriate dress requirement."

Safe, active and healthy lifestyle?

Precisely how dangerous are skirts for goodness sake?

Please could some of the women readers of this site comment on the dangers of skirts.

The school website also rather pompously notes that the wearing of skirts will be:

"gender free so that elements of discrimination should be avoided wherever possible"

Precisely how will that be achieved by a change in dress?

The school will impose the ban from January next year, and rule that all 673 pupils at the school wear full-length trousers.

So, if the ban is so important, why will Nanny wait until January?

What will the girls do in the meantime?

Doesn't this ban strike you as being a tad daft?

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Fag Break

Fag BreakEva and I went to a pub last night, for a pint before dinner, and experienced the partial no smoking rule in all its daftness first hand.

Eva was not allowed to smoke at the bar counter, in order to prevent the bar staff dying on the spot of cancer, but she could smoke a mere two feet away from it.

Precisely how does that make any difference to the health of the bar staff?

It is a daft rule, made up by daft people.

If Nanny is really concerned about the effect that fags have on the health of her "charges", then she should ban the sale of fags altogether.

However, we all know that she makes far too much money from them by way of excise duties for her to even consider doing that.

She is a hypocrite!

FYI, for my American readers, the word "fag" in England means cigarette.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Physician Heal Thyself

Physician Heal ThyselfI am really becoming a little tired with Nanny's incessant whining and lecturing about what we eat.

Her obsession with fat and cholesterol really is rather tedious, and quite frankly wrong.

Think about it for a moment, a car needs oil for its engine to work; it stands to reason that the same applies to the human body.

The more fat that is in our diet, and hence our veins, the easier it is for the blood to flow through our veins.

Obvious really!

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums in the The British Medical Association (BMA) are yet again calling for action on obesity.

The BMA is calling for radical Nanny action to tackle rising childhood obesity. In a new report, Preventing Childhood Obesity, the BMA recommends that strict guidelines be drawn up on the usual suspects of; salt, sugar and fat content of school meals.

They also say that vending machines selling unhealthy products, such as fizzy drinks, be banned from school premises.

The BMA then go on to request other bans to be imposed.

How very democratic of them!

They want to ban television advertisements, aimed at school-aged children, which promote unhealthy food or drink (who decides what is healthy may I ask?).

They then go on to demand that celebrities and children's television characters should only endorse products that meet nutritional standards, set out by the Food Standards Agency.

Dr Vivienne Nathan, BMA head of science and ethics, shrilly warns:

"It is madness that at a time when children are being told to eat less and do more exercise, they go to school and are sold fizzy drinks and doughnuts and do less than two hours' time-tabled exercise a week,".

She then goes on to say:

"Children are being bombarded with mixed messages. They might learn about healthy eating at school but then they go home and [on television] see celebrities eating hamburgers, crisps or drinking fizzy drinks (ed: heaven forefend!)."

Then she really lets rip:

"Children and parents are surrounded by the marketing of unhealthy cereals, snacks and processed meals this has to stop."

You will notice how she slips in the word "parents" into her rant, then climaxing (can I use the word "climaxing" in a public blog?) with the phrase "this has got to stop".

That shows how Nanny and her doctor chums are really thinking; they feel that it is not just children that can't be trusted to know what is good for them, but adults as well.

Nanny wants to control what we all eat, she has no liking of freedom of choice or individuality; she wants to ban all proscribed foods.

Now I have a few observations about this:
  • It is not Nanny's place to dictate what we may eat or drink

  • We live in a free market economy, as such it is the right of the consumer to consume whatever he or she wishes to consume

  • A free market economy allows, and indeed proactively encourages, the marketing of products; banning advertising, on the grounds of disapproval of the product, effectively destroys the free market and takes us towards a state controlled dying economy (like France)

  • Banning adverts, merely because they advertise products that Nanny disapproves of is wrong..PERIOD!

  • Nanny, to my knowledge, has never acted so promptly when products that were clearly a con trick were marketed; take endowment mis-selling as a fine example of the duplicity of Nanny's mind set (see for details of the £100BN fraud perpetrated on 8 million British people)

  • Doctors have the highest rate of alcoholism, smoking and drug dependency of all the professional classes; it most certainly is not their place to tell us how to live our lives.
Physician heal thyself!