Risk Free Weapons II

My thanks to Railwaymann39 for his most excellent suggestion re "Risk Free Weapons".

I have forwarded it to the Corporate Responsibility Division of BAE at crfeedback@baesystems.com.

I guess we had better patent the idea?

Ken

Text of message:

"Following on from recent reports in the media about BAE's research into environmentally friendly weapons and armour, one of our regular readers has come up with a solution that is both economically and environmentally viable.

He proposes that we abandon high tech weaponry, which is expensive in terms of resources and environmental impact, and revert to using tried and trusted "old" sustainable technologies such as bows and arrows.

The wood for the bows/arrows can be harvested from sustainable forests, and the tips for the arrows can be made from recycled materials.

We at Nanny Knows Best are very excited by this idea, and know that you will be as well.

Please feel free to contact us if you need any further details.

Best regards

Nanny Knows Best"

Risk Free Weapons

Nanny is very concerned about the environment these days; she loves to lecture us about global warming, the benefits of recycling and the environmental impact of heavy industry.

That, I guess, is why she had a rain forest destroyed in the Amazon recently in order to provide the wood for a refit of the fixtures and fitting in Westminster.

Anyhoo, Nanny has turned her attention to the environmental impact of war. She has decided that weapons actually pose a serious health and safety risk, as such she wants to minimise that risk.

Somewhat of a contradiction you would have thought?

Apparently not, according to Nanny's friends in the MOD and BAE Systems (one of the world's largest arms manufacturers).

The latter are designing "green" munitions and lead free bullets.

The MOD (Ministry of Defence) has proposed quieter warheads, to reduce noise pollution, and grenades that produce less smoke.

Dr Debbie Allen, director of corporate social responsibility at BAE systems, said:

"Weapons are going to be used and when they are,

we try to make them as safe for the user as possible,

to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment."

Needless to say, this green policy has caused some people to take a sharp intake of breath. Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

"This is laughable.

BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical,

but they make weapons to kill people and

it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly."

FYI Britain has dropped more than 900 bombs in Iraq, and the United States dropped 1,500 cluster bombs.

Nonetheless, BAE are championing bullets with lower lead content because:

"lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people."

Am I the only one who thinks that the above could be construed as being a contradiction in terms?

Funny old world isn't it?

Nanny Bans Shampoo

My thanks to one of my regular readers who sent me an email about some Nanny nonsense going on at his son's school (see below), he wishes for the school and his name to remain anonymous.

As he says, it is all bollocks!

Anyway, I thought that these products were tested on animals first?

Ken


"My 8 year old Son has just started to go on swimming lessons

at school year 4.

(He already takes swimming lessons).

During the after-swim shower, he was told he wasn't allowed to use any soap,

shampoo or body-wash due to health & safety after all he might be allergic,

or other children might be...

So the sole purpose of the shower seems to be to rinse off the pool water.

The stuff he uses is "hypo-allergenic" anyway so it is all bollocks!

The daft thing is that I'm a school Governor and put up with this crap."

Nanny Bans Naughty Step

Nanny loves little children, wasn't that a phrase that Mussolini once used as well?

Anyhoo, in Nanny's world all children are above and beyond reproach and adults are either abusers or paedophiles. As such it should come as no surprise to learn that Olive Rack, a nursery school owner with over twenty years' experience, appeared in court the other week on an assault charge after she used a technique inspired by the television show Supernanny to discipline a child in her care.

Mrs Rack has been accused of overreacting when she saw a 2 year old girl hit a baby over the head with a toy brick at the nursery that she runs in Kettering, Northamptonshire.

Mrs Rack is accused of then dragging the girl across the nursery, forcing her to sit down and poking her twice in the forehead with her index finger.

Who brought the prosecution?

The parents?

No!

Other parents?

No!

None other than Northamptonshire Police.

You should at this stage be aware that the girl's parents did not support the prosecution of Mrs Rack, and are continuing to send their daughter to the same school.

Unfortunately for Mrs Rack her school, Tresco House Day Nursery, was being visited in July last year (when the incident occurred) by Nanny's county council education advisers.

Needless to say they reported the matter to the police.

Kirsty Frankham, an assistant at the nursery, said that the 2 year old girl could be jealous and that she had looked at Mrs Rack before hitting the baby. She told the court:

"She could be quite a handful.

She had a temper.

She would push to see how far she could go with adults."

Mrs Rack, who has no previous convictions, claims that the girl hit the baby with a length of wooden railway track.

The case was adjourned until yesterday.

The result?

Mrs Rack won, and Nanny lost.

Congratulations to Mrs Rack.

Meryl Mayo, chairwoman of the bench at Towcester Magistrates' Court, basically called Nanny a liar:

"We have had various versions of this incident.

We feel that the main witnesses, Gillian Whall and Julie Medhurst

(both local authority inspectors) were leaving the nursery.

They may not have seen the whole incident or were possibly mistaken.

There were a number of inconsistencies in the evidence.

We feel there is no evidence that Mrs Rack tapped or poked the child in this way."

The mother of the 2 year old told the court she had every faith in the punishment used by Mrs Rack:

"I believe that the incident has been highly exaggerated."

Politely put, she is calling Nanny a liar too.

Mrs Rack said that Nanny's chums from Northamptonshire County Council had told a pack of lies, and accused them of inappropriately intervening.

That's the third accusation of lying!

She said that they had held a grudge against her since 1993, when she refused to dismiss a manager with decades of experience because she did not have the right formal qualifications.

She won that case, in 1993, as well!

There are two lessons here:

1 Don't expect to hit a baby on the head and not be punished.

2 Nanny should not be allowed anywhere near children.

Nanny Bans Thin Models

Nanny, as we all know, hates fat people. In her view they are lazy, unhealthy and ignorant; a veritable blight upon the landscape.

Thus Nanny has bombarded us with propaganda about healthy eating, exercise and weight loss. Scarcely a day goes by when we do not see another "helpful" piece of advice from Nanny about weight loss, or another "reality" show exposing some poor sap to ridicule and contempt because they are overweight.

However, imagine my surprise when I read that Nanny is also up in arms about thin people. Seemingly, and how surprising is this given the "anti fat" propaganda, there are some people who are so worried about being fat that they slim down to unhealthy levels of skinniness and make themselves ill in the process.

Now, this being Nanny Britain, Nanny has determined that the cause for this obsession with weight loss is of course not her own propaganda machine; but the evils of the fashion industry which likes to use thin models.

As such Nanny has mounted a campaign against thin models, using the recent London Fashion Week as a pretext to launch her campaign.

Nanny's "experts" say that legislation (how surprising!) is now needed, to protect the health of the models and of the teenage girls and young women who are influenced by them.

Nanny wants to ban models below a certain size from the catwalks.

Such a ban would be based on the, now suspect and reviled, Body Mass Index (BMI) whereby models under a BMI of 18 would be banned.

The average catwalk model has a BMI of only 16.

Steve Bloomfield, spokesman for the Eating Disorders Association, said:

"We do think legislation is needed.

This is about protecting the young women and men who work in the fashion industry,

as well as those who are at risk of an eating disorder

and can be influenced by the pictures that they see.

The fashion industry is there to make money

and there is no legislation to protect models.

It basically exploits people who are under-weight

and forces others to follow suit."

I do agree that our obsession with slimness is unhealthy, the main cause of that is Nanny herself. I also agree, that to my male eyes, the catwalk models look gaunt souless creatures.

However, applying a meaningless defunct medical benchmark (BMI) will not solve the problem.

The issue that Nanny, and the parents of models, ought to address is this; namely, that the fashion industry has within its ranks wealthy male financiers and agents who "enjoy" the company of 14 year old girls.

Once a model has "grown up", her only recourse to stay within the industry is to try to look as near to 14 as possible; excess dieting and snorting coke are ways to keep the body looking trim, if you are in the industry.

Until the fashion industry stops hiring 14 year old girls, and certain types of parents stop pushing their underage children into modelling, this problem will not be wished away by applying a BMI benchmark.

Yah Boo Yahrooh!

Nanny never ceases to interfere in our daily lives, no matter how old you are Nanny always finds a way to step in and try to take control.

Recently Nanny's chums from Avon and Somerset police decided that it would be a good idea to start a new campaign to fight hate crime in schools.

The campaign's title just slips off the tongue, "Everyone is Different, It's Not a Crime". Nanny believes, quite rightly, that people should not be victimised because of their faith, race, sexual orientation or disability.

In the past it would simply be a matter for the parents and teachers to "pull little Jimmy's ear" when he was making a pain of himself to Fatty Jenkins of the Lower Fourth. However, now such issues are deemed worthy of state intervention, and every secondary school in the Avon and Somerset police area has been made to sign up to the "True Vision" set of principles.

"True Vision", how very Orwellian!

Needless to say, this campaign is based on Nanny's warped view of the world; as such children will be proactively encouraged to report "hate crime".

In other words children will be trained to "snitch" on their comrades. Those of you who still remember school will surely recall that the class "snitch" never prospered. However, by training children to "snitch" to the state Nanny is preparing them for adulthood when they will be acting as her spies in the street.

In addition to training a whole legion of state informants, Nanny will also be ensuring that what might seem like harmless playground words can in fact become a hate crime.

The "initiative" was launched by Home Office Policing Minister Tony McNulty and Avon and Somerset Chief Constable Colin Port.

Det Insp Mark Rolfe, who is responsible for dealing with hate crime across the force, said:

"We believe that hate crime may well have gone unreported

in schools in the past

and there may be victims who have never had the support of the criminal justice system."

Nanny will set up a 24 hour phone line for "hate crimes" to be reported, people (ie children) caught using threatening or offensive language or behaviour can be charged and taken to court.

The maximum punishment for such an offence is six months in prison or a £5,000 fine.

So, if Jenkins minor calls Braithwaite a "four eyed fat git" does that constitute a hate crime?

I just don't see this working!

Children will be taught to inform on others and to let the state fight their battles for them, thus making them less able to face the real world.

Nanny Bans Halloween

As the pumpkin season approaches, and ghouls, goblins and witches don their cloaks ready to scare the "living daylights" (you thought I was going to say "shit" didn't you?) out of you, one of Nanny's chums has decided to put his foot down about the whole nasty little business of Halloween.

The Bishop of Bolton, the Right Rev David Gillett, is asking Britain's retailers to stock alternatives to traditional Halloween merchandise.

Why?

In his view they are helping to create a "climate of fear".

Actually I rather thought that it was the media, aided and abetted by Nanny, that had created a real climate of fear over Muslim extremism, terrorists, obesity, global warming and bird flu etc.

Seems that I was wrong!

Anyhoo, the Right Rev David Gillett said that shops were helping to promote a "dark and negative" side of the festival.

He said:

"I share the view of many Christians

that large retailers are increasingly keen to commercialise

Halloween celebrations

in a way that pressurises parents to purchase goods

that promote the dark, negative side of Halloween

and could encourage antisocial behaviour.

I am worried that Halloween has the potential to trivialise the realities of evil in the world."

What about the far more damaging rampant consumerism and excess indulgence of Christmas then?

The bishop seems to forget that all Christian festivals are in fact linked and timed to coincide with our pagan past, a ham fisted way of trying to make us forget our past in fact.

Now we know why the Church of England is becoming an irrelevance.

The Bells

Nanny, having spent much time and energy urging us to travel by bike, is very worried about the health and safety implications of bike riding.

Specifically she feels that the lack of a bell on our handle bars could pose a serious threat to our safety. As such, she has decided to make bells compulsory.

The fact that some of the deranged idiots who ride bikes through red lights, and aim their velocopedes directly at pedestrians may in fact not be any safer with a bell attached seems neither here nor there to Nanny.

Bells are now to be de rigeur.

Those who break the bell law will be subject to a jail sentence, of up to 2 years, or a fine of up to 2,500.

Staggering!

The proposals are being considered by the Department of Transport as a response to new regulations from Brussels on the sale of cycles, which come into force in the autumn.

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Alistair Carmichael said:

"At a time when our country's transport infrastructure

and especially our airports are creaking,

you would have thought that the Department for Transport

would have better things to do with their time.

To call this part of the Nanny state

would be an insult to nannies."

Tory MP Robert Goodwill said:

"If you are riding a bike you can shout and that often has more effect."

Quite!

A Transport Department spokesman said:

"I wouldn't read too much into this.

The European standards were a chance for us to re-look at a number of our policies.

It is not certain that the regulations will change.

The operational decisions are a matter for the police.

Whether they would devote resources to this,

would be an operational matter for them.

I'm sure common sense will prevail."

Common sense?

Don't make me laugh!

A Nice Little Earner

Taxes are Nanny's life blood, without the money that her taxes bring in she would not be able to employ the number of people that she does to interfere in our daily lives and habits.

However, as we all know, Nanny and her apparatus of state is a very expensive beast to run. The taxes that she raises from us simply are not enough to fund her ever growing legions of busybodies and bureaucrats. Therefore, Nanny has to come up with ever more ingenious ways of raising revenue.

This particular trick of hers is a winner.

Motorists were legally parked a few days ago along Great Peter Street, in central London, close to a protest organised by Christian Aid against the policies of the World Bank.

Nanny's police decided to seal off both ends of street, to allow the 2,000 marchers to pass along Whitehall. However, the cordon caused delays for drivers whose permits expired before police lifted the barriers.

Can you guess what Nanny did?

Yes, that's right, Nanny's traffic wardens fined the motorists!

One of the fined motorists, Lewis Whyld, said:

"The police blocked the road off at both ends for safety reasons.

Everyone left their cars where they were

and waited for police to open the street.

Then the traffic wardens ran in and gave people tickets.

It wasn't just the fact that they were giving everyone tickets

during the road block,

it was the fact that they were laughing about it as well."

Nanny's chums in Westminster Council claim that the matter is being looked into.

Quote:

"We are happy for people who feel aggrieved about their parking tickets to challenge them."

Common sense of course would have suggested that the tickets should not have been issued in the first place.

Common sense is not part of Nanny's vocabulary.

Easy money isn't?

Off The Buses

Seemingly some of Nanny's chums are a bit fussy about who rides on school buses. In fact they are so fussy that they check out your religion first.

No kidding!

Nanny's chums at Townsend Church of England School, in St Albans, are insisting that their pupils who wish to use the school bus must have been baptised. Syndi Jai, 11, a pupil at the school found this to her cost the other week when she was refused access to the bus because she was the wrong religion.

Ain't religion marvellous!

She was told that she could not catch the school bus from her home town to Townsend Church of England School in St Albans.

Her mum, Frances Wood, said:

"Syndi has been in a right state.

She is so anxious about having to go to school on the public bus."

It seems that other children are having similar problems.

Jamie Ankers, also 11, has also been refused a bus place (even though he is a pupil at the school) because he is a Methodist.

His mum Jean Smith, said she was originally asked if she would pay £230 a term for the school bus place.

"Then they sent me a letter at the end of August saying he didn't get a place."

Seemingly Townsend School is not the only one to use religion to segregate its bus places in St Albans, Nicholas Breakspear Roman Catholic School in St Albans is also doing the same (except they are banning non catholic pupils from their bus).

Nanny's chums on Herts County Council are backing the schools.

However, Cllr Cowan said:

"I cannot see it's the county council's job to divide children.

The school makes its own selection.

In a slightly different context

it's like separate treatment for blacks and whites."

Another example of religion dividing people.

Cherie's Spanking Frenzy

Poor old Cherie Blair, wife of the PM and top legal eagle, has found herself in a spot of hot water with Nanny's child abuse police, after a playful gesture was reported by some busybody.

Cherie was attending the UK Schools Games in Glasgow and, like all those associated with politics, took the advantage of a photo opportunity.

She posed with 17 year old Miles Gandolfi, who being rather savvy decided to wreck the photo by making a "rabbit ears" gesture behind Cherie's head. Cherie playfully motioned to slap him on the arm, verbally admonishing the "wee scamp"; they both then got a fit of the giggles.

Now in a normal country this would have been nothing more than a spot of fun, in Nanny's Britain this constitutes a possible child abuse offence!

In Britain, Nanny teaches us that all adults are potential child abusers.

Strathclyde's finest sent six yes six, detectives to interview the boy; who was astounded at the crassness of the investigation.

Needless to say, after an interview of some length, the Nanny's police decided there was no case to answer.

No kidding!

The question is, what sad loser reported the matter in the first place?

Happy Birthday

Has it really been two years?

Doesn't time fly?

Ken

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

"Nanny Knows Best" Celebrates it's Second Birthday

London, 18th September 2006

The team at www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand" are proudly celebrating the second birthday of www.nannyknowsbest.com; a site dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and freedom of the people of Britain.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is two years old today and, since its launch on the 18th of September 2004, has gained a worldwide audience.

Recently Nanny Knows Best was featured in the MSN List of The Top 30 Blogs.

MSN placed www.nannyknowsbest.com at number 13 in their list of the Top 30 Blogs. Quote:

"Daily tales from the frontline of middle England as contributors rally against the 'nanny state'. It's reactionary rhetoric at its finest – how dare they ban Lennon’s Imagine for its anti-religious sentiment."

Source MSN

In keeping with its mission to resist the nanny state, the team at www.nannyknowsbest.com will be celebrating the birthday by smoking, drinking and eating in excess; ie doing things that Nanny heartily disapproves of.

www.nannyknowsbest.com will continue to resist the nanny state.

For additional information, contact: Ken Frost at www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

About KenFrost.com "The Living Brand"

KenFrost.com is a living interactive website that, in conjunction with forthcoming books, aims to stimulate the intellectual and gastric juices; as well as entertain.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Ken Frost

kenfrost@kenfrost.com

www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Heil The Pope

Well, well, well, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI has caused something of a stir with his recent remarks at Regensburg.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

He quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

He quoted the emperor:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,

such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope said "I quote" twice to stress that the words were not his, and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

There has been quite a kerfuffle, with various groups of "outraged" people calling for an apology, and even some good old fashioned effigy burning (reminiscent of Belfast in the 70's).

Even in the UK some groups have called for an apology. Baroness Uddin said that politicians must put pressure on Pope Benedict to express regret for the "disappointment and hurt" that he caused by his remarks.

The Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Mohammed Abdul Bari, said that the emperor's views about Islam were "ill informed" and "frankly bigoted".

The British Muslim News newspaper has called for the Pope to apologise and "withdraw the insulting remarks".

Why?

Is it now illegal to quote from the past?

Let me make two points here:

• The Catholic church teaches that the pope is infallible; as such he can say what the fuck he likes, because God is speaking through him.
  
  Ain't religion wonderful?
  
  That being said, given this hotline to God, it would have been self evident that using such a comment from a long dead emperor would have caused a reaction from some quarters.
  
  
  
  Therefore the question not being asked, that should be asked, is why did he say it?
  
  The Vatican is now seeking to clarify the Pope's comments. Given his infallibility, surely this is unnecessary?
  
  Maybe the Pope is not infallible?
  
  That would kind of undermine a central part of Catholic teaching.



• With regard to the hysterical reaction from some Muslims, I would note this; where a religion is mature, intellectually resilient, open to debate and has faith in a "well rounded" deity, comments made by non believers should be easily weathered. Indeed the deity worshipped by that religion, given his all powerful nature, should be well able to stand up to verbal sticks and barbs without the need for hysteria amongst his earthly followers.
  
  It seems that such hysteria indicates that, at least amongst those who are hysterical, their faith and understanding in their own religion is not intellectually based but programmed into them; ie they have no real understanding as to why they are followers of that religion, and are afraid to question their own belief in their religion lest they find an answer that they don't like.

I have said it before, but it is worth saying again, religion has brought nothing but misery and violence to the world.

God, if he exists, does not need the creation of flawed man made religions to validate his existence.

Nanny Bans Doormats

"It was Health and Safety what done it!"

That will be the epitaph written on the future tombstone of British freedom. Health and Safety is the fashionable excuse used by Nanny, and all her acolytes, for banning all manner of things with which they disagree.

Now Nanny's chums in Bristol City Council have decided that doormats, used to wipe your feet upon (ie placed in a specific position by an outside door), are a tripping hazard.

Nanny has therefore banned them from communal hallways in council run housing schemes.

Woe betide the hapless tenant who disobeys Nanny, and keeps their doormat by the door, they will have their beloved doormat confiscated and destroyed.

Seemingly, after many decades of use, it has been discovered by Nanny that doormats could hamper escape from a building if a fire broke out.

Now, could anyone tell me precisely how many thousands of people have died because a doormat obstructed their escape path from a burning building?

No idea?

I am 100% certain that Nanny has not a clue either (I would hazard a guess that the figure is less then the fingers on one hand), that doesn't matter though because Nanny doesn't use facts to back up her prejudices.

Needless to say, the good people of Bristol think that this edict is bollocks, and that the council ought to be doing more important things with their time and the tax payers' money.

Chris Evans, who lives in a council-owned block of flats in Henbury, said rather wryly that if the council were so worried about people tripping up, then they should fix the city's pavements.

Rather oddly, the council have graciously allowed people to keep the doormats on the inside of their apartments. So let's get this right, doormats may prevent you from escaping a burning building if they are on the outside but are perfectly safe if they are on the inside?

Can anyone explain that load of bollocks to me?

Nanny's official explanation of this nonsense was communicated to residents, by way of a letter to residents in Brookridge House:

"During a routine Health and Safety inspection of the block,

it was noted that loose mats were present in hallways/corridors

outside of people's flats.

These represent a 'tripping hazard'

and should be removed immediately.

By all means have your own mats inside your front door

but please do not leave them outside, creating a risk to others."

Twats!

Mr Evans vented his spleen at the council:

"It is noted that the council advised of this tripping

hazard on the August 25;

advising that mats were to be removed by September 18.

Presumably it is in order to trip over these mats

during this 24-day interregnum?

This apart, Bristol City Council also says that,

if mats are not removed by the said date,

it will take the initiative and remove and dispose of such mats.

In my book, taking other people's property without their consent

used to be known as theft.

The fact that the council is announcing such theft in advance

only adds to the crass stupidity shown in this foolish episode.

I am minded to say that it is not the mats that need removal

but personnel who inflict such decisions on an unsuspecting public."

Feel free to vent your spleens at Bristol City Council, via this link Twats.

Nanny Bans Peaceful Protest

Nanny will soon be holding an important conference in the G-Mex Centre Manchester, starting the 17th of September, this is when Nanny's lackeys in the Labour Party will be holding their annual conference.

As such Nanny would like the event to go smoothly, and not be interrupted or upstaged by the annoying realities of day to day life. Therefore Nanny is enforcing a "cordon sanitaire" around the conference, in order to ensure that the media see only what Nanny wants them to see.

This is bad news for Military Families Against The War, who had been planning to camp near the conference in Manchester. Unfortunately for them Manchester City Council is Labour, and as such looks after Nanny's interests rather than the interests of the general public.

Needless to say Nanny's chums in the council have banned the camp, on health and safety grounds.

How useful these spurious health and safety issues can be, when you are trying to manipulate the media!

Seemingly, if you are to believe the council, providing facilities for the campers would not be logistically possible.

As an aside, the police operation covering the event will be the "biggest the city has ever seen".

Up to 1,000 officers every day will provide "robust" policing to cover anyone entering the "island" zone around the G-Mex.

I wonder what "robust" actually means?

I don't know about you but I am old enough to recall the glory days of Thatcherism, when some people were a tad anti Tory, and do not recall that Tory conferences were ever this "threatened" by the forces of evil.

Ironic that the Labour Party, allegedly the party of the "people" (how I loath that word), feel so threatened by the very people that they are allegedly in office to serve.

Anyhoo, around 20 activists have been denied permission to pitch tents in Albert Square in front of the Town Hall from the 21st of September on health and safety grounds.

Rose Gentle, whose son died in Iraq in 2004, said the council were "doing the government's bidding".

Quote:

"We think it's because it's the Labour conference

and they don't want us going and voicing our opinions

because Mr Blair is going to be there.

They say it's health and safety.

They said they don't want drunks thinking it's somewhere they can sleep.

But we've got our own security."

By the way, the cost of the police operation is around £4.2m.

Money well spent!

Nanny Bans Loopholes

Nothing annoys Nanny more than when someone uses the law to avoid being punished by Nanny, for some alleged "crime" that Nanny most certainly knows for sure that the person is guilty of.

In Nanny's world, the law is to be used to punish and control people; not to be used for defending the innocent.

Well, you can imagine how cross Nanny is that some people are using the law to defend themselves when they are charged with motoring offences. Nanny's police force just love to catch motorists breaking Nanny's laws.

Why is that then?

Could it be that other crimes such as; muggings, assaults and robberies just require too much work to solve?

Could it be that the police are rewarded for the number of successful convictions they make, irrespective of the severity of the crime?

Could it be that fines from motoring convictions are used to cover the costs of the police?

What do you think folks?

Anyhoo, Nanny's police have decreed that they are fed up with people using legal "loopholes"; ie defending themselves as they are legally entitled to do so, to avoid being convicted of driving offences.

Nanny's police have stated that they are now out to get those people who are declared innocent by the courts; you see folks the police know that these people are as guilty as hell, and don't think that the courts have any business in interfering with their convictions.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) wants police and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to make stronger cases against drivers whose legal teams use loopholes in the law to get them off.

One chief constable is quoted as saying that officers would be "looking for" motorists who had been "unjustly acquitted".

Hah!

Who the hell makes the judgement as to what an "unjust" acquittal is?

Someone needs to remind Nanny's police that the courts and the legal system are to be respected, most certainly by the officers of the law.

Better that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail!

The trouble is the police don't believe that!

Meredydd Hughes, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, has issued an open threat to the public:

"There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done,

both in the drink-driving world

and in other cases where people have evaded the law

having driven cars recklessly and at very high speeds.

I think my colleagues in the roads policing groups

will share my anger when people are unjustly acquitted

and I'm sure they'll be looking for those drivers.

And if they haven't mended their ways

we have an attitude in the police service that we'll see them again sometime."

Liberty, the civil rights group, has warned that this could see police unlawfully targeting individuals they believe have been unfairly acquitted of motoring offences.

Acpo is also introducing a team made up of a lawyer and a former police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases.

Acpo want motorists to decide against contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4K for the team.

There you have it folks, the police are trying to put the frighteners on you.

Only the rich will be able to take the risk of fighting unjust motoring cases, in Nanny's world the police are used to keep the rest of us in order.

We are becoming a police state.

Nanny's Toilet Spies

Yesterday, being the anniversary of 9/11 and the attack on the Twin Towers, Nanny and her chums did their level best to remind us all that she is working for our benefit in trying to win the so called "war on terror" and ensuring that the "battle for civilisation" is won by the "good guys".

A cynic might argue that attacking Iraq, which was not responsible for the 9/11 slaughter, was a rather strange way to "protect us".

A cynic might also argue that a more effective means of lessening the chances of terrorist attack would be to allow the natural fissures and rivalries within Islam to be exposed from within, and for the extreme elements within the various factions (eg extremist Sunnis, extremist Shias etc) to fight it out amongst themselves and to kill each other, rather than for us to unite them by bombing civilian targets in the Middle East.

The most effective way for these fissures to be exposed, and for the "united" extremists to be thrown back to their natural state of trying to kill each other, would be for all of our troops to be removed from the Middle East and for us to stop buying oil from the Middle East.

However, what the fuck do I know?

Nanny has proven, by the fact that we all feel so much safer than we did a few years ago, that she really does know best.

On that note, she has been working hard to try to ensure that our flights are less likely to be blown up or highjacked.

By the way, I know that facts are something that Nanny really abhors, but do you realise that it has been at least 25 years since a British flight has been highjacked?

Maybe Nanny has been over reacting wrt her ever increasing security clampdowns?

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided that planes need CCTV and sound recording devices installed...yes Nanny really does have a fetish for CCTV!

Researchers in Britain and Europe are looking at technology that would introduce a network of microphones and cameras throughout aircraft, including the toilet, which would be linked to a computer.

This computer would be "trained" to pick up suspicious behaviour.

Precisely how a computer distinguishes between "ordinary" toilet activities, and suspicious toilet activities is beyond me. That being said, Catherine Neary of Bae Systems is very confident of the scheme's success. Bae is one of the British participants in a £24 million European Union project Safety of Aircraft in Future European Environment.

Ms Neary said:

"It would pick passengers who are behaving oddly or in an unruly manner.

They may appear nervous, or could be getting up while the plane is taxiing.

If someone looks as if they are praying,

the microphones would be able to tell if they were by picking up key words."

Adding:

"There are likely to be cameras and microphones in the toilet,

because that is where terrorists go to assemble bombs.

If people know they will be safer,

they will be happy to accept the sensors,

but we are considering the legal implications of this."

Oh yes, I can really see this working!

CCTV is all very well, but it is invariably used "post event" to catch/prosecute the criminal after he has done the dirty deed. Unless you have "real time" human observers monitoring the plane, who are able to intervene pre attack, then this system is worthless.

I also suspect that the Mile High Club may be a tad annoyed about this too, or maybe not?

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one will be closely inspecting the facilities and the bowl the next time I answer the call of nature.

Why Did We Fight The Nazis?

Those who fought Nazism and the threat of dictatorship in the last war may be wondering today whether their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their fallen comrades, was really worthwhile.

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo have taken up the mantle, which was once worn by the dictators of the last century, and have threatened to ban remembrance parades as they fall foul of Nanny's health and safety rules.

Organisers of these events have been told that the marches cannot proceed unless they take out public liability insurance, carry out a risk assessment and organise stewards dressed in fluorescent jackets to police the event.

Seemingly Nanny is worried that the veterans, who risked life and limb for our liberty, are not capable of walking down a street without inflicting upon themselves some terrible injury.

You see, Nanny hates independent thoughts and actions. Those that seek to organise themselves, without her "help" and "guidance", are seen to be a threat to Nanny.

The effort and cost required to comply with Nanny's rules and regulations will force many veterans' associations to cancel ceremonies.

Members of the 8th Destroyer Association in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, have already been targeted by Nanny's police. Nanny's police have threatened to ban the event unless the organisers agree to pay £300 for insurance, and to file the necessary paperwork.

Read that again.

A British police force is threatening to BAN a peaceful and honourable gathering of war veterans, who fought for our freedom and liberty.

That is simply WRONG.

Veterans Association chairman, Peter Lee-Hale, said:

"We've been marching for 18 years now and never had this before.

The police have provided motorcycle escorts

and everything has been fine.

Now health and safety has reared its ugly head.

What's going to happen on Remembrance Day

when there are so many marches around the country?

Are they all going to have to do this?

The £300 is not a lot of money really,

but it's the hassle of it all.

I'm 73 and one of the younger members.

Most of them are in their late 70s and 80s

and it is a lot to cope with.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

We're only marching less than a mile.

We went to war to fight fascism

but it's our police who are acting like Hitler."

North Yorkshire Police said:

"We are concerned with the safety of everyone involved in the parade

including those taking part, spectators and our own officers..

...but safety is of paramount importance."

The march organisers have been told they must be accompanied by two lines of stewards in fluorescent jackets, and have an ambulance in attendance.

Mr Lee-Hale said:

"I could understand it if we were a bunch of yobs marching through the town,

but what trouble do they think an 80-year-old ex-sailor is going to cause?"

Last year poppy sellers were banned from pinning flowers on people's clothes, in case they cause injury.

Nanny is as much a threat to the freedom and liberty of the people of Britain, as the Nazis were some 60 years ago.

The question many veterans must be asking themselves now is why did we sacrifice so much to fight for freedom and liberty, if that freedom and liberty has been taken away from us by our own government?

Bin Brother

Those of you with long memories may recall that I wrote about Nanny spying on your dustbins (trash cans) a wee while ago (February 2005). Nanny set up the scheme, last year, in my home town of Croydon. Seewww.croydoniscrap.com for more about this borough.

Well Nanny never gives up, once she has the "bit between her teeth".

Now it seems that, without notifying anybody, Nanny has installed electronic monitoring equipment on over 500,000 dustbins to report back on our refuse habits.

The bin spies are located in the lids of "wheelie bins", and have been manufactured in Germany. The spy communicates with transceivers and sensors installed on the collecting lorry, and allows the reporting back of statistics for how full each property's bin is and how much the rubbish weighs.

It goes without saying, that the data collected will be used by Nanny to find a new way of taxing us...on top of the already despised and abhorrent council tax.

Look under the lid of wheelie bins, if you find an electronic spy...well...I leave it to you to decide what action to take!

Please Do Not Adjust Your Set

Sorry folks, no meaningful post today; major issues to attend to elsewhere.

Please amuse yourselves, maybe take some time to watch Nanny's Information Films (scroll down the menu bar); as Nanny would say, make sure that you play safe!

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow.

Ken

Nanny's Nazi State

Nazi Germany, just like other totalitarian regimes, maintained its grip on power by encouraging members of the public to report every misdemeanour (thought, word and deed) perpetrated by fellow citizens against the state.

The result being that many used this a means of settling old scores and of enjoying, what so many humans really crave deep down in the darkest reaches of their soul, power over others.

Nanny has decided to revive this most reviled and disgusting tools of the state; this time she will be directing it against her pet hate, smokers.

Nanny has decreed that people, your friends neighbours and colleagues, should "shop" (snitch, grass up, inform, tell tales on etc) smokers in order to enforce her ban on lighting up in public places.

Nanny will set up a special 0800 number for members of the public to call with their tales of fellow citizens breaking Nanny's no smoking edict. The tip offs will be passed to town halls, when the ban comes into force next summer.

Colleagues will also be able to use the hotline to name individuals flouting the ban at work, and in other enclosed public places. That should make for a pleasant atmosphere at work.

Once duly "tipped off" environmental health officers will then launch surveillance operations and raids to catch pubs, clubs, restaurants or other venues that are illegally allowing smoking.

Can you believe this?

We live in a society where people are afraid of muggings, assaults, robberies and terrorism; yet the entire apparatus of the state is being directed towards catching smokers!

There is something very wrong with Nanny's priorities. There is also something offensive and evil about encouraging people to spy on each other.

Individuals who are duly entrapped by Nanny, will be fined £50 or £200 (if they refuse to pay immediately). Owners of premises allowing illegal smoking will face a fine of £2,500. Failure to display a no smoking sign results in a £200 on the spot fine or a £1,000 court fine.

The person who is spearheading Nanny's Nazi spy idea is health minister Andy Burnham, quote:

"Implementation of the ban from summer 2007 will mean that 99 per cent of employees will be working in a smoke-free environment.

We know from the experience of other countries that smoke-free legislation is largely self-enforcing.

However, we are proposing to introduce a smoke-free

compliance line as a supportive measure."

Nice to see that Nanny has come up with another effective method of destroying what little trust and respect people may have had left for their local councils, as it will be these bodies that receive the tips and then initiate the surveillance procedures.

It seems that the greatest enemy to the freedom of the people of Britain is the government and its second rate cousins in local government, not foreign terrorists.

The way to break Nanny’s control over us is to fight back. I suggest that when this Nazi Informant Line is set up, everyone inundates it with false reports naming members of the government and local councillors.

In the meantime, I suggest that we all drop Andy Burnham a note telling him what we think of living in a Nazi state.

Burnham’s phone number : 01942 682 353

Web contact details www.andyburnham.org

Fight back!

Nanny Bans Fag Ash

Nanny really does seem to have an obsession with smoking, the way that she goes on about it anyone would think that it was bad for you.

Anyhoo, not content with obsessing about the actual smoke produced by a fag, she has now turned her beady little eyes towards the end product of the "deadly weed", that of the ash itself.

Alan Joyce of Lower Parkstone, Poole, got on the wrong end of Nanny in July when he was having a fag in his car.

One of Nanny's ever present spies, ie a council worker, saw him flick some fag ash onto the pavement whilst driving along Sandbanks Road.

Nice to know that council workers throughout the land are now employed as spies by Nanny, isn't it?

Given Nanny's zero tolerance of crime (as we all know muggings, assaults and robberies are now non existent in Britain), Nanny issued Mr Joyce with a £75 fine.

Councillor Don Collier, when asked about this over reaction, said rather robotically:

"The people of Poole won't tolerate littering."

Poole operates a vigilant fixed penalty notice scheme to discover people who are littering our town."

I take it then that fag ash remains clearly visible once it has been "flicked" onto a pavement, and that there is no other worse form of litter on the streets of Poole?

Nanny Bans Pet

Nanny revealed her Orwellian control tendencies again recently, by trying to have yet another go at the language that we speak.

Orwell warned in his seminal (can I say seminal?) book "1984" that dictatorships like to control the language, because by controlling the language they can control what we think.

Anyhoo, this time Nanny is mounting an assault on the Geordie language, as spoken by the good people of Newcastle.

Staff at Newcastle City Council have been banned from saying things such as "alreet pet", "howay hinny" and "take care love".

Why?

In Nanny's view, these phrases are just too offensive.

The decision was publicised recently at an equality and diversity training course, another spectacular waste of taxpayers' money!

"Pet", "hinny", "love", "darling" and "sweetheart" are now all banned.

As one worker said:

"If you are dealing with the elderly,

they have been brought up with those words all their life,

and I have been brought up with my family using those words.

It's like they are trying to kill the Geordie language."

Shop manager Ben Sehgal, who runs New Image in South Shields Market Place, said:

"I get called 'pet' by women all the time.

It's a local thing that everyone understands.

It's not sexist at all."

The astute amongst you will have noticed that Mr Sehgal is a bloke.

Newcastle City Council were rather stung by these reports, and have seemingly backtracked on the ban; ie they have denied it:

"There is no ban on words, such as hinny, pet, love or darling.

The point made to council staff during equality and diversity training

is that they must make a judgement before using these words

as to whether they are likely to offend the person they are directed to.

In the vast majority of cases these would not offend

but we want our staff, as part of the equality and diversity training,

to be sensitive to the needs of those in all of our communities."

Feel free to send Newcastle City Council your own colloquialisms via this link Newcastle.

The Password Is "Bollocks!"

Nanny's paranoia and hysteria over paedophiles knows no bounds. I am more than sure something unpleasant must have happened to Nanny when she was young, the trouble is she is now making everyone else pay for that trauma.

Anyhoo, a grandmother encountered Nanny's paranoia last month when she went to pick up her granddaughter from Boredom Busters play scheme in Bournemouth.

Unfortunately, she inadvertently took hold of the wrong child's hand because the girl was wearing the same yellow and pink hat as her own grandchild.

The grandmother quickly realised her mistake, only walking 10 yards with the girl not leaving the building, and apologised to the child and to the supervisors.

Needless to say, Nanny went into a fit of hysteria over this mistake. The local council received a complaint from another parent, and called in Ofsted. As a further precaution the council asked every parent in the scheme give a password before collecting their children.

The boundary of the scheme had now been roped off, and families now have to give a password and sign in and out.

Crazy, paranoia at its worst!

What kind of an impression does that give children about adults?

Nanny is Mother Nanny is Father

I wonder if Nanny is beginning to lose her marbles?

Blairy Poppins has laid out plans for social intervention, reminiscent of those Victorian quacks who thought that you could judge a man's character by reading the bumps on his head.

In a nutshell (that is a most appropriate word for this plan) Nanny (Blairy) has said that it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.

Visions of genetic monitoring and selection spring to mind here.

Anyhoo, in Nanny's mind it is possible for the state to prevent babies born into "high risk families" becoming problem teenagers of the future.

Quite who decides what a "high risk" family is I have no idea. Seemingly, in Nanny's "new order", people will not be given a choice about "accepting" state aid; state aid will be compulsory. Bliar said that teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.

Blair went on to say that action could even be taken "pre-birth".

Blairy Poppins said:

"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early

then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional,

and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society

and actually a threat to themselves."

Sanctions will be imposed on parents who refused to take advice. I assume if the sanctions don't work, then these "refuseniks" will be carpet bombed into submission, just like Bliar does with all his other enemies?

Nanny's plan has been put together with the help of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point; it covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit (defined as those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes).

Nanny says that there was no point "pussy-footing", she wants compulsory 12 week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.

Ah, Nanny's favourite word..."COMPULSORY".

The trouble with Nanny's approach to "dysfunctional", let us call it what it really is, scum behaviour is that she does not see that it is her own interventions that are causing it.

Society as a whole has managed throughout the centuries to "manage" and "keep a lid" on scum; simple techniques employed by local communities worked:

• Scum would be "saucepan banged" out of town (local residents would gather outside of a scum house, and bang saucepans lids etc until the scum left).



• Those who behaved so abominably and so out of control that they did not find work, did not eat properly and as a consequence had little energy to breed like rabbits, or indeed to live; ie they died.



• Peer pressure in local communities ensured that anti social behaviour was soon brought to task, as the appropriate punishments were meted out to those who crossed the line.

The state has taken away all of those checks and balances, and in effect caused the problems that we are told are so common place today:

• State benefits and state housing means that the worst and most objectionable people can live and function, without the need to raise a finger.



• Tower blocks and government housing policy have ripped away the fabric of local communities.



• The no smacking ban imposed by the state on teachers and parents have removed an effective means of control over offspring.



• The state has infused some of the population with a "victim" mentality. Believe that your are the victim of injustice, and you most assuredly will be the victim.

In short, state intervention has brought about this problem, proposing more intervention will in effect exacerbate the situation.

I would also make this point, the path proposed by the Prime Minister (if followed) will lead us to genetic monitoring and enforced sterilisations/birth control. This is not the path for a civilised society to follow.

The "solution" to this problem is to lessen state intervention and to cut off the benefits of those who behave badly.

Nanny's Special Movies

Dear Friends,

I have been labouring many hours to bring you an exciting new enhancement to this site.

Ooohhh!

As you may be aware, Nanny is not a new phenomenon in the UK; in fact, she has been "knocking around" for quite sometime now. One of her favourite mediums for imparting her wisdom to the huddled masses is that of film and TV.

Over the decades Nanny has produced quite a number of "information" films, covering such diverse subjects as; atomic power, Suez, avoiding coughs, how to cross the road and helping young girls get jobs.

I have put together a magnificent library of these films, for your viewing pleasure; simply scroll down the menu bar, on the right hand side of this site, and look for "Nanny's Information Films".

There, if you click on the links, you will be able to watch these fine movies in the comfort of your own homes and offices.

The library of films is in date order, the earliest going back to 1947 the latest being this year. In the library you will be able to view such classics as; Donald Pleasance telling children not to play near water, Charley the cat (one of Bagpuss's relatives) warning children not to talk to strangers, Dave "Darth Vader" Prowse telling you how to cross the road and useful advice on what to do if an atom bomb goes off near your home!

Put your feet up, download and enjoy this veritable smorgasbord of Nanny at her best.

Please tell the world about this site.

Ken