Nanny Knows Best

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

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Roll Out The Barrel

Tis soon Guy Fawkes night, when we celebrate the arrest, disembowelling and burning to death (note you are still alive when disembowelled by professionals) of a Catholic terrorist who was going to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

As befitting that tradition, people set off fireworks and burn effigies of Guy Fawkes on bonfires. In some parts of the country villages have adapted their own celebrations based on this centuries old tradition.

In the Devon town of Ottery St Mary, for the last 400 years, locals run through the streets carrying barrels of burning tar on their backs.

Guess what though?

Nanny doesn't approve of this!

The tradition was under threat, because it turns out it's quite hard to get insurance for running around with a barrel of highly flammable liquid on your back.

I can't believe it!

The event regularly raises thousands of pounds for charity.

Unfortunately, after an unexpected claim made last year the organisers' insurance firm pulled out.

The president of the Ottery St Mary carnival, Andy Wade, said that it's the first time he can ever remember an insurance claim being made.

However, I am pleased to report good news; after a nationwide appeal, the organisers have obtained £5M public liability insurance from another company to cover the event.

So, there you go, if you make a stand against Nanny you can still prevail!

Monday, October 30, 2006

Nanny's Little Hitlers

Nanny's Little Hitlers
Beware the state Gestapo, who are being given extra powers by Nanny.

Nanny is to extend the power to issue on-the-spot fines to "authority" figures, other than the police.

Some of you may be wondering who, or what, an "authority" figure is. Allow me to enlighten you; authority figures (according to Nanny) include the following, teachers, council workers and even RSPCA inspectors.

In short anyone in some form of uniform, or with aspirations of wearing some form of uniform!

These "Little Hitlers" would be given the same right as police officers to mete out summary justice for offences including; vandalism, antisocial behaviour and theft.

The proposal was debated a few weeks ago in the Lords.

At the moment penalty notices are dispensed by police officers, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens (what the hell is a neighbourhood warden?).

Nanny's chums in the Home Office are preparing a much longer list of the types of people, who would then be "accredited" by their local chief constable to issue the notices.

Home Office sources say the list could include teachers, who need to deal with unruly pupils, housing officials who need to punish troublesome tenants and RSPCA inspectors.

Fixed-penalty notices do not count as a criminal record, but police forces would keep a register of those issued with them.

To quote Basil Fawlty:

"That's exactly how Nazi Germany began!"

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Tuck Off!

Tuck OffNanny's hatred of individual liberty and freedom knows no bounds, as Ryan Staples found to his cost the other week.

Ryan, who is only 10 years old, was in the habit of taking a packed lunch to his school (Lunsford primary in Larkfield). At least he was, until the school's Gestapo intercepted his lunch box.

Ryan's crime?

The lunch box broke Nanny's rules on what we are allowed to eat.

The result?

Ryan has been banned from eating with the rest of his mates in the school dining room, until he learns to bow his head to Nanny's superior wisdom, and until he brings only "allowed" food in his lunch box.

Whilst he weighs up the pros and cons of bending to Nanny's authoritarian rules, he has to eat alone in the headmaster's office. That really is cruel and nasty.

How pathetic is this?

Child abuse wouldn't you say?

By the way, in case you are wondering what was so evil about the food within his lunchbox (drugs maybe?), it contained two snacks, instead of one.

Specifically Ryan's lunch consisted of a sandwich, fruit, fromage frais, cake, mini cheese biscuits and a bottle of water. The cake and the biscuits broke the snack limit.

They were "discovered" when a teacher checked his lunch box.

Why the hell are teachers inspecting lunch boxes?

That is an invasion of privacy, all the more so because Ryan is not old enough to fight back.

Malcolm Goddard, the headmaster, said:

"We take healthy eating very seriously and everyone is aware of our new policies."

Breathtaking arrogance!

As a child I took a lunchbox to school, it contained all manner of weird and wonderful oddities; banana sandwiches, chocolate cup cakes, hot soup, home made crisps etc.

The teachers never ever tried to inspect the food, or interfere with what we ate (they were down the pub). I am now 44, and in good shape (oh yes:)).

Nanny quite clearly intends to break the will and spirit of every citizen in Britain, she starts with the children so as to make her task easier.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Nanny Bans Socks

Nanny Bans SocksI do sometimes wonder what planet Nanny comes from, I certainly don't think that it is earth!

Given the major issues that currently face our overstretched health service, eg lack of doctors and nurses, the super bug, unsanitary conditions, appalling care for the elderly, costs spiraling out of control etc, you would have thought that Nanny would focus her attention on these matters.

How wrong you are!

Instead Nanny is addressing a matter of serious concern to her, that of what socks people wear.

Yes, I said socks!

Nanny's chums on East Lancashire Hospital Trust have issued a uniform policy, which prohibits the wearing of novelty socks by doctors, nurses and other health staff.

Those front line staff who break the ruling and wear, for example, socks with Donald Duck, Wallace and Gromit and Homer Simpson will face disciplinary action.

The logic of this rather strange ruling is that, in Nanny's mind at least, staff wearing comical socks could put people off going to local hospitals for surgery.


I don't think so, do you?

NurseThe uniform policy also covers matters such as tight clothing, see-through clothing, extreme hairstyles, large bows and hair bands and excessive tattoos.

Fair enough to worry about tight uniforms and the like. However, how many patients look up the trouser legs of their medical professional and pass judgement on their skills based on the colour of their socks?

Needless to say, people with their feet firmly planted in reality are calling this policy bollocks.

Hyndburn MP Greg Pope said:

"I am hoping to get some for Christmas and I will wear them when I meet the Trust!

I wouldn't have any problem wearing them in Parliament either.

I know some MPs do

Sharron Parker, Lancashire spokeswoman for the Royal College of Nursing, said:

"We must not forget that staff also have a human side

and often like to express their individuality

in a way that does not detract from the professionalism

Ribble Valley MP, Nigel Evans, said the move was "absolutely stupid."

"It is completely superfluous.

It sounds as if somebody has too much time on their hands.

It is such a non-issue for somebody to dream up.

Where does it stop

One long-standing member of staff said:

"It's just daft.

The managers treat us like children

and then they wonder why people say they are fed up.

They should be spending more time on trying to get red of the Trust's debt.

They say they want to involve staff

but they never sit down with you and talk about anything,

they just tell you what to do

How very typical of Nanny, to not listen and just tell people what to do!

Now here is the really funny thing, the clothing policy does not address the issue of veils for Muslim women.

Seemingly, staff who want to wear the veil would have their case looked at "on its individual merits".

Double standards or what?

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Educashun, Educashun, Educashun

Educashun, Educashun, EducashunWhilst Nanny arrests 14 year olds who want to sit with pupils who speak English, it is reassuring to know that educashun standards have now slipped so low that it is possible to get a top grade GCSE in English literature without having read a book.

Why am I not surprised by this?

David Jesson, a professor at the Centre for Performance Evaluation and Resource Management at York University, co-wrote a paper on the subject which says that the teaching of literature by extracts has become the norm. As such, some pupils believe that Romeo and Juliet has a happy ending.

Pupils can now get through the whole of their secondary education without ever reading any book from cover to cover.

Nanny's chums in the Exam boards and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, are responsible for the debasement of literacy in Britain; as they now encourage teachers to concentrate on bite-sized chunks of text instead of the full novel, play or poem.

Last month the authority provided on its website the two extracts from each of the three Shakespeare plays which will form the test for 14 year olds next year.

Teachers can choose between the plays, and download the extracts which may be "photocopied for class use at the discretion of the teacher".

Anthony Farrell, the head of English at St Ives School in Cornwall, who co-wrote the paper, said that model test answers and assignments were silencing pupils' voices and creative instincts.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said:

"It is only possible for a child to go through Key Stage Three

without reading a whole novel if the teacher chooses such a reductive route and their subject leader approves

As Orwell warned in "1984", once the state controls the language and the understanding of language it controls the mind and the ability of people to think for themselves.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Prat of The Week

Prat of The WeekThis week's prestigious Prat of The Week Award goes to none other than Nanny herself, and the Labour government as a whole.

For why, other than their lamentable record in office?

Specifically for this little tale of stupidity and indifference to the views of professionals. I refer to the 101 non emergency hotline, that Nanny foisted on six police regions as part of Labour's manifesto commitment to lessen to load on the 999 line.

Hampshire police have stated publicly that the 101 line has turned out to be a fiasco. The police forces who are piloting the scheme are being swamped with absurd questions about train times, and local tourist attractions.

It is estimated that around 66% of calls made to the 101 line are bollocks, and not related to its intended use.

Hampshire Police are demanding that the roll-out across the country be stopped, until Nanny and her ministers validate its usefulness.

The theory was that 101 would be used to report; intimidation, harassment, vandalism, graffiti, criminal damage, fly-tipping and other environmental problems.

However, Hampshire police receive calls such as:

"Can you tell me the times of trains to Brighton?

I'd like someone to test my smoke alarm.

Do you know when the next bus leaves for Southampton

Oddly enough, in the "old days" when police were more respected and less inclined to arrest you for knocking conkers down from trees, banal questions to the police were often encouraged as a means of establishing a rapport between the citizen and his local "Bobby". The old saying "if you want to know the time, ask a policeman" readily springs to mind.

Anyhoo, those days appear to have long gone, and the police no longer have the time or inclination to interact with the person in the street.

Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire, Ian Readhead, thinks the 101 line is bollocks and said:

"We made representations to government.

We recommended it was too early to go live with wave two

and that the government should spend more time learning about this

Superintendent Nigel Hindle, in charge of call handling at Hampshire police, said:

"The strap line for 101 is 'when it's less urgent than 999.

That was on a leaflet that went through every door in the county.

Across the month we receive about 50 calls that we consider emergency fire and health issues on the 101 service.

The operators are not trained to deal with health and fire issues

Hampshire said that it alone needed 18 more telephonists, costing £450K, to cope with the calls.

Leicester and Rutland, Cardiff, Sheffield and Northumberland and Tyne and Wear are also taking part in the initial pilot.

A further 20 forces will join them in the 'second wave', expected early next year.

Nanny's chums in the Home Office have denied that the scheme will be ditched. Instead they are using the weasel phrase:

"We plan to carry out a thorough evaluation of the pilot areas."

Meaning that when all the fuss has died down, the scheme will be quietly dropped (just like so many other harebrained failed schemes that Nanny has introduced with a fanfare).

Nanny well deserves the Prat of The Week Award.

However, as said, the police would find their role in the community less traumatic and more productive if they sought to engage on a personal level with the man in the street. Trying to be helpful with regard to enquires about smoke alarms and bus timetables would in fact be a quite a good thing, not via a 101 line though.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

You're Nicked

You're NickedGiven the amount of crime that people in Britain now have endure, such as mugging, assault and robbery, it is heartening to know that Nanny's police are doing everything they can to tackle this upswell.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that the Swinton police reacted promptly, and sternly, to a recent "crime" allegedly committed by Codie Scott (14 years old) and arrested her.

Her crime?

Refusing to sit with a group of Asian students, because some of them didn't speak English.

Apparently, expecting one's fellow classmates to speak English is now a race crime.

Codie Stott's family claim that after the arrest, she was forced to spend over 3 hours in a police cell.

Codie attends Harrop Fold High School, in Worsley Greater Manchester (oddly enough in the same local education authority where a 10 year old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground).

Codie was attending a GCSE science class and was allocated a group to sit with, as she had missed the earlier day due to a hospital appointment.

Codie said:

"She (the teacher) said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils.

Only one could speak English,

so she had to tell that one what to do

so she could explain in their language.

Then she sat me with them and said 'Discuss'

According to Codie, the 5 pupils then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.


"I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups

because I can't understand them?'

But she started shouting and screaming,

saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

The teacher then made a complaint to a police officer based full-time at the school (since when do the police get based full time at schools?).

Over a week after the incident on September 26, she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.


"They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery,

and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken.

It was awful

School insiders have reportedly said that at least three of the students Codie refused to sit with had recently arrived in this country, and spoke little English.

The school is now investigating exactly what happened, before deciding what action to take against Codie.

Er shouldn't they have done that before getting her arrested?

One would have thought that they had done enough to punish her already!

Headteacher Dr Antony Edkins said:

"We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude

towards people and pupils of all ethnic backgrounds

and will not stand for racism in any form

Harrop Fold had the worst GCSE results in the entire Salford LEA last year. Only 15% of pupils achieved five good passes, including English and maths, a third of the national average.

Commonsense dictates that non English speaking pupils should not be placed in mainstream education (until they speak English), thereby bringing down the performance of those who do speak English.

Commonsense does not function in Nanny's Britain.

A well run school, with mature and sensible teachers, would have dealt with this matter internally. Bringing in the police shows that they have lost control, and care only about form rather than substance.

We are being cowed into submission by the state, and the fear that whatever we say or do will cause us to be reported by our fellow citizens and to be arrested by Nanny's police.

The police state is alive and well!

Monday, October 23, 2006

Nanny Bans Birthdays

Nanny Bans BirthdaysOnce in a while Nanny does try to do the right thing, and make a positive difference to our lives.


What's that you say Ken?

Straight up folks, I kid you not.

One such attempt has been her work in trying to reduce the amount of age discrimination in the workplace. As an aside, a few years go before I hit 40, I was talking to a so called "recruitment professional" (worse than estate agents in my view) about consultancy. His advice was that once you are over 35 (yes 35) you are too old!

However, I digress, as with all of Nanny's attempts to improve things they tend to go wrong; because they hit the wrong target, or because the legislation is so sloppily drafted that the practice becomes over officious and over prescriptive.

Nanny's anti age discrimination laws are a case in point. Aside from the fact that age discrimination is currently hard wired into all aspects of society (eg adverts for "fun/useful" products only target the under 30's), Nannys new rules have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that people are now applying them in an absurdly prescriptive manner.

Alan & Thomas insurance brokers in Bournemouth have taken Nanny's new rules to heart by banning the circulation of birthday cards for staff to sign, amid concern that light hearted "ageist" comments could unwittingly breach Nanny's new age discrimination laws.

Seemingly remarks such as "It's better to be over the hill than under it" or references to bus passes could cause offence, the company said following legal advice.

The new laws allow staff to take action against their company, if they feel they have been harassed or victimised due to their age.

Alan & Thomas will now send a card to each staff member on their birthday, signed by the directors.

Personal cards from individual members of staff are still allowed, as are cakes.

Julian Boughton, the firm's managing director, said:

"The new rules outlawing age discrimination are a potential

minefield for both employers and employees.

Every business should be taking action.

Often employees don't realise the implications of what they are writing

Neil Gouldson, an employment law specialist at Rowe Cohen, said:

"Gags in birthday cards about people being 'over the hill' will need to be curbed."

For fark's sake!

Meanwhile, if you are elderly and end up in one of Nanny's less well run "homes" for the elderly and infirm; you may well be starved, maltreated or abused. Why doesn't Nanny legislate against that?

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is Father

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is FatherThe key to any "successful" authoritarian dictatorship is to ensure that the state is involved in every aspect of people's lives.

Sometimes the state will legislate, by force, its involvement; eg banning smoking, health and safety reviews and ethnic quotas etc.

In other areas the state will try to "ingratiate" itself, by first of all undermining people's self confidence and dignity. Once the fundamental bedrock of people's independence has been undermined, Nanny can push her way in and start to lecture us about how we should be living our lives. This makes us reliant on her, and as such gives her the whip hand over us.

One of Nanny's experts in the Machiavellian art of confidence erosion is Nanny's best chum Caroline Flint, so called Minister for Fitness. Ms Flint has issued an edict saying that overweight people should be given lessons in how to eat fruit and vegetables.

Call me old fashioned...

"Ken you're old fashioned!"

...but I thought the principle of eating fruit and veg was easy; you open your mouth, put the fruit/vegetable in your mouth and start to chew.

You know how to chew, don't you?

Anyhoo, in Ms Flint's world, too many Britons are refusing to eat fresh produce because they see it as "scary food."

The reason that some people find it "scary" is that when they were children, they were not forced to eat what was put in front of them; ie they were spoiled and indulged by lazy parents.

Ms Flint wants supermarkets to provide instore demonstrations on how "healthier" food, eg apples and bananas, should be prepared and eaten.

Ms Flint, referred to a seminar where a parent apparently referred to some food as being scary:

"What she was talking about was vegetables she had never seen in her life before.

Here's a fruit you have never seen before.

What do you do with it?

Do you peel it?

Do you boil it?

Do you chop it

Ms Flint said the solution was to provide cookery lessons in major stores.

She added:

"If people are calling some of the healthier foods 'scary food'

because they are not sure how to prepare or cook them

it doesn't matter how many times I bang out a leaflet

saying eat this - it is not going to happen

Three points to the above:

1 It's not the state's role to tell people what to eat.

2 People resent being told by the state what to eat, and will rebel.

3 It is the role of parents to educate their children as to what to eat.

Let the responsibility and consequences of lazy parenting rest with the parents, not with the state. The more that state interferes, the more lazy parents will become and as a result the more reliant society becomes on the state.

Ms Flint also admitted that another problem that Nanny faces is that some people simply don't consider themselves to be obese...well that's their right isn't it?

That observation is as facile as if she were to say that some people don't consider themselves to be ugly, when in fact they are (to some others)...totally subjective.


"We have to do it in a way not to stigmatise people.

One of the things you have to think about is sometimes

overweight parents do not recognise their children as being overweight.

If they compare themselves with people who are considerably larger than themselves

they think, 'That's not me I don't have a problem'

In other words, Nanny will now be upping the volume on her "you are a fat bastard" campaign.

Once everyone feels inadequate, and has had their self confidence undermined, Nanny will "come to the rescue" and make us all dependent on her.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Prats of The Week

Prats of The WeekMy prestigious "Prats of The Week Award" goes to Nanny's chums in the North Yorkshire Police Authority, they have succeeded in splurging £28K of taxpayers' money on the construction of a shower for Della Cannings, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police.

Yes folks, you did read this correctly, £28K!

That must be one hell of a shower.

Anyhoo it seems that this little story has caused something of a stir, North Yorkshire MP Phil Willis said that the cost of Chief Constable Cannings' new shower was "ridiculous" and warned North Yorkshire Police was in danger of becoming "a laughing stock".

No kidding?

The cost of this plumbing job was brought to light by the good people of the Yorkshire Post, who had to threaten the force with a complaint to the Information Commissioner after their initial request via the Freedom of Information Act was ignored.

Don't you think it funny that in order for the taxpayers to find out how wasteful Nanny is, the Freedom of information Act has to be used?

Don't you think that it is even more funny, that the North Yorkshire police then tried to ignore this act?


However, the "good old boys" in the police were still not that forthcoming with information (why should they be?..they are there to enforce the law, not uphold or follow it themselves!).

Seemingly, although the Yorkshire Post were given details of the £28K bill from Blyth-based contractor D Wilkinson, there were no rival quotations or any information which suggests any tendering process for the work.

Ms Cannings, rather incongruously, has now announced a full inquiry into what had been uncovered.

An investigation by her own force, into herself and the actions of her force?

Yes, that will work!

The investigation will focus on whether there has been "proper application of public money" in relation to the "planning, inception and project management" of the refurbishment for the en-suite shower at her office in the force headquarters at Newby Wiske, Northallerton.

It will also look at "any wider implications of the evidence gathered" to see if there are "consequences" for the "fitness for purpose" of the police authority's contractual arrangements.

Now call me stupid...

"Ken you're stupid"...

but who the fark pays £28K for a shower?

You don't need an investigation, common sense dictates that £28K is way too much for a shower. Either there has been fraud, or else massive incompetence; either way, heads must roll.

Chief Constable CanningsEven Ms Cannings seems a tad "surprised" at the cost, in an email she tells the force's finance director, Joanna Carter, that she "cannot believe" the amount involved and declares it "a very serious matter" requiring full investigation.

The sound of arse being covered fills the air.

Seemingly, Ms Cannings is of the view that the figure originally quoted was "around £6K".


"How come I am being advised that the cost is nearly five times more?"

Seemingly the main cost elements of this shower is broken down as follows:

-Plumbing £15K
-Electrics £4K
-Flooring £1K
-Ceiling £1K
-Building work £5K
-Furniture £1K

In another email, Ms Cannings says that her instructions to the estates department were given verbally by her, or through her staff officer, "to choose shower head or whatever".


"I didn't get involved very much except seeing proposals and choosing carpet colour etc..."

Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, said:

"This is ridiculous.

What is more we are in danger of North Yorkshire Police becoming a laughing stock for its profligacy.

The taxpayers of North Yorkshire will be increasingly horrified

to know that the astronomical increases in the police precept

appear to have resulted in largesse for senior officers

while the public continue to demand greater resources on the streets

Out of all the counties in the UK for this to have occurred in, it beggars belief that it happened in Yorkshire (a county where people are reputed to be cautious with their money).

Ms Cannings has been in the news before. In 2003, the police precept went up by 76%followed by a 10% rise in 2004. A fleet of top-of-the-range Volvos was being acquired for senior officers, and an audit report revealed that the force had developed huge financial reserves after being unable to spend the extra revenue it had received.

Ms Cannings said, at the time, that she was anxious to dispel the impression "that this authority has a piggy bank full of money and it does not know what to do with it".

Re not knowing what to do with it, job done I would say!

North Yorkshire Police, well deserving the "Prats of The Week Award".

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Burger Off!

Burger Off!You know how Nanny and her "sainted" acolytes keep lecturing us about the evils of fast food, and how it is the invention of the devil?

You know also that Nanny is doing her best to wipe this evil from the face of the earth, and make us eat lettuce and beans?

Well how come then, she is happy to allow the spawn of Satan (McDonald's) to sponsor the Olympics in 2012?

Proving yet again that the Olympics is about money and sponsorship, not about sport, Nanny's chums on the British Olympic Organising Committee have landed themselves in an embarrassing situation with regard to one of the sponsors (McDonald's) for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

The Green Party is demanding to know how McDonald's, the burger chain, fits in with promises to promote locally grown food.

It should also be noted that Nanny has been conducting a very assertive healthy eating/anti obesity campaign, as such some people could argue that to associate itself with a promoter of fast food is a tad hypocritical.

The London organising committee, needless to say, are insisting that McDonald's would not have any exclusive control over catering and would be just one of a range of outlets supplying food.

Rather laughably McDonald's is the "official restaurant" (how on earth can anyone describe McDonald's as a restaurant?) of the Games, as a result of a long-term deal with the International Olympic Committee.

Money first, health and sport second!

Nanny is a hypocritical old witch.

Ignore her messages on food and health, she doesn't give a toss about you anyway; she is just interested in money.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Nanny Bans Granny

Nanny Bans GrannyNanny has such an obsession with health and safety that it really ties her in knots when she tries to interact with the real world.

She can't get it through her head that you cannot eliminate risk.

Take for example the care of the elderly, and Nanny's home carers who visit the homes of the elderly to help them out with chores, provide basic home help and to see that they are alright.

Edna East, a 99 year old great grandmother, who is all of 4ft 9ins tall and weighing in at around 7 stone relies on the visit of carers for general chores and for helping supervise her climb up the stairs.

Nanny has now put her nose into this, and decided that helping to supervise a 4ft 9ins, 7 stone, elderly lady up the stirs presents too great a threat to the health and safety of the carers.

Seemingly, there is a risk that someone might fall down the stairs.

As such, she has banned the carers from helping supervise Mrs East up the stairs.

There is of course a risk that she might fall down the stairs, but there is a risk that I might fall down the stairs today too..what am I meant to do about that then?

Shit happens...PERIOD!

Nanny has told Edna, and her relatives, that they must instead spend money on a stair lift. This of course could, under extreme circumstances catch fire, collapse etc; ie there is still a risk of injury.

Why then has Nanny issued this edict?

Simple, she wants to offload the risk and responsibility onto someone else. In other words, she doesn't actually care for the health or well being of Mrs East; Nanny only cares about herself, Nanny is callous and cold.

Suzanne Singer, Mrs East's daughter, who looks after Mrs East at her home, said that the policy as "absolutely barmy."

Seemingly Enara Community Care, the firm contracted by Oxfordshire County Council to provide care provision, carried out a risk assessment (they pop in and out during the day); that's when the trouble started.

Whenever I hear the phrase "risk assessment", I instinctively reach for my revolver!

Four weeks after the risk assessment, Mrs Singer received a letter from Enara Community Care telling her of the decision.

Mrs Singer said:

"How ludicrous can you get?

My mother is still perfectly able to climb the stairs

with just a little bit of supervision.

Surely the main role of her carers was to ensure her safety.

To say they can't help her because of a possible injury risk is barmy.

How risky is it to help an elderly woman up the stairs?

They said she could fall on a carer and injure them

but she's never fallen before.

You could understand it if she was clinically obese

but she never goes beyond seven stone.

It's stupid, mindless bureaucracy

Mrs Singer said that when she contacted the council about Enara's policy, she was told to install a stairlift or spend more time with her mother.


"I was absolutely astonished.

My husband Roger and I are very busy people,

we both have our own practices and we can't be here all the time

Nanny doesn't give a stuff!

Personally speaking, if I ever become elderly and infirm and feel that I might have to ask Nanny for help I will most definitely be reaching for my revolver!

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Nanny's Sense of Humour Failure

Nanny's Sense of Humour FailureNanny really doesn't have much of a sense of humour, as David Clutterbuck a councillor on Bournemouth Council found to his cost the other week.

The hoohah all started when a spoof email was forwarded to members of the council. The email noted that if Noah tried to build an ark now he would have to overcome planning rules, building regulations, environmental impact studies, fire and safety regulations and the RSPCA over animal welfare.

Mr Clutterbuck then added the following tag line, and duly pressed "reply all":

"I imagine now it would be illegal to only have animals of the opposite sex!"

I think it reasonably obvious to even the most blinkered, that the email was a joke and that the tag line added by Mr Clutterbuck was in the spirit of the email.

Unfortunately Nanny's chums in the Liberal Democrats lack a sense of humour, Liberal Democrat councillor Michael Carlile said:

"The comment, even in fun, is at best childish

and at worst shows that certain local Conservatives are locked into the distant past.

I urge, if we are truly going to embrace diversity,

all members should have compulsory diversity training.

I would urge those enlightened Conservative councillors,

and I know there are some,

to challenge Councillor Clutterbuck on his attitudes to minority communities

What a twat!

Mr Clutterbuck, a councillor for 19 years, said:

"One of the councillors who's made the complaint

has only been on the council three years.

I've said before, I've more experience of life,

of business in my little fingertips

than the people who are making complaints

Mr Clutterbuck's own party then got in on the act and, as a consequence, Mr Clutterbuck has resigned his whip (so to speak) and will stand as an independent in the next election.

What an absurd fuss over nothing.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Highway Robbery

Highway RobberyAs we all know Nanny's rules and regulations are very expensive for her to implement, monitor and enforce. As such, she has to make ever increasing demands on her subjects (us) by way of increased taxes.

Unfortunately, even the current tax take is not enough to satisfy Nanny's insatiable demand for cash. Therefore she has to resort to illegal and underhand means to find new sources of revenue.

Nasser Khan was on the receiving end of one of Nanny's scams the other day. He had parked his car on a space between some yellow lines, on Chapel Street Salford, and was shocked shocked when he returned to his car to find that he had a parking ticket.

Given that he had parked on a gap between the yellow (no parking) lines, how could this be possible?


Nanny had the lines pained UNDERNEATH his car whilst he was away.

You see how easy it is folks?

All Nanny has to do is to change the rules, to fit her needs, as she goes along.

No wonder the people of Britain have utter contempt for the government and local councils.

Once the lackeys of Nanny's local council had painted the yellow lines underneath Mr Khan's car, Nanny's tax collector on legs (a traffic warden) gave him a ticket.

Mr Khan said:

"It was just a feeling of disbelief and amazement.

I thought it was a joke.

I am going to write a letter and tell them what I think

Mr Khan also noted that the machinery used to mark the line had melted part of his tyres, costing him £550 for a new set and over £40 on a taxi to and from his home in Rochdale to work the next day.

A council lackey said:

"It looks like contractors acting for United Utilities

have been creative in completing this job as promptly as they could.

The driver concerned needs to write to us explaining the circumstances,

and we will look into it.

Clearly, if the account is accurate,

then we could not be legally able to enforce this ticket

Can you hear the tone in this lackey's voice?

They are not sorry that the lines were painted, and a ticket falsely issued, but they are sorry that they can't "legally" enforce the fine!

That speaks volumes about their attitude towards us and the law.

Tell me, does anyone trust or respect local councils anymore?

I don't!

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Money Well Spent

Money Well SpentNanny loves to spend our money on her "pet projects", it's so easy when it's not your own money to indulge yourself isn't it?

However, even by Nanny's wasteful standards this spending spree takes the biscuit.

Nanny's good chums in Havering Council have spent the last 12 months, and £10,000 of taxpayers' money on conducting a very serious and time consuming investigation.

What were they investigating then Ken? I hear you ask.

Seemingly the planning meetings of the council were being disrupted.

How were they being disrupted?

Someone saying "baa".

I kid you not!

Nanny got herself into a right old huff over this, and decided to track down this most evil of miscreants.

The result?

Twelve months and £10,000 down the toilet later, and Nanny has compiled herself a fine report amounting to a staggering 300 pages.

Unfortunately, the prime suspect is no longer a councillor and is, therefore, outwith being spanked by Nanny (those three words will generate this site some interesting hits from the search engines:)).

Seemingly this sorry tale of waste began last September during a planning meeting, when an application was being heard to put a mobile home on a farm housing rare breeds of horses and sheep.

The discussion was interrupted by a male councillor making "baa-ing" noises.

Coun Jeff Tucker, who represents the area where the farm is, got himself into a huff and reported the incident to the Standards Board for England which, in turn, referred it back to Havering council for investigation.

The probe (can I say probe?) has come up with four suspects, who will be interrogated by the standards hearings sub-committee in November.

One of the suspects, Denis O'Flynn, a former Labour councillor and deputy mayor, said:

"This has been an extremely expensive example of the worst kind of council bureaucracy.

The fact that this investigation has cost so much time and money is the height of stupidity


Congratulations to Havering Council, who have won my Prestigious Prats of The Week Award.

Feel free to drop them a note via this link teleing them of their award.

Friday, October 13, 2006

The Dangers of Pears

The Dangers of PearsI have been writing articles for this site for a little over two years now, and as such I have seen some truly absurd edicts emanating from the darkest recesses of Nanny's troubled and tortured mind.

However, sometimes even Nanny out Nanny's herself as for example in this particular case.

Nanny's chums in Worcester City Council have got themselves in a right old state over pears.

Yes, pears!

It seems that in Nanny's view, pears falling from trees present a clear and present danger to the good citizens of Worcester.

Amazing isn't it?

As such the City Council has fenced off two trees in Cripplegate Park, and put up signs warning people:

Watch out for falling pears!

Nanny says that the precaution has been taken to stop anyone being hurt.

Nanny has also surrounded the trees with red and white tape, and a plastic barrier has been set up to prevent anyone walking directly under the pears.

Ian Yates, parks and cemeteries manager for Worcester City Council, said he was surprised by the fuss; seemingly the signs were also put up last year, after a member of the public (clearly a knobhead) requested them.

He said, with a straight face:

"If we felled the trees or closed the park I would understand the concern,

but this is an adequate response.

It's a smashing year for very leafy fruits

and there are some sizeable pears
(ooh err madam..cue the double entendre)

and not everyone is going to be passing thinking that a pear might fall on them, especially children.

These signs divert people away from the danger


I wonder if Newton sued the orchard owner when the apple fell on his head?

How pathetic this country has become.

Mankind has survived for 150,000 years with pears falling willy nilly (can I say willy nilly), without the need for a warning sign.

Meanwhile Nanny has engineered a situation whereby Iraqi civilians are being killed (estimates vary from 30,000 to 600,000 in total), not by pears I might add!

OOH!..A little bit of politics...OOH!

We are truly mad.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

An Inspector Calls

Israr Khan An Inspector CallsNanny believes in being "socially and ethnically" inclusive.

A very noble sentiment, so long as those who are included wish to be part of British society.

As such Nanny's chums in Ofsted have appointed Israr Khan (pictured left), a hardline Muslim and headmaster of an Islamic school, to be a school inspector.

Nothing wrong with that, in principle, until you realise that Khan may not be feeling that "inclusive" towards British society. He once caused a furore by denouncing pupils for celebrating Christmas.

Khan delivered his anti Christmas tirade during a concert rehearsal at Washwood Heath Secondary School in Birmingham in 1996 after the choir, including around 40 Muslim youngsters, had sung a number of Christmas songs and carols.

Seemingly he leapt from his seat, yelling:

"Who is your God?

Why are you saying Jesus and Jesus Christ?

God is not your God - it is Allah

The children in the audience began booing and clapping, and a number of choir members (white and Asian) walked out, some in tears.

Khan, who was a maths teacher at the time, was asked to work from home pending an investigation but there was no disciplinary action.

FYI Washwood Heath school had Rashid Rauf, the airline terror bomb suspect whose extradition is currently being sought from Pakistan, as a pupil there at that time.

Khan left Washwood Heath a year later to found the independent Islamic Hamd House Preparatory School in Small Heath, Birmingham, where he is headmaster.

Earlier this year, he was appointed as a governor of Anderton Park Primary School, in Sparkbrook, Birmingham.

A former Washwood Heath colleague laughed openly when told of Khan's role as an Ofsted inspector.


"Given the man's history, it's absolutely astonishing.

It's just the cheek of the man that he's been able to reach that position.

He always was an extremely clever man.

He gave me many insights into the Islamic cause

and their hatred of the US and the Western World.

He had a big support base among some of the Muslim parents.

But there were some very influential,

radical elements at Washwood Heath at that time

and Israr Khan was very close to all that

Earlier this year, Anderton Park, received an Ofsted report which branded its teaching and its achievements as inadequate.

An Ofsted spokesman said:

"Israr Khan was appointed as an additional inspector

via a highly competitive recruitment and selection process.

He has undergone all the relevant security checks

Nanny should remember that inclusion works both ways.

Educashun, Educashun, Educashun

Educashun, Educashun, EducashunNanny believes in choice, so she says, and so long as the "right" people are making the "right" choices then she is happy.

Nanny has a list of "right" people and the "right" choices, these include; people who choose not to smoke, people who choose to lose weight, people who don't drink to "excess", teenagers who "choose" higher educashun rather than unemployment etc.

In other words, Nanny supports the right to choose only when those making the choice align themselves with Nanny's view of the world. The trouble with this approach is that, sometimes, the choices that these favoured individuals and groups make are not necessarily the best for the country as a whole.

One such area where "choice" is leading to catastrophe is that of educashun. Scientists are warning that the announcement at the end of September that the University of Reading's physics department recruits no more students, and closes no later than July 2010, is in fact the thin end of the wedge of the destruction of scientific teaching in the UK.

Over the past ten years 19 physics departments have merged or closed. This is because higher education is now being shaped by the choices of teenagers, and not by government or the needs of the economy.

Peter Main, the science director of the Institute of Physics, said:

"University vice-chancellors are operating in an environment

that is controlled by the choices of 17-year-old students.

Funding follows student numbers

and so the future of Britain's science base

rests on the university choices of sixth-formers.

This is a clear example of market failure.

The Government has to realise

that its aspirations for science will not happen

unless they look again at how university departments are funded;

the current model disadvantages laboratory-based subjects,

especially physics

The Commons science and technology committee had already said earlier this year that there was a "fundamental disconnect" between the Government's desire to preserve core undergraduate physics, chemistry, technology, engineering and mathematics and its desire to preserve the autonomy of universities.

Unfortunately, what the scientists and academics don't understand is the fact that Nanny is not really that interested in educashun as such; but she is keen to avert a rise in the unemployment figures. The more teenagers who opt for higher education, rather than signing on as unemployed/unemployable, the better it is for Nanny's headline targets.

Needless to say "hard" subjects, such as science, require a good basic level of education, hard work and enthusiasm; many teenagers these days lack these attributes, as such soft option courses such as media studies have to be funded in order to tempt them to attend 2 hours of lectures a week.

The future's bleak, the future's Nanny.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Nanny Hates Hamsters

Nanny Hates HamstersThose of you who are fans of the BBC car programme Top Gear, will have been undoubtedly sad to see the news of Richard Hammond's (The Hamster) recent accident whilst test driving a jet powered car.

Fortunately it seems that he may well make a full recovery.

However, in Nanny's world, expressions of sympathy and sadness for injuries incurred when driving a "naughty" car are forbidden.

This nasty little side of Nanny was discovered a week or so ago by Stephen Ladyman, the road safety minister. Ladyman, all due respect to him, actually had the temerity (in Nanny's eyes) to express sympathy for The Hamster's accident and to announce that he was "distressed" that critics had used presenter Richard Hammond's 300mph crash in a jet-powered car as an excuse to attack the programme.

He went on to say that The Hamster was an "adventurer", and that the programme did not encourage speeding among young men.

Nanny finds this sort of expression of sympathy and free will to be unhealthy in a government minister, as such Ladyman was dropped from launching National Road Safety Week.

The organisers of the forthcoming event are bleating, like the spineless sheep that they are, that his defence of the show glamorised speeding.

Mary Williams, chief executive of national road safety charity Brake, squawked:

"We are alarmed and disappointed that our road safety minister is taking the time to defend Top Gear

which quite blatantly glamorises fast cars

and in fact knocks the government's very own speed enforcement.

Research quite clearly shows that drivers' attitudes can be influenced by the messages similar to that which Top Gear can promote.

We also feel that distress was an inappropriately strong word to use,

given the distress suffered by families affected by road death and injury caused by speeding drivers

In other words she is very happy that The Hamster had an accident. It seems that compassion is reserved only for those who follow the rules as laid down by Nanny.

Nice people in Brake aren't they?

Brake also has a bee in its bonnet about Top Gear "mocking" speed cameras.

That figures!

Feel free to send them an email via this link

Monday, October 09, 2006

Nanny's Nuts

Nanny's Nuts
Conker season is upon us once again, as such along with the tradition of small boys throwing sticks at trees to knock down the conkers we have come to expect the now annual tradition of Nanny interfering with our nuts.

In previous years she has tried a few of her old tricks, see Conkers 2004.

Now this year she has gone one step further, and actually got the police involved!

Kiya Jayne, Charlie Richardson and a couple of other boys aged between 7 and 11 from Littlehampton (can I say Littlehampton on a public site?) were following the time honoured British pursuit of conker collecting. This involves throwing sticks into the conker tree to knock the conkers down to the ground.

Can you guess what happened?

One of Nanny's chums in the police intervened, confiscated their conkers and gave them a formal documented stop and search notice!

To add insult to injury, when the boys went back to the same tree the next day to get some more conkers (since the police had confiscated their original haul) they were confronted by the same policewoman.

The parents were told that the tree had a preservation order, and was on private property.

Yet, when challenged, the council then admitted that this was in fact untrue.

Bending the facts to suit the action of their police is hardly the correct thing to do is it?

Nanny's Sussex Police said:

"We confiscated a large bag of conkers.

The forms are a necessary form of bureaucracy

to ensure parents are aware we have spoken to their children


I am sure that the streets of Littlehampton are free of all crimes; there are no assaults, robberies or drug related incidents.

That is the only way that I can imagine that Nanny could possibly explain why her police force found the time, energy and inclination to confiscate a bag of conkers.

Small boys have been throwing sticks at conker trees for centuries in Britain, the trees have managed to survive and thrive without Nanny's "help".

It is hardly surprising that some children grow up with a major disrespect for the law.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

The Roast Beef of Olde England

The Roast Beef of Olde EnglandI had the pleasure of dining in Simpson's in The Strand last night, somewhere I haven't been to for quite some time (see my 2002 review).

I am pleased to report that the beef is still reasonably succulent and unctuous, yet it is sadly lacking one thing.

I fear that Nanny has put her big fat feet into even this most venerable of British institutions.


Imagine my horror when the silver carving dome on the beef trolley was pulled back to reveal a noble joint of beef sans the mandatory layer of fat!

I enquired as to where the fat had gone, and was told that although it was cooked with the fat on, the fat was removed once cooked.


Seemingly, so the chef would have me believe, you cannot carve beef with fat on it!

Utter bollocks!

I wonder who he thought he was talking to?

The British have been carving beef with fat on for years, as indeed Simpson's used to do.

The fat (which should be dark yellow, not pale white), not just when cooking, but also when eating adds flavour and texture. It is also well known that, like oil in a car engine, the blood needs fat in it to help it circulate!

My message to Simpson's is simple:

Bring back the fat!

Nanny will pay dearly for this outrage!

Tell them what you think via this link

Those of you who would like to try my own roast beef recipe, should visit "Accountants Can Cook" and download it there.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Nanny Bans Yobs

Nanny Bans YobsDear oh dear, another fuss from Nanny's acolytes about what words can be used to describe people.

Funny how Nanny is so keen to "modify" our language.

As Orwell warned in "1984"; by controlling the language, that state can control what you think.

Anyhoo, this time Nanny's gimlet eye has fallen upon the word "yobs" (scummy type people who cause a nuisance of themselves). Seemingly Nanny thinks that the word "yobs" unfairly categorises a section of the community that is entirely blameless, ie teenagers.

As such Nanny's chums in Scotland Yard have banned its officers from using the word "yob", for fear that it might alienate young people.

Needless to say this edict has the backing of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who we discussed yesterday.

The ban applies to all reports submitted by officers to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which oversees the force.

The ban has been brought about because a "safer neighbourhoods" report by Chief Supt Stephen Bloomfield, put before MPA members, noted that Scotland Yard was "pro-actively tackling gangs and yobs across London".

Cindy Butts (can I say Butts on a public site?), the MPA's deputy chairman, got rather hot under the collar and told Sir Ian that the term was "alienating" saying:

"I have a problem with the language of 'yobs'.

It sort of sets up and defines too much a 'self' and 'other'


Asst Commissioner Tim Godwin replied:

"I agree.

I'm sorry about that.

We won't use that again

Afterwards AC Godwin confirmed that the use of "yobs" was now officially banned. He claims that "yobs" could be taken as a slur on groups of law abiding youngsters, who gather for innocent reasons.

He said:

"It can reflect on groups of youths who congregate,

rather than those who carry out criminal activity.

We have to be careful because of the need to engage with young people

You should engage with trouble makers by giving them a clip around the ear!

Needless to say there is now some confusion; other words such as "hoodlums" or "tearaways" have not been banned.

What about scumbags?

Will Sir Ian Blair be investigating Tony Blair who used the word in the Commons in 2004, or Labour which pledged in its 2005 manifesto to "exclude yobs from town centres"?

Maybe the police should in fact be focusing on catching criminals, rather than on the words used to describe them?

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Whom Do You Serve?

Whom Do You Serve?Nanny loves to accommodate all views, faiths and political persuasions; so long as she agrees with them that is!

As such, it should come as no surprise to learn that when PC Alexander Omar Basha, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Diplomatic Protection Group, refused to be posted outside of London's Israeli Embassy, because he objected to Israeli bombings in Lebanon on "moral grounds", Nanny bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes and excused him duty.

The only trouble with this "bending" policy (can there be such a thing as a bent police officer?) is that police officers are meant to serve the law:




Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Needless to say, now that this incident has become a matter of public knowledge, Nanny has assigned Sir Ian Blair to urgently inquire into the issue.

A senior source in the Metropolitan Police Federation said:

"Officers should not be allowed to pick and choose where they work in this way."

It is ironic that Sir Ian will be investigating this, as many blame him for the culture of political correctness that has infested the Metropolitan Police since he took over in February last year.

PC Nadeem Malik, an executive committee member of the Association of Muslim Police, said:

"There are around 300 Muslim staff working in the Met

and a number of Muslim police working in the diplomatic protection group

who do not have problem covering the Israeli Embassy.

These officers are Londoners, and Met police officers first and foremost

Exactly, well said!

Ex-Met Flying Squad commander John O'Connor, said:

"This is the beginning of the end for British policing.

If they can allow this,

surely they'll have to accept a Jewish officer not wanting to work at an Islamic national embassy?

Will Catholic cops be let off working at Protestant churches?

Where will it end?

This decision is going to allow officers to act in a discriminating and racist way.

When you join the police, you do so to provide a service to the public.

If you cannot perform those duties, you leave.

The Metropolitan Police are setting a precedent they will come to bitterly regret.

Top brass granted his wish

as they were probably frightened of being accused of racism.

But what they've done is an insult to the Jewish community

Just in case the Met haven't yet got the message. Police officers are meant to serve the law:




Without fear or favour to anyone else.

Write this down and learn it for prep, I will be testing you on it later!

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

A Conundrum

A ConundrumSorry for the delay today folks. I have just spent the last six hours at hospital with my parents, waiting for Dad to have a rather unpleasant intrusive medical examination performed.

However, as sedated as he was (around the equivalent of 5 pink gins* I would say) when we left, he posed this conundrum:

"Why is it that if the doctors and the government are so concerned about our diets, and what we eat, that they have a Burger King franchise in the entrance to hospital?"

Indeed, Mayday Hospital has a very nice Burger King slap bang in the middle of the entrance hall.

Answers on a postcard please.

*NB a pink gin is an old naval drink:

- Add one drop of Angostura bitters to a glass

- Swirl it around

- Throw the bitters out

- Add some ice

- Add a measure of gin

- Add a little water (the gin turns pink)

- Drink with gusto

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Plod's Discrimination

Plod's DiscriminationDear old Nanny really loves to try to re-engineer society, by artificially "skewing" demographics to suit her political dogma. Unfortunately history has shown that whenever governments try to "manage" reality, and impose their view of a perfect society, things go horribly wrong.

Despite the lessons of history, Nanny still keeps trying. A recent case in point being Nanny's chums in the Gloucestershire Constabulary who rejected 108 potential recruits because they were white men.

Now Nanny's coppers have come a cropper (Ha!..come on, I'm doing my best here folks!), they have admitted positive discrimination and have been forced to pay compensation.

Gloucestershire Constabulary claimed that that it had been trying to increase diversity, by selecting only women and candidates from ethnic minorities. That is all very well, but the average citizen in Britain (be he/she black, white, green or purple) would prefer to have police officers who could do their job rather than police officers who fit an artificial racial/sexual specification.

I would also note that discrimination on the grounds of race or sex is in fact illegal.

Don't they teach the police the law then?

Needless to say Nanny's chums, when faced with an employment tribunal in Bristol, had to own up to the fact that they were in fact breaking the law.

Happy with the fact that the police admit that they have been breaking the law?

I'm not!

The tribunal was told that Matt Powell, had applied to join the force in October 2005. A month later, after being told that he had progressed to the second stage of the recruitment process, he left his job as an IT team leader at Filton College to concentrate on his application.

In January 2006 he received a letter saying that he had been "randomly deselected". He was never given an explanation for his rejection.

In April the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission started an investigation. They reported that the force had unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of race and sex.

The tribunal was told that 66% of white men, who applied to join the force last year, had been turned down. Every ethnic minority candidate who applied had been invited to an assessment centre.

Nanny has agreed to £2500 pay compensation to Mr Powell, and may now expect claims from the other 107 men, who were told by the force that they had been "randomly deselected".

Clive Tomer, chairman of the tribunal, said that Gloucestershire Constabulary had been

"at the very least disingenuous and at worst misleading".

In other words, they had lied.

Happy with the fact that the police lied?

I'm not!

Gordon Ramsey (not the chef), the head of human resources, said:

"We were trying to advance diversity in the force

and we thought at the time that this was lawful,

positive action.

When we found out after an independent investigation

by the Commission for Racial Equality that it wasn't lawful,

we accepted that

I find that hard to believe that they didn't know that discrimination is illegal.

Do you believe them?

Monday, October 02, 2006

Racist Rev

Racist RevLet me ease you into your Monday's with this absurd piece of Nanny nonsense.

It seems that Nanny is getting a bit flumoxed about race relations, and has got herself into such a state over them that she seems to be having some form of mental breakdown.

Aside from the usual crimes of race hate, Nanny has decided to add one more to the books; namely revving your engine in a racist manner.

I kid you not!

Ronnie Hutton recently spent two nights in jail, after being accused of "revving his car in a racist manner".

Hutton recently attended Stirling Sheriff Court on the above charges, after being hauled in for revving his Lotus engine at a Libyan couple one night last September 2005.

Witnesses claimed that he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement. Hutton claimed that he was only revving the V8 engine to avoid another £15,000 repair bill.

However, off-duty Chief Inspector Eoin Jenkins thought he was targeting Muslim Isam Maigel and his wife Hana Saad.

When Jenkins, now retired, confronted Ronnie he was told to "fuck off".

Nanny decided to abandon the racist part of the charge, but still convicted Hutton of breach of the peace and fined him £150.

Hutton said:

"To be convicted for revving my car in a busy street is hard to take.

Does this mean anyone driving a noisy car in Scotland is now a criminal

It seems that the racist element of charges were only added some months after Hutton had been in the cell, and AFTER he had complained to the Procurator Fiscal about the incident.

Funny that!

Mr Maigel claimed in court that Hutton had degraded them "maybe because we are Muslim".

Hutton claimed:

"I've had problems with the Lotus since I bought it.

I paid £15,000 for a new engine in 2003.

As soon as I started the car the oil pressure light wouldn't go out.

I accept I revved the engine

it's a V8 twin turbo and is noisy and frightening.

I would openly apologise to this couple.

I am not a racist

Be careful with your V8's folks!