A Nice Little Legacy

As our "beloved" Prime Minister gears up to leave office, you can see how happy he looks these days, he is planning to leave us with a nice little something to remember him by.

Bliary said the other day that he had "got it wrong" when he first came to office thinking that all you had to do was to throw money (our money not his) at social problems, to sort them out. He claims to have had a revelation that some people, no matter how much you "invest" (he means spend, but can't bring himself to use that "unword"), will still behave like animals. Therefore his "solution" is to apply the stick as well as the carrot.

A nice idea, unfortunately as with all of Bliary's "ideas" they are not thought through; and usually negatively impact the decent law abiding citizen, rather than the detritus of society.

Coming soon to your town, here are a few of Bliary's new "initiatives":

• Tesco jails, short-term "jails" are planned for supermarkets in order to ease the burden on police. Seemingly Nanny is already discussing the construction of a jail inside Selfridges. I wonder if they will allow you to take a Selfridges bag with you when you leave jail? The Metropolitan Police is interested in placing units in other stores, and is planning custody units in every London borough.



• Nanny intends to expand police powers to take fingerprints, DNA and other samples from offenders and store them on national databases. The list of crimes that will give the police the right to take DNA etc will include; speeding, failing to wear a seat belt, allowing dogs to foul the footpath and dropping litter.
  
  Nice eh?
  
  Fortunately we have 100% confidence in the integrity/security of Nanny's databases. We do, don't we?



• Police will be allowed to question suspects after they have been charged. Isn't this kind of back to front? After all, if the police charge you, surely they have obtained enough evidence already?



• Nanny also wants to fingerprint people over 10 accused of nonrecordable offences, crimes for which an offender cannot be imprisoned.

A nice little legacy wouldn't you agree?

Prat of The Week

Congratulations to Alcohol Concern who have won, "slam dunk" (if I may quote ex CIA Director Tenet), my prestigious "Prat of The Week" Award; for their absurd suggestion that parents should be prosecuted, if they give alcohol to children under 15 (even if it is only with a meal in their own home).

Alcohol Concern claim that this causes alcohol problems later in life.

Bollocks!

I was allowed alcohol when I was a child, and look at me now!

Aside form that, here is why the suggestion is total and utter bollocks:

1 It is unenforceable (even Nanny's health minister, Caroline Flint, says that!).

2 The state, nor charities, should intervene in the way that parents bring up their children (where there are no child abuse issues).

3 The problem with underage drinking arises not because the "children" are drinking with their parents, but because they are drinking unsupervised. Therefore parents should drink with their children.

4 Let us assume that Alcohol Concern's recommendation was implemented, and booze banned from children under the age of 16/15. Once the "child" passes the magic age of 15/16, he/she is meant to face the world with all its temptations and problems without any experience of how to manage alcohol. How on earth does that help prepare the "child" for entry into the adult world? Surely this counts as child abuse?

5 The continentals allow alcohol with family meals, they seem to manage OK.

6 The root cause of anti social behaviour and binge drinking amongst "youths" is that they are thrown into the adult world without any real preparation. Physically they may well be "adult", mentally (because they have been cossetted, spoilt and kept in cotton wool by Nanny and over protective parents) they are immature, spoilt self centred children. They are not equipped to deal with responsibility or the real world. To ban parental supervision of drinking would exacerbate this situation.

Congratulations to Alcohol Concern for thoroughly earning your award!

Please drop them a note and let them know that they have won: contact@alcoholconcern.org.uk

What a Load of Bollocks II

It looks like that I was right, when I said yesterday that more of Nanny's database would leak. However, I didn't quite expect further data and another database to leak quite so quickly.

Seemingly Nanny forgot some fundamental security precautions when setting up these medical databases eg; passwords and firewalls.

Needless to say, confidential data (even the sexual orientation of some junior doctors) has now been picked up by search engines such as Google.

How can this mess have come about?

Simple, never ever allow politicians to become involved in the design and creation of IT systems. Politicians are not up to the job; they are vain publicity seeking individuals who lack the skills, knowledge and time (2 year managers for 5 year projects) necessary to design and implement an IT system.

The question therefore arises, how secure is the data held on Nanny's other IT systems?

Not very, I would venture!

What a Load of Bollocks

Ignoring whatever concerns that have been expressed about the civil liberties issues surrounding Nanny's penchant for databases, one issue that she has been warned about time and time again is the security of the data held on her databases.

It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone to learn that Nanny's database of information about junior doctors was maliciously leaked yesterday!

Nanny responds that no system has 100% security.

Well that's reassuring isn't it?

I suspect that we will see medical records, criminal records and tax/social security records leaked in the future.

Nanny was warned, but she chose to ignore the warning. Nanny is not fit to be left in charge of such sensitive data.

Nanny's Right of Entry

Nanny is a somewhat passive aggressive individual, by that I mean she expects us to be passive whilst she aggressively pursues her policies of interference and intervention in our daily lives.

However, Nanny is still a little worried that we may be offering some form of resistance to her "brave new world"; specifically, she fears that we may be acting in an "un pc" manner in the privacy of our own homes.

Well, she has come up with a terrific wheeze that will ensure that an "Englishman's home" is no longer his castle (lest there be any complaints, for the purposes of this article "English" encompasses Welsh and Scots..I wanted to use the quote, and therefore for today everyone in the UK is an honourary Englishman).

Anyhoo, it seems that according to Tory MP Henry Bellingham, Nanny is considering legislation that would allow forcible entry into homes by bailiffs for such minor matters as the non payment of parking tickets. Any homeowner attempting to stop the bailiff would face up to a year in prison.

Bellingham is quoted as saying:

"The bill as it stands will overturn two fundamental principles

of our common law on bailiffs' power to enter private property:

that bailiffs may only enter peaceably

and with the permission of the debtor.

Those rights are fundamental.

That force may not be used to effect entry has been

established in law since at least the 14th century."

In 2005, Nanny's Nu Labour announced its intention to create a National Enforcement Service to break into homes to recover unpaid fines.

However, be not afraid (yet!) there have been various amendments offered to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. One of these "generous" amendments would forbid bailiffs from seizing household pets as well as, "any dog on which a blind person relies."

So that's alright then!

No it's not, Nanny must not be allowed to wedge her boot in anyone's door; once she has done this, you will never be able to get her out of your house.

Message For J Rimmer

Re your comment under "Nanny Bans Ponies", about having once worked for Croydon Council.

As you know I have a great "fondness" for local councils, in particular Croydon Council, and wonder if you or your colleagues from the council have any stories or information about Croydon Council that you would consider sharing with me?

Please feel free to get in touch with me, if you do.

Thanks.

Ken

Nanny Bans Ponies

Nanny is a fearful old lady, she is easily scared by even the merest mention of risk. That is all well and good, live and let live that's what I always say. Unfortunately, Nanny decides to transfer her fears to the rest of us.

The latest things to scare her are Shetland ponies.

Yes, that's right, Shetland ponies!

Nanny's gimlet eye has fallen upon a herd of 20-year-old Shetland ponies, who reside in the Sussex Horse Rescue animal sanctuary. These ponies have no history of violence or of attacking members of the public. However, Nanny's chums in Horsham District Council have told the sanctuary that it cannot take the ponies to greet children in the street because they are too dangerous.

The council have decreed that Sussex Horse Rescue need an insurance policy of £5M, before the ponies are allowed to mix with human beings on the street.

Horsham District Council are of the belief that a child may be maimed by one of the ponies. Has anyone ever heard of a pony maiming a child???

The charity cannot afford the higher premiums, and will therefore abandon its "meet and greet" scheme which of course used to be one of its best money earners.

Pauline Grant, of Sussex Horse Rescue, said:

"We just can't believe it.

It is going to make a lot of difference to us.

We do it not only to make the money,

we also attract people to our sanctuary.

We have been doing this for 20 years and

we've never had an accident.

We have got two Shetland ponies we use, Sparky and Sinbad,

they are both in their 20s, and two donkeys, Cocoa and Ann.

They are very good-natured."

Nigel Haverson, head of public health and licensing at Horsham District Council, said:

"We have looked at other licensing authorities

and we take advice from insurance and risk people.

Five million pounds is the lowest we can ask for.

When you look at claims settled, they are regularly

four or five million pounds by the time

you take all the costs into account."

A council spokesman added:

"The council is responsible for licensing activities

in Horsham town centre, including charity collections and events.

Licences are required to protect the public in

terms of health and safety and from unfair trade.

A great many such activities take place in Horsham

throughout the year and normally everyone understands

why they need to be fully licensed."

I suspect the "understanding" of which they speak, is in fact a resigned shrug of the shoulders and a "realisation" that the council has them by the gonads.

The council base their demand for insurance cover on the fear that if someone is maimed by a pony, that person will sue the council.

Tell me, why would the council be sued in this case and not the owner of the donkey instead? Is not the council assuming too many responsibilities here?

Why does the insurance premium rank so highly for such a placid creature, and such an unlikely incidence of maiming?

Has a real "risk assessment" by the insurance company really been done; or are the insurance companies merely ripping off the hapless insurees?

Does anyone in our "beloved" and "respected" local councils ever think to ask these questions?

Are members of our local councils simply brain dead automatons?

Happy St George's Day

Happy St George's Day folks!

In keeping with Nanny's strict rules, Nanny hates the English, St George's Day is not a holiday in England.

Sometimes she even tries to ban people celebrating it privately. This year a St George's Day parade in Ilkeston has been cancelled, after organisers claimed they were told to pay £20,000 for a police presence.

Richard Dawson, of Ilkeston St George's Day Association, said that he had been forced to cancel the event as the bill would have taken money from good causes.

Derbyshire Police counter claim that they had no problem with the daytime parade, but claimed that there were security problems involving a "Right-wing element" during the evening entertainment last year.

They also disputed the cost figure quoted by Mr Dawson:

"The total cost that would have been put to him

in terms of policing would be no more than £2,500,

which would pay for six officers for an eight-hour period."

A spokesman for Erewash council said that Mr Dawson's 2006 event breached a temporary licence, and led to complaints from residents.

"The event last year went over the set time limit."

The above story indicates that there are some "differences of opinion" as to the facts on this one. I would be grateful if anyone can post some details on the above, so that we can see a clearer picture.

However, here are a few reasons to be proud to be English:

1 We gave the world the English language, the language of choice for international business discussions.

2 We gave the world parliamentary democracy.

3 We were the first country in the modern world to abolish slavery.

4 We gave the world America (no smart arsed comments please:)).

5 We gave the world cricket and football.

Please feel free to add to the list.

Happy St George's Day!

Nanny's Special Little Friend

"Even the most glittering and glorious of reigns must come to an end."

So it will soon be for Bliary Poppins, as she shuffles off into the sunset; leaving "Smiler" Brown in charge of the country.

Bliary insists though that she leaves a strong legacy, she cites her "achievements" re; anti social behaviour, the "respect" agenda, educashun and the health service.

Errrmmmmmm...run those by me again????

Poor old Bliary, it happens to all leaders past their sell by date, her memory seems to have failed her; surely the above issues haven't quite been "addressed" to everyone's satisfaction?

Oh, and by the way, aren't there a few other things that she will be associated with (she's far too modest in not mentioning those items)...what were they now???

Oooh ooh, I remember; cash for honours and the Iraq war.

How could she forget those two "legacies"?

Whilst we are on the subject of legacies, I would be remiss not to mention Bliary's special friend across the pond.

W is leaving office next year, and part of his legacy seems to be tad intertwined with out own "beloved" Prime Minister. Now W is working hard to try to fix one part of his legacy, namely Iraq.

The troop surge has, so he says, improved the security situation there; despite the fact that around 200 people were blown to bits in a Baghdad market the other day, and despite the fact that the "surge" will not reach its "climax" (can I say climax on this site?) until June/July (surely "surge" is a misnomer?).

Anyhoo, one teeny piece of information that W and Bliary haven't quite told the world relates to troop numbers.

Now, we know that British troops are being pulled out as fast as Smiler Brown can get them out (so that he doesn't have to face the issue when he is PM), and we know that the Iraqi leadership has said that security will be handed over within the year etc etc.

We also know how many US and British troops are in Iraq, don't we?

Post "surge" there will be 170,000 US troops and several thousand UK troops, right?

Right?

Wrong!

For you see dear reader, there are other US troops there as well; these troops are not included in the official reporting or body count figures when they are killed.

Why is that?

Easy, they are working for Balckwater and other private US companies (including one run by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old company).

So how many private mercenaries are in Iraq then, on top of the 170,000 official US troops?

100,000!

That is the figure according to Jeremy Scahill in his book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Scahill says that private contract companies take up to 40% of all of US money spent in occupying Iraq. These armies are expensive partly because the mercenaries who work for them earn around $100K, far more than the ordinary GI Joe.

Despite the costs, there are several advantages to using these private armies:

• The body count figures, reported by the media and Pentagon, exclude the 770 mercenary deaths.



• The mercenaries are unaccountable to public oversight by Congress, re their actions and their costs.



• When W announces in the future with great flourish that the US is pulling out of Iraq, the mercenaries will be left there continuing the war.

Quote:

"Blackwater has secured a position of remarkable power
and protection within the US military apparatus.
This company's success represents the realisation
of the life's work of the conservative officials,
including Rumsfeld, who formed the core of the Bush
Administration's war team. While initial inquiries
have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive
subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq,
a thorough investigation into the company reveals
a frightening picture of a politically connected
private army that has become the Bush Administration's
praetorian guard.

Blackwater was founded in 1996 by conservative
Christian multimillionaire and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince,
the scion of a wealthy Michigan family whose generous
political donations helped fuel the rise of the religious
right and the Republican revolution of 1994..."

As the old saying goes:

"Judge a man by the company he keeps"

Bliary's legacy will be judged on his choice of friends, most notably his special little friend across the pond.

What a legacy to be proud of!

Nanny Bans Chests

Nanny is going back to basics, do you recall that John Major doomed his Prime Ministership by doing the same?

However, this time the "back to basics" campaign is nothing to do with toilets (or is it loos?...ah well, I guess that I will never be able to marry into the royal family for not knowing that) or road cones.

This time Nanny is going back to the halcyon days of the British Empire, ie the Victorian/Edwardian period, when people covered themselves and their chair/piano legs up from top to toe.

Nanny is outraged at the amount of flesh that is publicly on display these days, specifically in the summer months. She is not bothered about what the ladies wear, but is highly concerned about the predilection (can I use a word containing "lic", so early in the morning?) of the cream of British manhood to remove their shirts and expose their pale pink flabby beer guts.

I have to say, I am inclined to agree with Nanny that the sight of wide open empty rolling beer guts is not a pleasant sight for man nor beast.

However, quite how you can legislate against it or enforce a "no chest" policy is beyond me. We aren't a fanatical religious state are we?

Anyhoo, practicalities have never stopped Nanny from coming up with some serious time wasting ideas. Nanny's chums in local councils are considering imposing new local laws banning the exposure of chests and beer guts.

These new laws, how many we do have, would stop men stripping off their shirts in crowded town centres and give powers to police to remove any who defy the cover-up laws.

It's not as though the police have anything better to do is it? After all, there are no crimes in Britain's urban centres these days!

Seemingly Nanny is going to try to use the Anti Social Behaviour concept to ban topless guts. Do you see how politicians bend and twist laws, intended for one thing, to suit their own purpose?

The "masterbrain" behind this "wheeze" is former local government minister, Nicholas Bennett.

Quote:

"There is a problem.

In my part of the country we are trying

to revitalise the main shopping precinct.

But one of the things that is depressing

for anyone going shopping is the numbers

of shaven-headed men, mainly in their 30s and 40s,

who seem to think people want to see their torsos."

Whilst I can empathise with the sentiment, I cannot see how in reality this could be enforced. The baring of torsos is down to "public standards" of "good" and "bad" behaviour. The best way to effectuate change in this respect is to make such behaviour socially unacceptable, thereby shaming people into conforming.

We are already overburdened with petty and vindictive laws, how many more does Nanny intend to impose on us?

Nanny Bans Staring

It's rude to stare!

Surely we have all been told that at some stage by our parents, when we were nippers?

The credo of not staring at people is drummed into all of us in our formative years, quite rightly so!

Now it seems, Nanny feels that she needs to get in on the act and her chums in Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS) have issued a document advising teachers and pupils not to stare.

Now, although this may seem to be "over kill" it is at least good advice and helpful to maintianing "old fashioned" manners.

Yes?

Errrmmmm...no.

Unfortunately, we live in a Nanny state where things are never straightforward or sensible. For you see, dear readers, Nanny's advice is selective.

In Nanny's world you mustn't stare at Muslims but it is OK, presumably, to stare at everyone else.

In a bizarrely stupid act of isolating and humiliating Muslims living in Scotland, Nanny's twats in LTS have issued an edict banning pupils and teachers from staring at Muslims for fear of causing offence.

The document was intended to educate against religious intolerance and sectarianism. Needless to say, by singling out one minority, all Nanny has done is to worsen race and religious relations.

The document urges teachers to "make pupils aware of the various forms of Islamophobia, ie stares, verbal abuse, physical abuse".

Are not all religions, races, sexes, people with disabilities, the middle classes, the upper classes, working classes and chavs all potentially subject to discrimination?

In other words, we are all likely at some stage to be treated by others in a disciminatory fashion (both fairly and unfairly) based on their preconceived views of who they think we are and what they think we represent.

Nanny's lackeys in LTS state in the document:

"Some Muslims may choose to wear clothing

or display their faith in a way that makes them visible.

For example, women may be wearing a headscarf,

and men might be wearing a skullcap.

Staring or looking is a form of discrimination

as it makes the other person feel uncomfortable,

or as though they are not normal.”

How the fark does Nanny think that Muslims now feel, for being singled out in this unpleasant and patronising fashion?

A cynic might suggest that this was part of a cunning plan by Nanny to deliberately ferment suspicion and hatred between Muslims and non Muslims, so that Nanny can justify a "security clamp down".

However, I am not a cynic...am I?

Needless to say, Muslims are not that impressed with this absurd document. Osama Saeed, a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said:

"There are far more serious elements of Islamophobia.

People look at all sorts of things that can just be a glance.

A glance and a stare are two different things glances happen

naturally when all sorts of things catch your eye whereas

a stare is probably gawking at something.

Personally I have not encountered much of

a problem with people staring.

I don't know how you legislate for that."

Quite, how the fark do you legislate against staring?

I recall the "Not The Nine O'clock News" sketch from the late 1970's; where constable Savage was berated for arresting a Mr Winston Kodogo on a series of trumped up charges, including "staring at me in a funny manner".

Have we really come to this?

Frankly we all dress in a "funny manner" these days, walk down any street in London (or Croydon) and you will see a veritable cornucopia of "styles" and "fashion statements".

Nanny clearly has been asleep for the last 30 years or so. Clearly the middle class/political activist "do gooders" who wasted taxpayers' money on this shit don't get out much.

I pity the good people of Scotland, who end up being on the receiving end of some real shit from Nanny which is often far worse than we get in England (see label Scotland for other Scottish Nanny nonsense).

Nanny's Gestapo State

In the "good old days", when the police knocked at your door it could be assumed that:

1 Someone had died or

2 Someone you knew had committed a serious crime

In Nanny's Britain things have changed somewhat, the knock at the door now signals a visit from her thought police; seeking to impose Nanny's vision of "correct" behaviour on the hapless citizens of Britain, whether they like it or not.

Alan Rawlinson discovered what it is like to receive a knock from the Gestapo the other day, when two of Nanny's finest called asking to speak to his 11 year old son George.

Needless to say, Mr Rawlinson being a responsible parent feared that George had been involved in something really unpleasant.

However, he was wrong.

George's crime?

He had called one of his school friends 'gay'.

Yes folks, that's all it takes these days to find Nanny's thought police at your door; needless to say, should you be involved in drug dealing, assault or theft you can rest easy.

Why?

Because Nanny's police are too busy investigating thought crimes.

Anyhoo, Nanny's police said that George was being investigated for a "very serious" homophobic crime. George had used the comment in an e-mail to a 10-year-old classmate.

Clearly drug dealing, assault and theft are no longer thought of as being "serious"!

Needless to say Mr Rawlinson is pretty pissed off. He lambasted Nanny's thought police, saying:

"It is completely ridiculous.

I thought the officers were joking at first,

but they told me they considered it a very serious offence.

The politically correct brigade are taking over.

This seemed like a huge waste of resources for

something so trivial as a playground spat."

Nanny's Cheshire police launched the investigation last month, after a complaint from the parents of the 10-year-old younger boy who received George's e-mail.

One wonders what sad individuals these must be, to waste their time and the police's time on this load of bollocks.

These sad people said that their son had been called a 'gay boy', and were concerned that there was more to the comment than playground banter and that their child was being bullied.

My father taught me two very important lessons (amongst many things)

1 Never ever "tell on your friends or classmates". You will end up being despised and shunned (remember folks, mankind has survived these past 150,000 years by co-operating; not by stabbing each other in the back).

2 Stand up for yourself, and don't ask others to fight your battles for you. The world is a harsh place, if you don't learn to fight your own battles, when you are young, what chance do you have when you are an adult?

Nanny is not only eroding the human genetic trait of co-operation, but she is also turning the "adult" population of this country into spoilt immature weaklings, incapable of standing up for themselves. This of course means that they are forced to rely on Nanny, thus enhancing Nanny's position and power.

Now back to the story, two officers were sent to the boys' school, Farnworth Primary, in Widnes, Cheshire, to speak to the headteacher; he then sent them to the Rawlinsons' home in St Helens, Merseyside.

George explained that he used the "gay" term not in a homophobic sense, but in the modern vernacular of meaning "stupid" (Bart Simpson uses it regularly in this context)...how words change over the years!

Needless to say George was terrified when the police turned up...well done Nanny for damaging this kid...doesn't that count as child abuse????

I guess Nanny will offer "counselling" for the lad, in one of her "thought correction" facilities?

Mr Rawlinson is well pissed off, quite rightly so. He has lodged a formal complaint against the police.

Quote:

"I've constantly contacted police about break-ins

at my business and never get a suitable response."

That's because they don't give a fark!

Inspector Nick Bailey, of Cheshire police, very "graciously" said that no further action would be taken against George. However, he said the force had been obliged to record the incident as a crime and that they had dealt with it in a 'proportionate' manner.

Bollocks!

Seriously, does anyone out there in cyberspace now really trust the police, or have any faith that when a real crime is reported that it will be addressed?

Britain's Booze Culture

There is much wringing of hands in the media and parliament these days about the alleged booze culture that is engulfing Britain. Methinks these hand wringers should take a trip to Russia (where the quantity of booze consumed has trebled over the last few years), if they really want to see a society awash with drink.

Anyhoo, the Public Policy Research (PPR), the journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has come up with a "solution". They say that it is time to practise "tough love", and raise the minimum drinking age to 21.

Here's why this idea is bollocks:

1 Some other countries have a minimum drinking age of 21, eg USA, yet they too have drink related problems.

2 It is, like it or not, part of the British culture to drink. The ancient Romans, when they occupied Britain, wrote many missives complaining about the oceans of booze consumed by the natives.

3 The age at which people can do many other things, as an adult, is less than 21; eg joining the armed forces and fighting for one's country, bonking, driving a car, voting and opening a bank account.

Why, if you are thought old enough to put your life on the line for your country, should you not be allowed to have a drink?

4 The key to responsible drinking lies with how you are brought up with drink as a child. I was allowed to drink sensibly as a child, and look at me now.

5 There are far more dangerous things that young people are exposed to when they reach the majority age; eg fighting in Iraq and opening a bank account which exposes them to exploitation by some real shysters.

The suggestion to raise the minimum drinking age an over reaction, which won't work.

The Health and Safety Gestapo Strike Again

Nanny's much "respected" Health and Safety Gestapo have struck again, blighting the lives of decent people who are just trying to make their lives a little more pleasant.

This time the Gestapo, aided and abetted by Nanny's lackeys in the local council, have called upon the good citizens of Everton in Nottinghamshire.

Seemingly the residents of Everton were about to risk their lives, and maybe the very future of the human race, by performing a life threatening act.

What was this act?

Testing and nuclear device?

No!

Travelling in time?

No!

Opening a crack house?

No!

They were going to plant some flower beds beside a road.

Needless to say Nottinghamshire county council cannot allow such actions to go unchecked.

As I often ask, what the fark is the point of a local council?

Can anyone out there in cyberspace explain why we pay these people to interfere in our lives?

Anyhoo, Nottinghamshire county council have decreed that the flower beds represent a health and safety risk.

Health and safety risks need to be licensed and regulated.

The key word on the above is "licensed", because as we all know that a local council's sole raison d'etre (ooh, a posh phrase for a Monday morning!) is to tax people.

Seemingly when the village's parish council decided to plant flowerbeds by a main road, they didn't realise that they needed a "licence to cultivate".

On top of this "licence to cultivate", the hapless villagers were also told to submit a health and safety questionnaire and a risk assessment.

That was not the end of the nightmare for Everton. Once these had been granted, the plans then had to be approved by Nottinghamshire county council's landscape team.

Afet that the accident investigation department also had to be consulted, just in case the flower beds caused a motoring hazard.

Oh, I almost forgot, even if the good citizens of Everton had succeeded in jumping all of those hurdles they still would have to formally consult the utility companies just in case planting the beds caused them a problem.

Ooh, ooh, sorry there is also public liability insurance to be take into account. The cover for this by the way has to be at least £5M.

Whilst the 770 residents of Everton are a spirited and tenacious group, they recognise when they are defeated and in the end gave up.

Parish councillor Richard Bacon, said:

"It's ridiculous.

The expense of doing all this is totally

out of proportion with what we want to do.

We had planned a wooden border with top soil

beneath the hedgerow to make everything look lovely.

But the verge does belong to the council

so we needed permission.

Their response seems totally over the top.

Why do we need a risk assessment?

We've all got gardening skills."

Needless to say the jobsworths in the council don't give a fark.

Quote:

"There are many health and safety concerns

relating to works on the highway.

The required licence to cultivate helps

to make sure that plants chosen do not reach a height

that will obscure motorists' visibility

and we insist that whoever carries out

the work has public liability insurance."

Who are they to "insist"?

They work for us, don't they?

Not the other way around.

The Nanny state is a blight on people's lives, it saps their individuality and initiative. We are no longer able to act without the "approval" of bureaucratic deadheads, whose own "lust for life" (can I use the word lust on this site?) long since withered on the vine.

A pox upon Nottinghmashire county council and Nanny, the sooner we are rid of them the better.

Feel free to vent your spleens upon Notimghamshire county council, via this link: complaints@nottscc.gov.uk.

Here is a list of Nottinghamshire county councillors, their email addresses are cllr.firstname.surname@nottscc.gov.uk, knock yourselves out!

Big Brother

George Orwell's vision of a future, outlined in his book "1984", where the state monitors everything you do and say has become a reality.

Ironically this reality is happening within yards of where he used to live.

Britain now has 4.2 million CCTV cameras, that's one for every 14 people in the country and 20% of cameras globally.

Outside of Orwell's flat 27B overlooking Canonbury Square in Islington, North London, there are 32 CCTV cameras within a 200 yard radius.

The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) recently produced a report highlighting the growing army of CCTV cameras, and warning that these "security systems" were:

"vulnerable to abuse, including bribery of staff

and computer hackers gaining access to it".

Professor Nigel Gilbert, one of the authors, believes that further installations should be stopped until the need for them is proven.

Even Nanny's own Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has warned that use of CCTV and other information-gathering was

"creating a climate of suspicion".

It may be a solution to apply the same strict planning laws, applicable to buildings, to the installation of CCTV cameras.

However, there is some good news, those morons who are so desperate to get themselves on the retarded Big Brother show no longer need to try; they are on TV 24 hours a day anyway, wherever they go.

CATARENA

Announcing a new website.

Croydon Against The Arena (www.catarena.org) is a site dedicated to opposing Croydon Council's plans to build an arena on land adjacent to East Croydon station.

This site has been created to provide a news source and public forum for the citizens of Croydon who are opposed to the plans of Croydon Council and Arrowcroft to compulsory purchase the land adjacent to East Croydon station, in order to construct an arena.

All contributions, news items and comments welcome.

The Health and Safety Gestapo

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo are up to their old tricks again, by using "risk assessments" in order to try to control people's freedom.

The good people of Otley are up in arms about plans by Leeds council, to fence off a river in Wharfemeadows Park. In fact the residents are so "peeved" (can I use a word containing "pee"?) that they have set up the Wharfemeadows Action Group(WAG).

The cost to the taxpayer of this fence, by the way, will be £165K.

WAG are claiming that Leeds Council has grossly over-estimated the risks posed by the river, and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA), which has advised the council, has got the law wrong.

WAG have at least managed to delay Nanny, Leeds council has recently promised a consultation period and a public meeting ahead of any final decision.

WAG persuaded the council to delay, by presenting them with a document outlining 10 reasons why it believes the council has got it wrong.

WAG describe the RoSPA report, on which the council's plan is based was, as:

"seriously flawed and ignored several important

legal precedents and Law Lords' judgments."

WAG member Linda Lukats said:

"In view of the overwhelming opposition from

the people of Otley to RoSPA's misguided and

excessive recommendations, we were not surprised

to hear that the council are now considering alternative proposals.

Unfortunately nobody has yet had the courtesy

or good sense to provide the people of Otley

with the details of these revised plans

and so we are not in a position to comment on them.

The campaign continues."

Seemingly one of Nanny's real concerns is the danger of someone falling into the water, or rather the danger of the council being sued by someone who falls into the water.

So they don't give a stuff about the person, just their bank balance!

WAG say:

"The council has misled itself into thinking

that it would be legally liable for any injury

from entering the water unless it took the utmost pains

to make it physically difficult to get into the water.

This is incorrect."

RoSPA's head of leisure safety, Peter Cornall, is unconvinced by WAG. He is most worried about the weir.

Quote:

"There is a significant hazard in the

middle of the site (the weir) that would

need some kind of edge protection."

ROSPA say that coping stones only 6in high were all that prevented people going into the weir waters, and these stones were a trip hazard.

Aha...the old "trip hazard"!

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition against the fence plans.

WAG will present the petition at a meeting of the council on April 18.

Nanny needs to understand that she cannot zeroise risk.

People will always do stupid things, and no matter what barriers Nanny erects; stupid people will try to circumvent them.

How many times do we hear of thick as shit teenagers running along railway lines, or climbing pylons?

A full an enjoyable life can only be had where you manage risk, not zeroise it.

The trouble with Nanny and her minions in her local councils is that they don't use commonsense, and that they don't give a damn about the quality of their "charges'" lives.

Two Fingers To Nanny

There has been some recent news in the fight against Nanny that is, for once, reasonably encouraging.

I have long suspected that the "enthusiasm" with which some parking wardens affix parking tickets is not driven by a sense of duty, but more the sense of greed of the local councils who insentivise the warden to milk the cash cow of the car owners dry.

I also suspect that I am not alone in thinking this, after all the Nanny state is an expensive beast to maintain; Nanny has to find ever more dubious methods to raise revenue, as her personal expenses rise ever skywards.

Anyhoo, High Court judges recently ruled that businessman Simeon Ademolake does not have to pay a £50 fine, because the warden had not placed the ticket on his car before he drove off.

Mr Ademolake has spent two years fighting this case. The ruling means that many others may now be entitled to claim back their parking fines.

Mr Ademolake said:

"This was an important point of principle.

Parking wardens cannot break the law.

They'll now think twice about illegally putting tickets on cars.

The system has been driven by raising cash,

not keeping roads clear. And that's wrong.

They act as if motorists are breaking the law.

But it is they who are in the wrong."

Motoring groups have stated that many tickets are issued as drivers return to their cars to find a warden writing out the ticket, yet they still issue the ticket even though the motorist drives off before it is fully written out and placed on the vehicle.

Mr Ademolake received the £50 fine through the post, after he stopped his car briefly on a red route on Commercial Road in London's Whitechapel in June 2005.

He disputed the charge and took it to the independent adjudicator, the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.

It ruled in his favour, after he explained that the warden had not issued a ticket by placing it on the car or handing it to him.

However, Transport for London chose to ignore this and refused to abide by the adjudication. They chose to contest it in the High Court, which rejected its case.

Mr Ademolake said:

"I was actually parked in a loading bay,

but one of my rear wheels was on a red line.

I had only popped into a shop for five minutes

and when I came out I apologised to the warden.

I could see he hadn't started writing the ticket

so I said I would move the car and got in.

He said he had to give me a ticket,

but I knew I was within my rights and drove off.

The adjudicators said I was in the right

because I hadn't tried to obstruct the warden

or prevent him from doing his job.

Transport for London have wasted a lot of time

and money appealing this when they knew they were wrong."

Transport for London said:

"We issued this penalty notice in good faith

following a contravention on a red route

and will be closely reviewing the details of the judgment."

The case means that wardens will now have to put the ticket on the car, or hand it to the driver, for it to be valid.

The number of parking tickets issued rose by nearly 20% last year, to a record high of more than 3.4 million.

The rise is driven by Nanny's councils milking the motorist, after taking over responsibility for parking enforcement from the police.

As I have often asked before; what precisely do local councils add to their communities other than red tape, mind numbing obstinacy and increased taxes?

Nanny Bans Hot Cross Buns Again

Easter has come and gone and much like Easter being a regular event, Nanny has come up with a seasonal banning order just right for the occasion.

Nanny's twats running Poole Hospital Dorset banned staff from handing out hot cross buns over the Easter period.

Why?

Nanny feels this might upset non-Christians.

Few points here:

1 So farking what?

2 Easter is a Christian festival, as far as I was aware Britain is still a secular Christian country?

3 Non Christians can hand out whatever they want during their festivals, so why can't Christians?

4 This is insulting to non Christians, as it implies they are small minded bigots; and is guaranteed to make them feel isolated and threatened.

The catering staff at the hospital sent an email in disgust to their local paper on Good Friday.

Quote:

"We the kitchen staff of Poole Hospital

were disgusted to find that the patients

were not getting hot cross buns this morning.

The manager of the catering department said

he was worried about the ethnic minorities that work here."

Another point here..."ethnic minorities" can be Christians too...it's not the preserve of the white middle classes. Indeed, on the converse, I could be a practising satanist for that matter.

The twats running the hospital gave in, eventually, and buns were distributed on Easter Monday.

Poole Hospital NHS Trust claims that the delay in buns delivery was due to an oversight:

"We do apologise to patients who missed out

on their hot cross buns on Good Friday.

This was due to an oversight by the catering manager

who forgot to order them in time.

It was nothing to do with religious beliefs.

The buns were handed out on Easter Monday instead."

Well that's plausible, isn't it?

Prat of The Week

Having had a most indulgent Easter, I feel suitably enthused to award another of my prestigious "Prat of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to Nanny's armed forces minister, Des Browne. Des has had something of a bumpy ride over the past few weeks, and has managed to massively mismanage the situation in spectacular fashion.

Firstly, 15 service personnel were kidnapped by the Iranians and publicly paraded to the world's media, capitulating and apologising for their alleged "transgressions".

Quite how it is that their support ship and support helicopter did not provide them with support, warn them of the approach of the Iranians and then protect them is beyond me.

May we expect Nanny to provide us with a public explanation of this shameful debacle?

May we fark!

Then, as if the humiliation were not bad enough, Degsey allowed these 15 people to sell their stories to the media.

The fact that up until now people serving in the armed forces have been forbidden from selling their stories, unless they were recounting a tale of spectacular heroism (I don't think our 15 can claim that), seems to have escaped Degsey.

It also seemed to have escaped his notice that our guys are getting shot at and killed on a regular basis in Iraq, and that selling stories is highly offensive to those on active duty and their families.

However, Degsey was not finished in digging an early grave for himself, he has now banned serving personnel from selling their stories. Two of the 15 have already done so, but the remaining 13 will not be able to.

Is this man a prat, or what?

Feel free to drop him a note browned@parliament.uk

Happy Easter

Happy Easter everyone!

I will be stuffing a large bird later today, roasting it tomorrow and boiling two smoked gammons.

Have it large.

Ken

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is Father

I am gratified to see that a study, commissioned by Nanny herself, has proven what I have been saying many times; namely that the state should not be rearing children, parents should.

Nanny's study (performed by the University of Oxford and the Institute for Fiscal Studies) evaluated Nanny's £370M Neighbourhood Nurseries Scheme. The research found that toddlers, who went to these places full time, were likely to become "anti social", bossy and selfish.

As I have often stated, like it or not, the best people to rear children are the parents not the state.

Mankind has done pretty well over the past 150,000 years or so, by following the natural order of parental rearing. When the state tries to replace the parents you get hideous consequences, eg Nazi Germany.

Nanny should keep her beak out of the family.

The Wirral Egg Run II

Congratulations to the organisers and participants in the 2007 Wirral Egg Run, for overcoming Nanny's attempts to stop this annual event (it has been running for 25 years, without the approval of Nanny). FYI this event has been featured before on this site, please click on the tag at the end of this article to read about earlier years.

This year's Egg Run (held on 1st April 2007), the first time that it was deemed to be "official" by Nanny's minions, attracted over 8,000 bikers with bikes of all ages, shapes and sizes driven by people dressed as chickens and rabbits.

However, Nanny did manage to get her fingers in the pie; she charged every biker £1 this time.

Why?

To cover the "costs" of Nanny "policing" the event (there has never been any trouble in the last 25 years), and to offset the local council's "costs".

The fact that the event was for charity seems to have passed Nanny by in her ceaseless quest to milk her "charges" dry.

Nanny's Child Catchers

In Nanny's ceaseless quest to tag, categorise and record every aspect of our lives and ourselves, she is now getting her teeth into children.

Bliary Poppins herself has decreed that children could face compulsory checks, to discover if they are at risk of turning into criminals.

I guess someone will be reading bumps on their heads, or slaughtering a goat and checking the entrails to see who is the criminal then?

Nanny intends to check at important stages in a child's life, such as the move from primary to secondary school.

Nanny said that she wants to:

"Establish universal checks throughout a child's development

to help service providers to identify those most at risk of offending.

These checks should piggyback on existing

contact points such as the transition to secondary schools."

Nanny did not specify as to whether police or probation officers would be involved in the process.

Nanny also intends to expand her DNA database, to include:

"all suspected offenders who come into contact with the police".

That means that all Nanny has to do is to "suspect" you, then she can add you to her database.

Happy about that?

I'm not.

Do you trust her not to abuse the data that she gathers?

I don't.

Prat of The Week

This week's prestigious "Prat of The Week" Award goes to Nanny's Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt.

She helpfully contributed to the efforts to release the British service personnel, kidnapped by the Iranians, by saying:

"It was deplorable, that the woman hostage

should be shown smoking. This sends completely

the wrong message to our young people."

Forgive me, but has this woman got a brain at all?

The issue, madam, is not their smoking...but their kidnapping.

Patricia Hewitt without a doubt deserves the award "Prat of The Week", doubtless the Iranians would be laughing themselves sick to hear her vies on this matter.

Hewitt has a rather crappy website, which has a contact page...here it is Contact Hewitt

Can you spot the problem boys and girls?

Yes, that's right, it doesn't work.

Why does Patricia Hewitt not want people contacting her?

Don't worry folks, here is her email address hewittph@parliament.uk, please drop her a line asking her why she doesn't like to be contacted.

Feel free to tell her she has won an award.

Oh, and don't forget to suggest to her that maybe our service personnel currently being held hostage probably don't give a flying fark what she thinks about them smoking.

Let's see her volunteer to go out there and take their places!

Whilst we are on the subject, could someone from Nanny's MOD please answer the following questions:

1 Why did the support vessel not keep in visual contact with the boarding party?

2 Why did the support vessel not see, on radar/visually, the approach of the Iranians?

3 Why did the naval helicopter, maintaining watch over the operation, have insufficient fuel to maintain its "oversight" position during the boarding, and return to the support vessel whilst the service personnel were still on board the the Indian vessel?

Something in this sorry fiasco stinks!

What's the real story here?

Nanny Denies The Holocaust

Nanny, as I keep reminding you, is very concerned about people offending other people; she really does not think that people should be offended in any way, shape or form.

The trouble is, life is simply not like that. People regularly offend each other, sometimes accidentally and sometimes deliberately. What marks someone out as being a decent human being, or simply a scumbag, is how they deal with a situation or person that they find to be offensive.

Suffice to say, a well educated intelligent person will shrug it off and move on with their lives.

Uneducated, narrow minded dolts will go on and on about it; until they have forced the state to intervene.

Whilst people may be capable of creating offence, nothing offends the ignorant more that the truth. The truth has a nasty habit of knocking an ignorant person's belief system into the gutter. Ignorant people don't like that, for you see they have nothing in their lives but their ignorance; take that away, and you eradicate the "personality" and "raison d'etre" of the ignorant.

Here we now come to rather an unpleasant Nanny ban, so worried is she about offending Muslims that some of her schools have decided to stop teaching about the Holocaust in history lessons.

Seemingly some of Nanny's teachers are avoiding discussing the Holocaust, lest it "upset" students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

How can someone have a "belief system" that includes denial of an historical event?

By the way, Eisenhower very wisely made sure that the local populations who lived near to Belsen etc were all forced to visit them; so that there would be no attempt to deny the reality in later years.

In addition to avoidng the Holocaust, these "misguided" teachers are also avoiding discussing the 11th century Crusades.

Why?

Seemingly the lessons contradict what is taught in local mosques.

Is this all just a fantasy?

Are these stories of teachers dropping the Holocaust merely unsubstantiated anecdotes?

No.

The findings come from a study funded by Nanny's Department for Education and Skills (a laughable description for this department, given the appalling ignorance of our hapless and ill taught children), which looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

The report concluded:

"In particular settings, teachers of history

are unwilling to challenge highly contentious

or charged versions of history in which pupils

are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

Ignorance is best tackled head on, by ramming the truth down people's throats.

A country that avoids teaching the truth to its children, for fear of upsetting the ignorant, will most surely create a generation of spiteful ignorant dullards who will sleepwalk into dictatorship.

Mark my words, the next steps on the road to dictatorship will be book burnings of those texts that challenge the ignorants' view of history.