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, April 24, 2007

Nanny Bans Ponies

Nanny Bans PoniesNanny 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?


  1. I have no idea how the political campaigns of council representatives in England are funded, but when I read something like this, I immediately suspect "collusion" between the council representatives and the insurers.

    This just goes to show you how paranoid, i.e. skeptical, i.e. realistic I've become. I blame modern life for this and would like to know whom I may sue for this "maiming" of my formerly cheerful and trusting disposition.

    Oh and by the way, banning ponies and donkeys from Horsham or anywhere else is 100% bollocks! I suggest that Sussex Horse Rescue sue the District Council on the grounds that this prohibition forbidding ponies and donkeys from "mix[ing] with human beings on the street" is grossly speciest and violates the letter and spirit of EU legislation on this matter.

    I bet the District Council grovels and backs down.

  2. Anonymous4:38 PM

    I can only assume that this government has now legislated against every single human action and is now moving on to animals and robots. Seriously - robots -

  3. Anonymous5:19 PM

    Why don't they just leave the collection buckets at home and take the donkeys out anyway. I can't see them being able to stop that otherwise every horse rider or farmer would be in trouble when they venture out onto the highway. Not to mention the hundreds of donks that roam the New Forest.

  4. The price always seems to be five million,it is just to put it beyond reach of the ordinary individual,it is the same case as when a nationalist party wishes to use trafalgar square for a demonstration,again five million, and yet the looney left and the foreigners who want to kill us, can use it for free

  5. Anonymous8:13 PM

    "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?"

    Because councils really do believe that they own everything and everyone in the area they cover and are responsible for everything that happens therein. I know, I worked for one (Croydon actually, sorry about that.)

  6. Anonymous10:45 PM

    5 Million seems to be the going number - saves having to consider each case on its merit I suppose and means the insurance companies have efectively established a cartel of sorts at the behest of someone else.

    Also it means they can somply pay up without worrying to much about the amount since they will have grabbed the premiums and incurred little cost to assess the risk.

    Nice 'business' if you can get it.

    I have a business liability policy for part of my activity that has £2 million risk cover and insures some equipment against loss (a few grand's worth.) I fully expect that cover to increase this year to require the standard £5 million. In fact I suspect that some of the places that I may wish to make use of the equipment commercially will themselves insist on £5million cover - and they are not all councils.

    Apparently the 'compensation culture' is to blame.

    The culture supported and promoted by Nanny and her minions, if I am not mistaken.