Gasping For a Fag

My commiserations to all you fag lovers out there...

Editor's note

For reference, especially for my American readership, fag in this case means cigarette!

Today is the last day that you can have a relaxing fag in a public place (eg pub, bar, club etc). As from tomorrow Nanny's new anti smoking rules come into effect in England.

Even the hallowed Smoking Room of my club (The East India) will have to ban smoking (note, the room will still be called "The Smoking Room").

All very silly, we are adults and should be allowed to go to the devil in our own way. I certainly have quite a few methods of going to the devil!

Unfortunately, Nanny does not believe in freedom of choice.

Whilst I do not smoke myself, I believe that others should be allowed to do so. I also have a view that the exhaust from cars are far more likely to damage our health, than even the smokiest of bars. However, you will never see Nanny banning cars.

Now that she has dispensed with smoking, her next target is drinking; then comes meat eating.

Mark my words, Nanny will do her best to ban these pleasures as well.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
The they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller



So there we have it ladies and gentlemen, another freedom has been eroded.

Whilst we contemplate this, let us list the various terms for smoking and cigarettes; I will start you off:

-Having a fag
-Tabs
-Death sticks

Please add to the list.

No More Heroes

Poor old Prince Charles, not only does Sainsbury's ban his carrots, but Nanny bans his choice of road names for Poundbury.

Poundbury is the Prince's "model village" in Dorset. All Charles wanted to do was to give some recognition to local war heroes, by naming the streets after them. The Prince also hoped to commemorate battles in which the local regiment, known as the Dorsets, took part.

Unfortunately, this being Nanny Britain, nothing is ever as simple as that. Nanny's chums on Dorchester Town Council's planning committee (ah yes, another local council making a thorough nuisance of itself!) rejected the suggestions. Instead they want to have the streets named after farms owned by the Duchy of Cornwall estate.

All very well, but Poundbury is not a "farming village", therefore naming the streets after farms has no special relevance.

Fiona Kent-Ledger, the chairman of the planning committee, said:

"We just suggested to the Duchy that we didn't think

they were suitable names for Poundbury.

The Duchy came to us when the development first started,

asking us about what we thought of street names.

They came up with the idea of using Duchy estates

and farms as names and we thought that was very fitting.

Because of this we didn't think it was suitable

to now put up names associated with the

Devonshire and Dorset Regiment in Poundbury.

It is not for political reasons.

It is just trying to be practical about where

names are used because once they are there,

they are there forever."

She said that no vote had been taken, because it was obvious that everyone was in agreement.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else reading the above "explanation" from the council, but I am none the wiser as to why they have rejected the suggested names. It seems to me that the decision was based on a political motive.

The snub has infuriated local veterans, who say that it is an insult to brave men and women who were prepared to give their lives for their country.

Derek Julian, a former Dorset regiment soldier, who fought in Korea and proposed the names to the Duchy, said:

"This decision has brought shame on Dorchester.

The council has insulted the regiment

and veterans are appalled".

The list of names included Victoria Cross winners and a trooper who survived the Charge of the Light Brigade.

If Dorset won't honour their names, we can at least do so on this site.

The names included Trooper Thomas Warr, who rode with the 600 members of the Light Brigade into the "Valley of Death" at the Battle of Balaclava; Private Samuel Vickery, of the Dorsetshire Regiment, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for the daring rescue of a comrade under fire during an action in India in 1897; and Captain Lionel Queripel, who was seriously wounded at Arnhem in 1944 but stayed behind to help to cover the retreat of his men.

Private Samuel Vickery, of the 1st Battalion Dorsetshire Regiment was awarded the Victoria Cross for the rescue of a comrade under enemy fire in India in 1897

Trooper Thomas Warr, who died in Dorchester in 1916 aged 87, was one of the last survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade when the British cavalry was cut to pieces by Russian guns during the Battle of Balaclava in 1854. Old Tom died penniless in Dorchester in 1916 and was soon forgotten but his grave was refurbished before a special ceremony by his old regiment last year

Seaman Joseph Kellaway, a Dorset-born Royal Navy boatswain, won the Victoria Cross in the Crimea in 1855 after taking on 50 Russians almost single-handed. He landed in a small boat on the shores of the Sea of Azov with orders to burn some haystacks and a farm building. Within minutes Kellaway and four seamen from HMS Wrangler were surrounded by soldiers. Despite a furious onslaught of musket fire Kellaway, 29, went to the aid of two wounded comrades and held off the Russians until his powder ran dry. Kellaway, was presented with the newly instituted Victoria Cross by Queen Victoria at a ceremony in Hyde Park.

Captain Lionel Queripel, of the 10th Parachute Battalion, was wounded in the face and arms by withering German fire during nine hours of fierce fighting at Arnhem in 1944. He was awarded a posthumous VC for fighting on with hand grenades and a revolver to cover the retreat of his men. He was not seen alive again.

Captain Gerald O'Sullivan won the VC for leading an attack on a Turkish trench during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. He was killed two months later.

Sarah Sands was a troop ship which caught fire in the Indian Ocean in 1857. Queen Victoria honoured the Dorsets who helped to fight the blaze.

Funny though, that despite Nanny's distaste for honouring battles and soldiers, she still sends our young men out to die in foreign fields.

Dorchester Council should hang their heads in shame.

Illegal CCTV

Hah!

I can't but resist a self satisfied "ejaculation" (can I say that here?) of

"HAH!"

For why?

I will tell you.

It would seem that, according to the watchdog CameraWatch, the vast majority of Britain's CCTV cameras are operating illegally or are in breach of privacy guidelines.

A large proportion of the UK's 14.2 million cameras breach the Data Protection Act and so are illegal, according to CameraWatch.

CameraWatch's chairman Gordon Ferrie, a former policeman, said recently:

"Our research shows that up to

90 per cent of CCTV installations

fail to comply with the Information Commissioner's

code of practice, and that

many installations are operated illegally.

That has profound implications

for the reputation of the CCTV and camera

surveillance industry and all concerned with it.

There is nothing better than actually seeing

someone commit the crime.

All we are asking is that the images that are

taken are compliant with the Data Protection Act."

Under the code of practice and according to the Data Protection Act, CCTV cameras must be visible with clear signs. In addition, camera operators have an obligation to stop images of individuals being seen by third parties.

Mr Ferrie said that operators most commonly breach these rules by not keeping recorded tapes secure, meaning they could potentially be stolen.

Nanny's Information Commissioner's Office has denied that CCTV rules are being broken on a large scale.

Ken Macdonald, Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland, said:

"We welcome the initiative by CameraWatch

to promote compliance with the Data Protection Act.

We are not aware of any evidence that

supports the suggestion that 90 per cent

of CCTV cameras are not complying with

the ICO Code of Practice.

We don't believe there is any such evidence.

Where we receive complaints that CCTV

is being used in breach of the Data Protection Act

we will investigate.

We have a range of enforcement powers at our disposal."

Well he would say that, wouldn't he?

The New Nanny Store

Here we go folks, come and buy the new range of T shirts, coffee mugs, dog coats, mouse mats, badges etc all featuring the new Nanny Knows Best logo.

These wonderful products make the ideal gift for friends, family and Gordon himself.

Buy them here Nanny

Classic Nanny items, featuring Bliary Poppins, can still be bought here Nanny Classic

Happy shopping!

Nanny Knows Best Welcomes The New PM

The design team at Nanny Knows Best have been working through the night to finalise the new logo for the site, in honour of Prime Minister Brown's unelected ascension to orifice.

Needless to say, this fine design will soon be available for sale on T shirts, mugs and other bits and bobs.

To really appreciate the logo, at its best, why not sing along to "A Gordon For Me"?

The tune can be listened to via this link "A Gordon For Me".

Educashun

I recently came across this open letter written by a physics teacher, Wellington Grey, and posted on his website.

He decries the failures of Nanny's physics exam system, and questions the relevance of the questions asked on the subject.

I suspect there are teachers, of other subjects, throughout the country who could write equally damning letters about Nanny's failing educashun system.

For once, I will shut up and let someone else do the talking.

Here is Wellington Grey's letter in full:

"I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics. My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn’t cover anything I recognize as physics. Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it with… something else, something nebulous and ill defined. I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about the state of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physics teachers — if there will be any.

I graduated from a prestigious university with a degree in physics and pursued a lucrative career in economics which I eventually abandoned to teach. Economics and business, though vastly easier than my subject, and more financially rewarding, bored me. I went into teaching to return to the world of science and to, in what extent I could, convey to pupils why one would love a subject so difficult.

For a time I did. For a time, I was happy.

But this past academic year things changed. The Department for Education and the AQA board brought in a new syllabus for the sciences. One which greatly increased the teaching of `how science works.’ While my colleagues expressed scepticism, I was hopeful. After all, most pupils will not follow science at a higher level, so we should at least impart them with a sense of what it can tell us about our universe.

That did not happen

The result is a fiasco that will destroy physics in England.

The thing that attracts pupils to physics is its precision. Here, at last, is a discipline that gives real answers that apply to the physical world. But that precision is now gone. Calculations — the very soul of physics — are absent from the new GCSE. Physics is a subject unpolluted by a torrent of malleable words, but now everything must be described in words.

In this course, pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power. Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about the topics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants, without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.

I want to teach my subject, to pass on my love of physics to those few who would appreciate it. But I can’t. There is nothing to love in the new course. I see no reason that anyone taking this new GCSE would want to pursue the subject. This is the death of physics.

Specific Complaints:
My complaints about the new syllabus fall into four categories: the vague, the stupid, the political, and the non-science.

The Vague:
The specification provided by the AQA (available at their website) is vaguely worded. Every section starts with either the phrase ‘to evaluate the possible hazards and uses of…’ or ‘to compare the advantages and disadvantages of…’ without listing exactly what hazards, uses, advantages or disadvantages the board actually requires pupils to learn. The amount of knowledge on any given topic, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, could fill an entire year at the university level. But no guidance is given to teachers and, as a result, the exam blindsides pupils with questions like:

Suggest why he [a dark skinned person] can sunbathe with less risk of getting skin cancer than a fair skinned person.

To get the mark, pupils must answer:

More UV absorbed by dark skin (more melanin)
Less UV penetrates deep to damage living cells / tissue
Nowhere does the specification mention the words sunscreen or melanin. It doesn’t say pupils need to know the difference between surface dead skin and deeper living tissue. There is no reason any physics teacher would cover such material, or why any pupil should expect to be tested on it.

The Stupid:
On topics that are covered by the specification, the exam board has answers that indicate a lack of knowledge on the writer’s part. One question asks `why would radio stations broadcast digital signals rather than analogue signals?’ An acceptable answer is:

Can be processed by computer / ipod [sic]
Aside from the stupidity of the answer, (iPods, at the time of this writing, don’t have radio tuners and computers can process analogue signals) writing the mark scheme in this way is thoughtless, as teachers can only give marks that exactly match its language. So does the pupil get the mark if they mention any other mp3 player? Technically, no. Wikipedia currently lists 63 different players. Is it safe to assume that the examiner will be familiar with all of them? Doubtful.

If the question is not poorly worded, or not covered in the specification, it will be insultingly easy. The first question on a sample paper started:

A newspaper article has the heading: ‘Are mobiles putting our children at risk?’ A recent report said that children under the age of nine should not use mobile phones…

The first question on the paper was:

Below which age is it recommended that children use a mobile phone in emergencies only?

This is the kind of reading comprehension question I would expect in a primary school English lesson, not a secondary school GCSE.

The Political:
The number of questions that relate to global warming is appalling. I do not deny that pupils should know about the topic, nor do I deny its importance. However, it should not be the main focus of every topic. The pupils (and their teachers) are growing apathetic from overexposure.

A paper question asked: `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ This is a political question. Worse yet, a political statement. I’m not saying I disagree with it, just that it has no place on a physics GCSE paper.

Pupils are taught to poke holes in scientific experiments, to constantly find what is wrong. However, never are the pupils given ways to determine when an experiment is reliable, to know when an experiment yields information about the world that we can trust. This encourages the belief that all quantitative data is unreliable and untrustworthy. Some of my pupils, after a year of the course, have gone from scientifically minded individuals to thinking, “It’s not possible to know anything, so why bother?” Combining distrust of scientific evidence with debates won on style and presentation alone is an unnerving trend that will lead society astray.

The Non-scientific:
Lastly, I present the final question on the January physics exam in its entirety:

Electricity can also be generated using renewable energy sources. Look at this information from a newspaper report.

The energy from burning bio-fuels, such as woodchip and straw, can be used to generate electricity.
Plants for bio-fuels use up carbon dioxide as they grow.
Farmers get grants to grow plants for bio-fuels.
Electricity generated from bio-fuels can be sold at a higher price than electricity generated from burning fossil fuels.
Growing plants for bio-fuels offers new opportunities for rural communities.
Suggest why, apart from the declining reserves of fossil fuels, power companies should use more bio-fuels and less fossil fuels to generate electricity.


The only marks that a pupil can get are for saying:

Overall add no carbon dioxide to the environment
Power companies make more profit
Opportunity to grew new type of crop (growing plants in swamps)
More Jobs
None of this material is in the specification, nor can a pupil reliably deduce the answers from the given information. Physics isn’t a pedestrian subject about power companies and increasing their profits, or jobs in a rural community, it’s is about far grander and broader ideas.

Conclusion:
My pupils complained that the exam did not test the material they were given to study, and they are largely correct. The information tested was not in the specification given to the teachers, nor in the approved resources suggested by the AQA board. When I asked AQA about the issues with their exam they told me to write a letter of complaint, and this I have done. But, rather than mail it to AQA to sit ignored on a desk, I am making it public in the hope that more attention can be brought to this problem.

There is a teacher shortage in this country, but if a physicist asked my advice on becoming a teacher, I would have to say: don’t. Don’t unless you want to watch a subject you love dismantled.

I am a young and once-enthusiastic physics teacher. I despair at what I am forced to teach. I have potentially thirty years of lessons to give, but I didn’t sign up for this — and the business world still calls. There I won’t have to endure the pain of trying to animate a crippled subject. The rigors of physics have been torn down and replaced with impotent science media studies.

I beg of the government and the AQA board, please, give me back my subject and let me do my job.

Sincerely,

Wellington Grey"

Prats of The Week

It's Monday morning folks, and you know that that means don't you?

Yes, that right, it's time once again for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week's award goes to...yes, you've a guessed it....a local council!

How terribly predictable.

Isn't it about time that these failed bodies were put out of our misery once and for all, and a totally new system devised for local governance that is efficient, cost effective and accountable?

FYI, re "accountable" see what my local council (Croydon) has been up to with a property developer (CATARENA)

Anyhoo, I digress, the winners this week are two councils Blackburn and Darwen Council, who recently moved to smash a sinister counterfeit note operation that had been uncovered in Blackburn and Darwen.

Tow stores in the the towns had been discovered holding large stocks of counterfeit notes.

Very vigilant of the councils, I hear you say.

Unfortunately, there is one small fly in their oinkment. The notes were five, £10, £20 and £50, and were sold at four for a pound.

So far so good.

But.......The notes had the Queen's head replaced with a variety of pictures including Dr Who, David Beckham, Winnie the Pooh to Elvis and the Beatles.

Ahah!

Can you see the problem here?

Yes, that's right, the notes were novelty notes not counterfeits.

That didn't deter Nanny, her chums in the trading standards department insisted that the cash' could be mistaken for real money; and that it was a breach of the law to re-produce bank notes without the permission of the Bank of England.

The owner of store in Darwen from when they were taken, the Mega Pound Store, said there was no way it could be mistaken for real cash and that the "funny money" had been popular with children.

Quote:

"It's just funny money.

You can easily tell the difference

between these novelty notes and real ones.

We bought them in good faith and

they were a cracking line.

The kids loved them.

It's just political correctness gone mad.

There's no point arguing because

I am not going to get them back.

The guy I bought them from can't understand

why they are illegal."

Trading standards officers are still investigating the source of the notes, and are yet to decide whether to take further action.

Potty!

Surely there are more important issues to address?

Congrats to Blackburn and Darwen Council for their well deserved award!

Auntie and Nanny

Hah!

I couldn't but help smirk when I read that Nanny's chum Auntie is institutionally biased, according to an official report that was released this week just gone.

The report concludes a year long investigation, commissioned by Auntie (the BBC) herself, which has found that Auntie shows somewhat preferential favouritism towards her pet topics of single-issue politics eg; climate change, poverty, race and religion.

This bias extends to all areas including; news, drama, comedy and entertainment. The report notes that Auntie has a distasteful habit of "pandering" (given that pandas are on the edge of extinction, isn't that illegal?) to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

Sir Bob Geldof's Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign is targeted as being promoted by Auntie without any form of debate about the issues, eg does it actually help Afirca to throw shit pots full of money at it?

Even the Vicar of Dibley befouled itself when, in the last ever episode, Dawn French showed a minute-long clip of the Make Poverty History video.

It seems that the liberal culture of Auntie's staff, and their tendency to "group think" is the main cause of the problem. In other words they behave like automatons, who have no freedom of thought or imagination to think for themselves (Nanny is trying to get the rest of us to behave like that).

Quote:

"There is a tendency to 'group think'

with too many staff inhabiting a shared space

and comfort zone."

Seemingly staff have adopted a "Roneo mentality", where they ape each other's common liberal values.

Auntie's executives also admitted that they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away, but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anti countryside bias.

Auntie had better sharpen up, or else she will find that more people will refuse to pay her absurd licence fee.

Nanny Bans Barometers

Once considered to be a harmless, and rather quaint, object in people's homes; the barometer is now deemed by Nanny, and her acolytes, to be a major threat to mankind.

This time Nanny is being helped in her evil work by the "mother of all Nanny's"; the interfering, overpaid, unwanted, ineffective, bureaucratic and totally useless members of the European parliament.

(Editor's note: please feel free to add to the list of adjectives to describe the European parliament, and it's members).

Euro MPs (God bless their little cotton socks!) have decided to ban traditional barometers.

For why? I hear you ejaculate over your banned eggs (can I use the word ejaculate at this time of the morning?).

I shall tell you.

Barometers contain mercury, mercury is evil; therefore barometers must be banned.

The EU, dear readers, is working on banning all products containing mercury in the EU.

Personally I don't know what the fuss is about, I well remember playing with mercury in the school labs (rolling little globules of the stuff around the lab work surfaces etc); as you can see, it never did me any harm!

Anyhoo, Nanny Knows Best!

The EU's environment committee has rejected a bid to exclude barometers from the ban, needless to say the ban will also affect thermometers (what are you mean to insert into your orifices now, to check your temperature with?) and blood pressure gauges.

An amendment to the law supporting the continued manufacture of mercury barometers was passed in the European Parliament last November, but not supported by the member states.

Kudos to one member of the EU parliament who shows some vague signs of intelligence, British Conservative MEP Martin Callanan, he said:

"So the many thousands of people

up and down the country that have

an existing barometer cannot get it

repaired and will therefore throw it

away which will result in more

mercury entering the environment."

Quite!

Where exactly is one meant to dispose of one's stock of mercury then?

Should I pour mine down the toilet then?

Should I sell it to a third world country?

The people need answers!

British Labour MEP, Linda McAvan, true to form as an acolyte of Nanny welcomed the ban:

"Research has shown that even at low doses

mercury is extremely harmful to human health."

Madam, I refer you to my comment earlier about playing with mercury in the school labs.

On the subject of harmful substances, that I don't notice Nanny rushing to ban, what about the emissions from car engines?

That, I guarantee you, does more harm to our health and the health of the young than any number of mercury barometers.

Will Nanny be banning cars, car fumes and emissions?

Will she fark!

Once the legislation is adopted, manufacturers will have two years to switch to alternative ways of making thermometers, barometers, blood pressure gauges, marine instruments, and devices such as hygrometers for measuring humidity.

Some wall clocks have also traditionally been made with mercury.

The EU claim that it will not be illegal to own an old mercury barometer.

Pah!

I spit upon their promises!

How long will they keep their word on that then?

Knobheads - Nanny Bans Eggs

I have been writing articles for this site since September 2004 and, on occasions, one can be a tad "sensitised" to the nonsense of Nanny and not react with the full vigour, righteous indignation and ire that this old witch should provoke.

However, fear not, in this particular case my indignation is righteous, my ire is inflamed and my dander is up.

So incensed am I about this, that I am forgoing my prestigious "Prats of The Week" award and presenting the miscreants with my "Knobheads of The Year" award.

What has caused such a response in my normally mild mannered persona?

I shall tell you.

EGGS!

Yes, that's right, EGGS!

Harmless enough, you would have thought?

A nice meal or snack; fried, boiled, poached, scrambled raw etc...it's all good.

Not if you are Nanny's chums in the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC). They have decided that eggs are evil, and have banned the advertising of them.

The story begins 50 years ago, when eggs were advertised by Tony Hancock with the slogan:

"Go to work on an egg".

The British Egg Information Service (BEIS) had planned to re-broadcast these adverts to mark the 50th anniversary, and to get us to eat more eggs.

No problemo!

That is until Nanny's knobheads in the BACC, which vets television advertisements before they are screened, stuck their gnarled old noses into to the yolk and said that the campaign breached current Ofcom rules on promoting a varied diet.

Kristoffer Hammer, a BACC spokesman, whined that the issue was not whether a daily egg with your breakfast would be harmful; only that it should be served with fruit juice or toast.

"We are not questioning the effect

it would have on your health.

Our role is to ensure that advertising

that goes on television is in compliance

with the [Communications] act.

It's quite clear from the act that they should

be presented as part of a balanced diet."

What a bunch of knobheads!

As can be clearly seen in the adverts, Tony is eating the eggs with bacon, soldiers and tea. Why do we have to see juice and muesli as well?

Not everyone wants juice and muesli.

Also, do we not have other meals in the day?

The adverts are quite clearly not telling us to eat only eggs throughout the day for fark's sake!

The BEIS thinks this is a load of old bollocks:

"We have been shocked by this ruling,

as eggs are a healthy,

natural food which are recommended by nutritionists.

What's more, there are no restrictions

on the number of eggs people can eat,

which was recently confirmed by the Food Standards Agency,

and between five and seven eggs a week

would be totally acceptable for most people.

In addition, many other advertisers clearly

promote their products to be eaten every day,

such as breakfast cereals, so we are very surprised

that eggs have been singled out in this way."

FACTOID: I can eat 4 eggs in one sitting when having my multi component fry up!

Fay Weldon, who created the slogan, thinks the ban is bollocks as well:

"When you think of what can be run

and what is being run, like low-cost airlines

and cars ... Cars kill,

eggs aren't actually likely to do so."

As said, BACC well deserving the "Knobheads of The Year" award!

Take a trip down memory lane and watch Nanny's banned adverts here, careful that Nanny doesn't arrest you:

-Housekeeper

-Soul

-Burst Pipe

-Crossword

-Bill

-Englishman

-Star

-Violin

Sign the petition, asking for the adverts to be shown, here: Petition

Tell BACC that they are Knobheads here enquiries@bacc.org.uk

Prats of The Week

It is only Wednesday, yet I find myself having to award yet another "Prats of The Week" award.

Needless to say it goes to yet another useless, and failing, local council.

Seriously, can anyone think of the slightest reason why we allow these idiots to tax us and interfere into our lives?

Anyhoo, this week's second award goes to Midlothian Council, which is paying to keep the lights on in a disused school in case intruders break in and injure themselves.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

Seemingly, the "brains" in Midlothian council believe that it has a "duty of care" to protect anyone who enters the building.

Isn't this another example of a council trying to justify its existence, by ascribing to itself all manner of powers and responsibilities that it doesn't really have?

They are not Superman or Batman, are they?

Maybe we should stop taking these councils at their word, when they use the excuse of "we have a responsibility..." for jacking up council tax etc. It is time to confront them and point out that, like the emperor, they have no clothes.

Now where was I?

Oh yes, Dalkeith High School just outside Edinburgh, has been closed since 2004.

Midlothian council is currently in talks to sell the building. However, until title passes they keep some lights on (using timers) and ensure that a security guard checks the school twice a night.

Why?

A Midlothian council spokesman said:

"A small number of lights,

including some on timers,

are left on during the winter months

to protect any person moving around

the building from fall hazards.

Midlothian Council as owners of the property

have an obligation to do this under a common law

duty of care and in addition have a statutory

duty to do so imposed by the Occupier's Liability

(Scotland) Act 1960."

Errrmmmm...wouldn't anyone moving around the building, in the middle of the night, be there illegally then?

So, if they injure themselves, wouldn't it be their own fault?

So, why should we give a fark about them???

The council, needless to say, came to their decision after carrying out a risk assessment on the school when it closed. Much like Pavlov's dogs, I instinctively retch and reach for the sick bag now whenever I hear the phrase "risk assessment".

Anyhoo, the risk assessment (BLAAARGH!!! there I go again!) resulted in the council boarding up the ground floor windows to prevent access, keeping the building's burglar alarm and employing a security company to check it twice a night.

The cost to the taxpayer of this little exercise, since 2004, in preventing criminals from injuring themselves has been £3K on lighting and another £10K on security.

PJ Lewis, a former Conservative candidate for the area, goes straight for the jugular:

"It typifies the shoddy way the council

runs it assets and has handled

Dalkeith High School in particular.

All the lights are on and there is no

adequate management of access or controls against vandalism.

It's shocking, an unbelievable triple whammy,

with fire risk, expense and environmental waste."

Midlothian council, well deserved "Prats of The Week".

Drop them a note, to let them know that they have won: enquiries@midlothian.gov.uk

Dig For Victory

Britain is a tiny island, with a very large/excessive population (people per square mile) of around 60 million.

Feeding this population requires a well developed set of trade routes with the rest of the world, and the maximisation of agricultural output on British soil.

When crisis hits, such as in the last war (when our population was only 40 million), we have serious trouble feeding ourselves. During these times of crisis every available piece of land is turned over to producing food. Thus it was that allotments, a modest piece of land allocated to local town dwellers for vegetable and flower growing, really came into their own.

Dig For Victory!

Needless to say Nanny, because she is into organic "cafe latte" couscous ethically sourced at twice the price type shit, doesn't give a stuff about the humble allotment with its spuds and caulis.

Therefore local councils, such as the Parish Council of West Monkton Somerset, are free to "bugger up" yet another aspect of British life.

The council has demanded that local allotment holders take out millions of pounds of public liability insurance, thus forcing them to abandon their allotments.

The hapless allotment holders in West Monkton have been told to pay for protection in case someone trips over a turnip, or slips on a slug, and sues for compensation.

West Monkton is not alone in demanding money with menaces, other local authorities have been advised to follow suit.

The cost to local allotment holders, who rent their plots at £10 per annum, is an additional £400 per annum!

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens, thinks that the demand for money with menaces is a load of old bollocks:

"It's ridiculous.

It makes it not worth having an allotment.

The average plot holder can produce about £500 worth of food.

If they have to pay up to £400 in insurance,

plus the £50 cost of seeds and tools on top

there is no point in having an allotment.

A lot of people, particularly the retired

or those on low incomes, could not afford to pay

the extra cost of insurance.

A lot people would just give up.

It could mean the end of the Great British allotment.

We are at a time when demand for allotments is

at its highest since the Second World War."

Britain has an estimated 330,000 allotments which, if each charged £400, would rake in £132M per annum for the money grabbing councils/insurance companies.

As David Hampsey, of the National Vegetable Society, rightly observes:

"It's ridiculous to ask plot holders

to pay up to £400 in insurance.

It's just another way of making money

out of law-abiding citizens."

He has hit the nail on the head, it's another piss take from our ineffective and redundant local councils; who are using it as an excuse to raise more money so that they can afford to pay for their salaries, expense accounts and defined benefit pension funds.

The crisis came to a head the other week when 11 plot holders in West Monkton received letters telling them they must insure themselves against personal injury claims of up to £5M. The parish council clerk, Trish Cavill, said that the town hall was following advice from their insurer Allianz Cornhill.

The letter said each allotment owner must have public liability insurance "with a limited indemnity of no less than five million pounds."

Grower David Almond, allotment holder aged 70, said:

"This is utter nonsense.

The purpose of allotments was to

help poor families grow vegetables.

But it looks like the council wants

to push people out of them."

Needless to say West Monkton Parish Council are quick to blame the compensation culture for the need to insure allotments.

Mrs Cavill said:

"We live in a health and safety conscious age,

and we wanted to clarify the position for allotments.

The parish council's insurance covers the public walkways

and paths on the site but not the allotments themselves.

If someone trips on a bucket on a path,

the council is liable.

But if they trip over a bucket on an allotment,

the allotment holder is liable."

Errmmm...if I have read that correctly she has just said that it is the allotment holder that is liable?

Therefore is it not up to the allotment holder as to whether they take out £5M insurance cover?

Why does the council need to get itself involved in this?

Why does the council seem to think that it is responsible for everything that happens? (answer: because if people stopped to ask what does a local council really need to do, they would see that their council needs to do far less than it claims. We are being conned by our local councils into paying for services we don't want or need).

Reading her response it is clear that this has nothing to do with the council.

Allianz said that the company would advise all councils to urge allotment plot holders to have public liability insurance.

Well of course they would, they stand to earn £132M a year out of it!

Does not anyone in our "respected" local councils ever bother to challenge these money grabbing insurance companies?

Why does the cover need to be £5M? This amount is quoted now for all events and issues connected with local councils.

Why not £1M or £500K?

How accurate are the premiums of £400, taking into account the risks and likelihood of a £5M payout?

An Allianz spokesperson said:

"This type of cover is needed in case

someone gets injured at the allotment

and wants to sue the plot holder."

I refer her to my point above, about it being up to the allotment holder not the council or insurance company to dictate terms.

Seriously, does anyone really trust their council or insurance companies?

It is high time that people stood up to these parasites.

DIG FOR VICTORY!

Nanny Wastes Your Money

What use are con-sultants?

Prats of The Week

Tis a Monday morning, time methinks to award my prestigious and coveted "Prat of The Week" award.

This time it goes to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in Wales.

Seemingly Nanny's chums in the Welsh branch of the CRE have got their knickers in a right old twist, over the speaking of Welsh.

You may recall a wee while ago that Nanny banned her own minions in the civil service from speaking Welsh, because it was a health and safety risk to their vocal boxes.

However, now the boot is on the other foot; isn't it funny with Nanny how she keeps changing the rules, so that whatever we do or think we are always in the wrong?

The CRE says that it will write to Thomas Cook asking the firm to explain why staff have been asked not to speak Welsh.

Staff at the travel agents' Bangor shop in Gwynedd have recently been told all work conversations must be in English.

Thomas Cook told staff they must conduct business conversations in English, as it is the UK's common language.

They have a point do they not?

I mean, English is what we are all meant to speak isn't it???

WRONG!!!

The Welsh Language Board thinks otherwise, and has said it was "disappointed" and it would ask the company to change its position.

Thomas Cook confirmed the policy applied to all non-English languages, not just Welsh.

A company statement said:

"Thomas Cook requests that all staff speak English

when discussing work-related matters in the work place.

This ensures clear communication at all times

and is respectful to team members who do not speak other languages.

Thomas Cook employs staff from many cultural backgrounds,

therefore the company appreciates its staff

may want to talk to colleagues in other languages

for anything that is not business related".

To my simple mind, that seems a pretty fair and sensible policy.

However, Nanny has a different way of looking at things. The good old boys in the CRE in Wales have warned that the policy might be in breach of the Race Relations Act.

Note how they say "might", in the hope of intimidating Thomas Cook. Threats like this are always a nasty way to do things.

Wales Commissioner, the Reverend Aled Edwards, said the promotion of good relations was their "paramount concern".

Quote:

"The Commission for Racial Equality does have

a power to investigate through its legal committee

and also if it sees fit to start a formal investigation

but I think common sense and courtesy would be the best option."

Common sense and courtesy would dictate, from my perspective, that the CRE butt out of this.

Meri Huws, chair of the Welsh Language Board, said:

"a very surprising decision, in the light of the number

of private sector companies, large and small,

that are choosing to use the language

in terms of marketing, in terms of services

to their customers, and generally in

day-to-day work place activity".

The key point here is that it is up to the companies how they work to best serve the market. Thomas Cook have made their decision in good faith, and should be left in peace.

It can be assumed that the person who doubtless complained about this speaks perfectly good English, I wonder what the real motivation for the complaint was?

CRE Wales, well deserved "Prats of The Week".

Drop them an email, to let them know that they have won: InformationWales@cre.gov.uk

I couldn't find "prats" in an on line Welsh dictionary, but here is part of it in Welsh: "Prats am y wythnos".

Broken HIPs

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

HIPs

Madness II

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be all well and truly mad for allowing Nanny into our homes, into our lives and into our minds.

It seems that Nanny wishes to extend her "mind control" techniques (I raised this issue earlier, in my article about children being given psychological assessments at the tender age of 4) to drivers.

Nanny's chum Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), has called for psychological assessments to be made part of the UK driving test.

Seemingly these tests could help identify people with the "wrong attitude" to the road.

Quite what the "wrong attitude" is, seems to be a matter of debate.

Gifford is of the belief that the current driving test is inadequate, because it does not look for risk takers.

He believes that psychometric assessment would help identify such "faults", and instructors and examiners would then be able to modify the person's behaviour.

The key phrase that Gifford uses is "modify the person's behaviour". Nanny has no right to "modify" behaviour, if that behaviour is not illegal.

I realise that, at the moment, Nanny is merely "entertaining" this idea in respect of driving. However, fast forward a few years; she will undoubtedly then use her "risk modification" techniques (tested on driver) to modify all of our behaviour, in her never ceasing and impossible quest to eliminate risk.

Since when is risk taking a fault?

Many successful businesses, and indeed empires, have been built by risk takers. Were Nanny to succeed in eliminating risk takers from society, she would in effect destroy our future prosperity and future prospect.

Can you imagine a society populated entirely by "local council/health and safety" types?

PASS THE SICK BAG!!!

Gifford said recently:

"What one would want to do is

- in addition to the multiple choice questions

that there are in the theory test at the moment -

we would give people a series of value judgements.

These could include,

'At what speed would you anticipate driving down this road?'

or

'Have you ever left the traffic lights

while they have been on red?'.

We would ask people the extent to which they

agree or disagree with these statements.

It would be a way of picking up their underlying values

rather than just the facts that they have at their disposal,

which are a series of multiple choice questions."

Errmmmmm...call me stupid...but wouldn't even the dimmest of candidates simply answer "I have never left the traffic lights when they are red"?

Edmund King, the RAC Foundation's executive director, thinks that the idea is a load of bollocks:

"We accept we have to do more about young drivers

who are most at risk on the roads.

We are not opposed to new ideas but the concept of

psychometric testing is not the solution

and a bit of a gimmick, we would like to see

prior training in education."

Aggression and risk taking have driven the human race forward from the caves which they originally inhabited, to try to "modify" these valuable traits will destroy our future.

The Crimson Permanent Assurance

By special request, following on from my article about Nanny banning pirates, here is The Crimson Permanent Assurance.

Part One



Part Two

The Trouble With Chairs

Those of you with long memories may recall that I wrote about Greater Manchester fire service's rather strange chair edict last year.

You don't?

Oh well, let me refresh your memory.

Lats year Nanny's chums in the Greater Manchester Fire Service drew up a four-page safety manual, to instruct crews on how to sit in a reclining chair.

The story, as the old saying goes, doesn't end there...dear me no!

On the normal 15-hour night shift, firemen are allotted time to rest between emergencies and running through their training drills.

They are allowed to have a rest for up to three hours, but they are not allowed to go to sleep...errrr work that one out?

Those who work for the Greater Manchester fire service have been instructed that they can only rest in prescribed reclining chairs, only after they have been trained to use them of course.

It doesn't stop there.

It would seem that 3 "very naughty", but highly experienced firemen, are facing disciplinary action.

What was their crime?

Being drunk on duty?

No!

Being unfit to perform their duties?

No!

Being bolshy?

No!

Their crime was...wait for it...wait for it..."involvement in the use of unauthorised rest facilities".

The "naughty three" found it to be more to sleep on the hard station floor, than on one of Nanny's £400 reclining chairs.

Nanny's fire chiefs are looking into claims that the "naughty three" defied orders to rest only on the £400 reclining chairs, which were installed as a replacements for beds in Greater Manchester's 41 fire stations last year.

They are accused of breaking regulations, by deciding it was more comfortable to use their own sleeping bags and bed down on the floor.

Not unsurprisingly the unions have described the policy as ridiculous, saying their members are being treated like children.

When the chairs were installed the firemen were also told that they could only use specially issued blankets, not their own bedding.

The "naughty three", including a watch commander, were found to have breached the reclining chair orders after a locker inspection found sleeping bags stashed away.

Director of human resources, Anita Wainwright, said...seemingly with a straight face:

"Risk-assessed facilities have been provided

for rest only, not sleep.

However, if a firefighter were to doze off on the

rest facilities provided, a common sense approach is adopted."

"Risk assessed facilities"????

Whenever I hear the "risk assessment" phrase, I instinctively reach for my sick bag.

Why can't Nanny call a spade a spade?

Patronising Bullshit!

The firemen note that the chairs are not comfortable for a proper rest.

One is quoted as saying:

"This is bureaucracy gone barmy

We cannot use pillows on the chairs

and we cannot use our own blankets.

Airline blankets have been issued instead.

We do not mind being assessed on performance,

but being spied on like this leaves a nasty taste."

One day, Nanny's own house might burn down...who will rush to rescue her then?

Nanny Bans Pirates

Thirteen men on a dead man's chest,

Joh Hoh Hoh and a Bottle of Rum!

Or so the old saying goes.

Britain's wealth is based on the actions of pirates (state sponsored mercenaries who attacked Spanish galleons and colonies), such as Sir Walter Raleigh et al.

Yet now we see Nanny has decided to deny her own past, and ban pirates.

Out...bloody...rageous!

This is what six year old Morgan Smith (Capt Morgan was a pirate too!) found to his cost a wee while ago.

Morgan was getting ready for his sixth birthday party, and the hoisting of a pirate flag in the garden for the event (Morgan likes pirates).

The flag pole was duly erected (can I say erected on this site?), and the skull and cross bones run up the pole in the back garden. Morgan and his parents then waited for the day of the party, when his chums would turn up in eye patches wielding plastic cutlasses.

Unfortunately they reckoned without the intervention of the evil Stafford Borough Council.

For you see ladies and gentlemen, Stafford Borough Council is a local council; and we all know that local councils add zero value to the local community.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise to learn that Stafford Borough Council had something to say about the pirate flag.

Council officials branded the skull and crossbones flag "unneighbourly", and banned Morgan's parents Richard and Sharon from flying it.

It seems that the jobsworths in the council ordered Morgan's parents to apply for planning permission at a cost of £75 (have you noticed that local councils never miss a trick when it comes to screwing money out of their constituents?), and then they have to undertake an assessment of the 5ft by 4ft flag's "impact" on the surrounding area of Stone, Staffordshire.

As Morgan's dad said, citing the reality of the situation:

"It's not as though I'm building a huge extension

which will blight the neighbourhood.

It's a child's pirate flag."

Egg...zact....lee!!!

It's a flag for a child's party for fark's sake, it's not a permanent erection!

I will repeat, for the benefit of the morons from Stafford Borough Council.

It's a flag for a child's party for fark's sake, it's not a permanent erection!

Can I say erection here???

Ironically the family have flown the Union Jack or a St George's flag on the 18ft-high flagstaff at their detached home without a problem. Yet some SOB neighbour, clearly with nothing else in his/her life to do, complained to the council about the Jolly Roger.

It's people like that, who report on every little thing to the state, that enable Nanny to remain in power.

Mr Smith said:

"When the lady from the council came to see me

she said that it was no problem flying

any of the other flags,

it was the Jolly Roger that was of concern."

Councillor Richard Stevens (Lib Dem...that figures!) said the council had objected to the flag because:

"it was unneighbourly

and could open the doors for all kinds of flags".

Errmmmm...ever heard of using common sense, councillor, and taking each case on its own merits?

Silly me, common sense, what was I thinking of?

He's a councillor for fark's sake!

A Stafford Borough Council spokesman, with no sense of irony or pomposity, said:

"A planning application has been made for a Jolly Roger flag

to be flown at a property in Stone.

The application is currently under review

and will include planning officers looking

at the impact the flag has on the area,

with the decision expected by the end of this month.

Legislation requires planning approval

before it can be flown from the flagpole."

Do these people ever listen to, or read, what they say?

Don't they see how ridiculous they are?

Does this council have nothing better to do or spend the tax payers' money on???

Drop the council an email here, telling them what you think of them

- customerContactCentre@staffordbc.gov.uk

Drop councillor Steven a note here: prstevens@staffordbc.gov.uk

FYI, the Jolly Roger dates back to the 1700s when pirates would fly it to make their victims surrender readily.

I would also remind you, this being the 25th anniversary of the Falklands's victory, that the Jolly Roger was flown by H.M.S. Conqueror, the sub that sank the Belgrano, when she returned to Britain (as is the tradition of subs when they have successfully executed a kill).

Would Nanny have banned that too???

Prats of The Week

Methinks that it is time for another of my prestigious "Prats of The Week" awards.

Guess what?

It goes to yet another useless, bureaucratic, "jobs worth" council!

Maybe we should start a little list of all adjectives that apply to our "respected", "helpful" and "efficient" local councils?

Anyhoo, I digress, the good citizens of Utah Close (a cul de sac) in Glenfield Leicester are a tad pissed off with Leicestershire County Council.

For why?

The council had decided that the playing of football in the streets by the children of Utah Close (a practice that has been indulged in for many years) was dangerous, and therefore decided to ban it.

Seemingly it "posed a danger" to the public.

The children were banned from putting temporary goalposts in the street, even "jumpers for goalposts" had to be "removed from the road immediately" because they were classed as obstructions.

Not content with banning football, the council also decided that toys, bikes, and dolls must be removed; as they were a hazard too!

The council issued its diktat (can I use a word containing "dik" in it?) in a letter to the residents, warning them that they face a £100 fine if their sons and daughters flout the ban.

The authority hid behind Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 which states:

"Any person depositing anything on the highway

or playing football on the highway

is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine."

The ban was imposed even though no one who lives in the street complained about the children playing.

The residents said the youngsters were being robbed of their childhood, and called the ban an example of the nanny state gone mad.

Sales manager Ian Fenton, said:

"They are treating our children and us

as if we are criminals.

We want our children playing where we can see them.

We moved here so that there was a nice,

safe environment for them to play in,

where they could interact with

other children their own age.

Playing in the street is something

that has gone on for generations in this country.

Now the council want to take it away.

It's ludicrous."

It can be clearly seen that Nanny, by denying children the chance to behave like children, hates her own flesh and despises her own origins (she and her minions were once children too). When a society or their government starts to hate its own flesh, that society is doomed.

However, I am happy to report that this is one case where Nanny was forced to perform a humiliating U turn (there's a road/cul de sac joke there if you look hard enough folks!).

Leicestershire County Council has admitted that it was WRONG to threaten homeowners.

A council spokesman confessed:

"We should have looked into the circumstances

more before sending out the letters.

We want people to be alive to road safety

but issues like this should be dealt with

at a local level.

We would not want to fine these parents."

As ever Nanny's minions reacted without thinking. How many times do local councils across this country do the very same thing, act first think later?

Nanny wants to breed a nation of timid, weak, unresponsive dolts; who will do her bidding without question.

Unfortunately those who claim that they are acting in the best interests of the children, by wrapping them in cotton wool (many times the parents can be as bad), are doing Nanny's work for her.

Feel free to drop the council a note letting them know that they well deserved this week's "Prats of The Week" award, at this address: information@leics.gov.uk

By the way, don't forget to come up with some suitable adjectives to describe local councils; here's a few:

-useless
-unaccountable
-inefficient
-wasteful
-undemocratic
-unnecessary

Knock yourselves out!

Nanny Bans Music II

Following several requests, here is the 1812 Overture.

Enjoy at full volume!

The Joy of Salt

Nanny Knows Best now contains 958 articles detailing the evils of the Nanny state, the very first article I wrote on the 18th of September 2004 about Nanny's campaign against salt was entitled "Sid The Slug".

Why this little history lesson?

Today I now have incontrovertible proof that Nanny, in her campaign against salt, was talking a load of bollocks.

Salt is, in fact, good for you.

Yesterday I had to go to the dentist, as one of my teeth had shattered and lost a filling (in fact two other fillings had also been lost a few years ago...but I have an aversion to dentists, needles and having tools poked into my mouth, so I have chickened out until now).

However, I took the bull by the horns yesterday and gritted my teeth (what was left of them) and duly proceeded (via a pub) to the dentist.

I was expecting to be told that there was decay in at least two of the teeth that had lost the fillings.

Guess what?

Not a sign of decay!

Why was this?

Simple, as my dentist explained, were I cursed with a sweet tooth then I would be riddled with decay. However, dear readers, I am not sweet toothed I consume a diet based on flesh and salt. It is that diet of flesh and salt that in fact has saved my teeth.

Salt is good!

I would in fact point out that many years ago, when I was a small child, my mum would buy blocks of sea salt (12 inches, by 4 inches, by 4 inches) wrapped in blue paper. She would give me the task of shaving them down with a knife (ooh, aren't knives dangerous), and whilst doing so I would always take a chunk and crunch on it..I like salt.

Indeed my grandfather, on my mum's side of the family, always had a few packets of salt in his pocket which he would munch on. He died aged 84 or so.

Salt is good for you!

Nanny's campaign against salt is therefore founded on nothing but flaky science and a lack of research.

FYI, those looking for a first class dentist in the Croydon area should try bluedental (Eva and I are very impressed with them)....and no, they haven't paid me for giving them a free plug.

Nanny Bans Music

How does that old expression go?

"Music soothes the savage beast..."

or something like that.

Anyhoo, whilst music may sooth the savage beast it does not sooth Nanny. In fact she is so annoyed by music, that she is seeking to have it played more quietly.

Our old friends in Nanny's Health and Safety department have decided that music is way too dangerous, and are seeking to implement certain health and safety rules.

Whenever I hear the phrase "health and safety" I instinctively reach for the sick bag.

I digress, Nanny has decided to tell orchestras to stop playing too many noisy pieces in a performance. The Control of Noise at Work regulations came into force last year, and cap daily or weekly average exposure to 85 decibels.

The music and entertainment industry was given two more years to implement the new rules.

A working group, including the Association of British Orchestras, the English National Opera, the Royal Opera House, Equity, the Health and Safety Executive and the Musicians Union, is now apparently discussing how the guidelines could apply.

Aside from playing less noisy pieces, orchestras may be told to supply earplugs to the performers.

Quite how the players are meant to perform at their best, if they are wearing earplugs is beyond me. That being said, Beethoven was deaf when he composed "Ode To Joy" (rather a noisy piece).

What baout pop concerts then?

Aren't they a tad noisy too?

Liz Forbes, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra's concerts director, is unimpressed:

"Very few concerts use earplugs.

They're not ideal for hearing the ensemble

and what colleagues are doing."

Somewhat over the top wouldn't you say?

So let's give two fingers to Nanny, and let rip at full volume with this version of the Ode To Joy.

It will also put you in the right frame of mind, and banish those Monday morning blues".

Click here: Ode To Joy and give someone the horn this morning!

Madness

Nanny is worried about our mental health, maybe it's the stress of living in an all seeing all pervasive and interfering Nanny state that is having a negative effect on our mental well being?

Anyhoo, Nanny is so worried that she has decided to start checking up on our mental well being.

Nanny intends to start at the very beginning, and intends to target children.

Children as young as four will be expected to get in touch with their feelings, by filling in questionnaires; which ask if they are "optimistic about the future" and "dealing with problems well".

Nanny's old chums in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), who I have featured a few times on this site (see tag at the end of this article), have drawn up the guidelines for this load of tosh.

Primary schools in England will have a duty to improve children's emotional and psychological well-being.

Schools will be expected to combat factors that are "likely to lead to poor mental health or mental disorders"; by introducing programmes to help children make the transition to secondary school, teaching "emotional literacy" and providing specialist counselling services and family therapy.

NICE says that a school's success in making its pupils happy will be measured by indicators, developed by Warwick and Edinburgh universities. These "indicators" monitor positive attributes, such as confidence, resilience, attentiveness and the ability to form good relationships.

Nanny's "well-being scale" involves putting 14 statements to individuals about their thoughts and feelings and asking them whether they feel like that often, rarely, some of the time, all the time, or never.

They are based, so it would seem, on those most "excellent and scientific" self-help quizzes in women's magazines.

So that's alright then!

Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to give the kids an edition of Cosmo or something?

Now, aside form this being a colossal waste of time and energy (in terms of actually doing the children any good), there is in fact another hidden motive for Nanny's attempt to "help" with children's' mental health.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right...

Nanny intends to collect the data from thousands of pupils, from the age of four to 11.

She doesn't say what she intends to do with that data though.

A cynic might argue that Nanny will use the raw data to build a series of government communication "initiatives" targeted at the young, that ensure they tune in exactly with the mind set of those under 11. The result being a nation brainwashed for subservience to Nanny.

Needless to say, those with some knowledge of education etc think that this "initiative" is a load of old bollocks.

Kathryn Ecclestone, a professor of education at Oxford Brookes University, said:

"There is no robust, independent evidence

that making children and young people talk

about their feelings in formal rituals at

schools will develop lifelong emotional literacy and well-being.

Inserting a vocabulary of emotional vulnerability,

where children are encouraged to feel different

or told they have low self-esteem,

is likely to encourage the very feelings of

depression and hopelessness it is supposed

to eradicate. Although ideas about well-being

seem benign, they are based on judgemental

assumptions about 'appropriate'

feelings and how to deal with them.

But if you try to challenge this educational

bandwagon, you are accused of

being in 'emotional denial'."

Nanny wants the children to feel vulnerable and depressed, so that she can "rescue" them and be seen to be their saviour. Happy well adjusted children would reject Nanny and her ideas, and are therefore a threat to Nanny.

As ever we see another great "initiative" from Nanny based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

We pay these morons in NICE to come up with this load of old tosh, are we in fact mad?

The end result will be a nation of self centred, spoilt emotional cripples; a nation of skint Paris Hiltons.

Makes you want to scream, doesn't it?

Nanny Bans Glasses

I wrote some time ago about Nanny trying to ban glasses in pubs, on the grounds that they were dangerous.

The fact that beer/lager when supped out of plastic tastes awful, appears to have no sway with Nanny. Doubtless this is part of her subtle campaign to stop us drinking, and make us easier to control.

Anyhoo, it seems that Nanny is trying to introduce a ban on glasses via the back door.

Many of Nanny's police forces are pressing for a ban on real glasses in pubs and clubs serving drinks in wine, spirit or beer; on the pretext of reducing injuries caused by people using them as weapons.

The step has already been proposed in Bournemouth, Reading, Newport, Northampton, Fareham, Ilford and Daventry.

Seemingly a further 30 towns are considering similar action.

Councils have the power to outlaw glasses. However, in most areas police are seeking "voluntary" bans. Needless to say the word "voluntary" is open to interpretation. The British Beer and Pub Association believes that pubs feel "pressurised" into accepting bans, because of the prospect of losing their licences if they refuse.

Neil Williams, its spokesman, said:

"These bans are spreading like bushfire.

You can quite easily see this rolled out

across the country without people realising what is happening."

That's how Nanny operates, she rolls out her nasty little rules without consultation before people realises what she has done.

Phillip Gill, of the Campaign for Real Ale, said:

"It is totally out of proportion.

There is a degree of risk involved in lots of things,

including drinking from a glass,

but that doesn't mean you need to ban it."

Yes it does in Nanny's world, for you see Nanny wants to ban booze and zeroise risk (an impossibility in the real world).

Prats of The Week

Time for another of my prestigious "Prat of The Week" awards.

This time the award goes to an entire council, actually it often goes to entire councils; as they are remarkably adept at acting like prats.

Crawley council win this week's award, for their remarkably prat like behaviour recently over the dropping of two crisps (chips for my American readers) on the pavement (sidewalk).

Aside from the obvious fact that two crisps are very small, and indeed biodegradable, the story has added prat qualities in that the council fined the person who dropped the two crisps £80.

Who was that person?

Emily Jubb...

Oh, didn't I mention?

Emily is two years old!

Emily, dropped a packet of Quavers in Crawley, her grandmother then picked up the bag...but...

Wait for it!

Two stray Quavers fell upon the ground...much like the sin of Onan.

Nanny disapproves of that kind of thing and, out of nowhere, appeared two council wardens.

Mrs Jubb, speaking of one of the wardens, said:

"She promptly brought out her badge and said,

'You are being fined'.

I was absolutely gobsmacked."

Councillor Beryl Mecrow said:

"People have a responsibility not to drop litter."

However, Crawley have been persuaded as to the stupidity of their action and have cancelled the fine.

How very magnanimous of them!

Crawley council, well deserved Prats of The Week.

Another example of why local councils are a waste of space.

Feel free to drop them an email comments@crawley.gov.uk

The World's Costliest Airline II

The Times picked up my earlier piece about BA's excess pricing today:)

Yes, I know this has nothing to do with Nanny!

Indulge me.

Nanny Targets Booze

Now that Nanny has achieved something of a "success" with her campaign against fags (England will follow Scotland down the path of banning smoking in public places in July), she is turning her attention to booze.

Despite the fact that this nation was built on booze, the Romans wrote missives home complaining about the tendency of the local Brits to booze and fight every night, Nanny has now decided to try to alter our "mindset" towards drinking.

As we all know, Nanny hates the working classes and has for sometime been going on at them about their smoking, drinking and eating habits. She would do well to remember that it is these same people who have laid down their lives for this country, and kicked the shit out of our enemies.

As Wellington once said, with pride, of his army:

"They are the scum of the earth...

But they are our scum!"

Anyhoo, I digress.

Nanny is now widening her target, she recently told all pregnant women that they must not drink a single drop during their term. This is all well and good except for the following flies in Nanny's oinkment:

1 It is bollocks advice

2 People will ignore it

3 Many women can be pregnant for a wee while before discovering that they are. How are they meant to feel if, during the period of "grace", they downed a few?

4 There is no scientific basis for Nanny's advice

Not content with that, Nanny has now moved up a gear to target "middle class" drinkers...whoever they are?

Seemingly, Nanny is concerned that aside from those of us who down 25 pints in the pub, there are those who drink wine (both in the pub and worse still at home).

Why is Nanny so concerned about this?

Well, she says that it's because they may not know how many units they are drinking.

Bollocks!

The real reason is that Nanny can't stand the fact that people are doing things in private, over which she has no control.

In Nanny's world, if she can't see it or control it...then it is wrong.

Therefore she intends to bore the entire country to death with a series of messages "targeted" at those who drink wine etc at home (even Newsnight fell into that trap last night and started to spread Nanny's poison), telling them that they must take care and that the limit (in Nanny's sad little world) for safe consumption is 21 unit for men and 14 for women per week.

Pah!

I spit upon those units!

The average Brit can down that in one night for fark's sake!

Here is why this advice is bollocks:

1 The target "middle classes" will already be well aware as to the unit content of their booze.

2 We are all adults, so let us determine our own intake.

3 The average "middle class" dinner party these days, if you are to believe the reports, tends to be rather more focused on snorting "a recreational Cameron" rather than drinking yourself under the table.

4 The unit recommendations are aimed at those with the weakest systems, and have no bearing on the average healthy strong individual.

5 The damage that booze does to the system is related to genetics. Hence the fact that the Brits can take the booze, we are bred for it!

6 People will ignore the advice.

Nanny should use her little brain a bit more. She claims that the reason that she hates boozing and smoking so much, is the cost to the NHS of treating the damage that these pleasures take upon us.

The solution to this is simple, raise taxes on these products and stop wasting resources on pointless campaigns and enforcement measures.

1 The taxes will reduce consumption

2 The increase in tax revenue can be used to fund the NHS costs of treating people.

Problem solved!

However, Nanny will not do this because she actually likes to interfere in people's lives. Her lectures and enforcement measures keep the population docile and under control, as well as giving her an army of snooping busybodies (eg council smoke spies) who will snoop on us in the guise of "merely doing their job".

By the way, what sort of sad person will volunteer to become a smoke spy?

What kind of individual will enjoy spending their day wandering around pubs and other public places looking for people having a crafty fag, and taking a photo of them doing so?

That's how Nazi Germany started.

Mark my words, Nanny will one day try to ban drinking as well!