HMRC Crashes

How predictable on the busiest tax day of the year!

Prats of The Week - Nanny Bans Salt

Oh my word, it has been quite a while since I have awarded my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week the award, rather belatedly, goes to Rochdale Council who recently launched a "Salt Awareness Week".

Hmmmm!!!!!!!!

Specifically, the council have become concerned about the amount of salt that people are adding to their fish and chips.

As we know, Nanny hates salt.

The fact that people can die of salt deprivation (eg if they are sweating profusely and don't increase their salt intake, or drink too much water) seems to have escaped Nanny.

Nanny is determined to cut our salt intake.

To this end her chums on Rochdale council have come up with a brilliant solution. They have reduced the number of holes in the traditional chip shop saltshaker from 17to 5.

Brilliant!

The theory being that the less holes, therefore the less salt will be shaken onto the food by the customer when he/she is applying the "salt and vinegar".

Takeaways are being issued with catering-sized salt pots with just five holes in the lid, rather than the usual 17.

Errrmmm OK...but won't people simply shake the new shakers for a longer period, in order to obtain their preferred quantity of salt?

Rochdale Council - Prats of The Week.

De-evolution

As we all know Nanny loves the idea of devolution, despite the hornets' nest that this policy stirs up.

She has pro actively encouraged Scottish and Welsh devolution, English regional assemblies and created city mayors in certain parts of England (Ken Livingstone being the living monument to Nanny's stupidity) whose role in life seems questionable.

However, Nanny's policy of devolution does not stop there.

She has now started on a policy of de-evolution, whereby the citizens of Britain are proactively encouraged to de-evolve back to a tribal stoneage state.

Don't believe me?

On Monday night there were two programmes on the TV (ITV and Channel 4), covering a similar topic, one analysed why women felt unsafe on the streets at night and the other asked why kids kill.

In a nutshell here's a few select highlights:

• Kids kill because, and this "takes the biscuit", they are bored (this from the mouths of the kids themselves!)



• Kids (8 years and upwards) are reverting to tribalism, via their gangs.



• Kids are imposing territorial boundaries on themselves and others. Those who stray into each others "pissing fields" are attacked or killed.



• One hapless female reporter very bravely approached a gang of "teens" (the youngest being 11) at night, who were hanging around on the street outside a shop. Their faces were completely covered with zip up hoods, you could not even see their eyes.
  
  She asked them to consider that maybe their appearance frightened people. After a few grunts and mumbles, the gang became aggressive and started throwing stones and bottles (how very stoneage!), they then used their mobiles to bring around 20 of their mates into the fray.
  
  Such was the poor quality of the diction of the "kids" interviewed, that the programme makers had to use subtitles in order for the hapless viewer to make sense of what these "kids" were saying.

There are a few blindingly obvious questions, two of which being:

1 Why the hell are 11 year olds being allowed to run around the streets at night like savage animals? Why are their parents allowing this?

2 What the hell has the state been teaching these kids in school, if they are unable to even form a coherent word/sentence without the need of subtitles?

I have already noted on this site my views on what needs to be done, re imposing a form of house arrest for the entire family of these savages (sans TV, mobiles phones, DVD, CD etc) and cutting benefits.

It seems to me that unless this issue is addressed now, both in the schools and via a "house arrest" scheme, we will find ourselves living cheek by jowl with savage stoneage tribes.

Nanny's policy of de-evolution needs to be stopped now.

Auntie Censors Dad's Army

I am indebted to Pietr for drawing my attention to this.

On Saturday night Auntie showed an old episode of Dad's Army on BBC2. It was the one where the Americans come over, and as a result of a number of misunderstandings a punch up between the home guard and the Americans occurs in a pub.

Peitr informs me that Auntie, for reasons that are beyond me, censored (ie removed) the punch up scene.



I duly did a Youtube search for said scene, and found what I thought to be the complete episode (broken into 3 parts) on Youtube (see below).

However, Youtube seem to have censored it as well and removed the fight scene.

What's going on?

Nanny Bans Swords

Oh dear, Nanny really has trouble distinguishing between what is important and what is trivial.

It seems that Nanny's dreaded health and Safety Gestapo have put their size ten jackboots into the affairs of The Carnon Downs Drama Group (at Perranwell Cornwall).

The group are performing Robinson Crusoe, but have had to adjust their security arrangements a little bit as the Health and Safety Gestapo don't like the fact that the play requires the use of plastic swords.

They have been told by Nanny to lock up its two plastic cutlasses, six wooden swords and a toy gun when they are not in use and appoint a "responsible guardian" for them.

The group, because of 'elf and safety diktats, were forced to report to the police that they were using replica weapons.

Nanny's finest then had to issue them the rather absurd instructions about locking the plastic weapons up.

The rather odd thing is that the frying pans, used as weapons in the play, are not considered dangerous.

A co-director, Linda Barker, said:

"In some scenes pirates hit each other with frying pans and saucepan lids but there's no problem with them.

We have got several wooden and plastic swords, two plastic spears and a gun that cost £2 from a joke shop. But now we need to keep them locked away."

As ever, Nanny ensures that only the most important and pressing issues are regulated and enforced.

Not!

Nanny Rewrites History - As Usual

It would seem that Nanny is a fan of Orwell, in particular "1984" and the part where Big Brother rewrites history to suit the state's needs.

Here we see Nanny's own attempt to rewrite history, in order to suit her political ideals.

Nanny's Health & Safety Executive have rewritten a document that discussed the effects of second hand smoke.

Nanny's document, warmly entitled OC 255-15, says in para 9:

"The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act."

This document was not due to be reviewed until August 2011. However, as soon as the smoking ban came into force on the 1st of July, the document was rewritten.

The new document is called OC 255-16. Paragraph 14 says:

"The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish."

Notice anything missing?

In the same document it also says:

"OC 255/15 – cancel and destroy"

How very odd!

Fat Money

I am greatly amused to see that Nanny is offering to pay people to lose weight.

Quite how this fine scheme will work in reality though is beyond me. There is ample room for fraud, for instance people could deliberately fatten themselves up in order to make a nice little living out of being paid to shed the pounds.

It also seems that Nanny does not intend to use her (sorry, our) money on this, but she intends to "persuade" private companies to pay for their employees to lose weight.

How bloody intrusive!

How on earth will this daft idea work?

Our Heroic Home Secretary

For information.

Olympics

For information.

Nanny Bans Three Little Pigs

You know folks, initially I had thought of awarding my prestigious "Prats of The Week" award to this shower; but then quickly realised that this is far worse than mere "pratism", it goes into knobhead territory.

What am I talking about?

I shall explain.

Do you recall your childhood days, when you read the story of the three little pigs who built houses of straw, twigs and brick in order to fend off the evil wolf?

A nice, harmless story.

Not so in Nanny's eyes.

For you see, dear reader, the word pig is offensive and evil.

As such, Nanny's thought police in Becta (Nanny's educational technology agency) have banned the story lest it offend Muslims.

A digital book of the tale depicts the pigs as builders, and was up for a book award run by Nanny.

The book "The Three Little Cowboy Builders" is published by Shoo Fly. The BETT awards are run by Becta, Emap Education and the British Educational Suppliers Association (Besa).

Needless to say, the judging panel, consisting of Nanny's finest brain dead thought police, didn't like it one bit. They said that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

Pass the sick bag someone!

What planet do these knobheads come from?

The judges refused to shortlist the product which, by the way has already won awards, and for good measure said that "The Three Little Cowboy Builders" might also "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

Blaaaargh!!!

The judges, in a remarkably patronising and divisive tone, said that they had "concerns about the Asian community" and insisted "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

As a result, they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also had a go at the stereotyping in the story of the pigs:

"Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

-Do these knobheads live in the real world?

-Do they actually know any Muslims or builders?

This absurd ban does nothing to improve "cultural" relations, and further isolates Muslims by tarring by association them with the intolerance and narrow mindedness that clearly the judges of this panel are wallowing in.

I have nothing but contempt for this judgement.

Where first you burn books, next you will burn people.

Here are the names of the joint chairmen of the judges:

Ray Barker
Director, BESA

Dave Hassell
Director, Education Content, Becta

Here are two email addresses where you can write to the BETT knobheads to give them your views on this subject, please make sure that you do:

-bettawards@becta.org.uk

-bettawards@emap.com

Future BETT awards should be boycotted by all publishers.

Here is Christopher Walken reading the original Three Little Pigs.

The Wheels Come Off II

I would like to advise you that, following on from my earlier article today, another of Nanny's departments has succeeded in losing some data discs.

Nanny's department responsible for courts, prisons, probation, criminal law and sentencing - HM Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA)- has lost 4 CDs in December.

HMICA won't confirm or deny — due to an "ongoing investigation" — reports that the missing data included sensitive information, such as the names and addresses of alleged victims of crime and witnesses.

An investigation is being undertaken by HMICA into the cock up.

The four CDs containing data were lost in the post on 15 December, in transit between the Ministry of Justice and another party. It is unclear as to whether they were encrypted.

Great stuff!

Well done Nanny!

The Wheels Come Off

Oh dear, oh dear, it appears that the wheels are coming off Nanny's much vaunted id card scheme.

Leaked documents suggest that Nanny is delaying her plans to roll-out identity cards to British nationals until 2012.

Well how surprising!

In order to initiate a national id card scheme Nanny would need to upload 50 different pieces of personal information, including addresses of 60 million British citizens, into a massive single database.

Given the complete shambles that Nanny has had recently wrt her handling of personal data (eg HMRC Datagate, lost drivers details, NHS details lost and MOD stolen laptops etc) it is hardly surprising that she has finally twigged that she is not up to the task of managing a database, and that the British people are not prepared to trust her.

Those of you who need reminding as to why id cards are bollocks, please have a rummage around my earlier articles on the subject: id cards are bollocks.

The wheels are really coming off Nanny's wagon, she may still be in office but she most certainly is not in power.

Please will someone put her out of my misery?

Now for a little sing along!

Walking The Line

You will recall my recent article about Nanny's police force using their scarce resources to spy on people in pubs, and fine the bar staff for serving "drunk" people?

Well, she's up to her old tricks again.

It recently emerged that 12 of Nanny's finest visited The Prince of Wales pub in Moseley Birmingham, and carried out sobriety tests on the punters there who were enjoying a quiet libation (can I say libation on this site?).

In a scene out of a Charlie Chaplin movie, drinkers were made to walk along a straight line chalked on to the pavement at the rear of the pub.

Nanny was not happy with the results, officers told bar staff that the customers were intoxicated and out of control.

Landlord Keith Marsden thinks that this was a load of old bollocks. He noted that it was a normal Friday evening, and branded the police "bully boys".

Quote:

"I'm absolutely outraged. It's complete nonsense and if it wasn't so serious it would be a joke.

Why are police officers wasting taxpayer's money investigating whether or not people are drunk in a pub?

It's unbelievable."

West Midlands Police said:

"West Midlands Police received a formal complaint in November which is being investigated by our Professional Standards Department.

It would therefore be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage."

Clearly there is no other crime in the West Midlands!

Clueless

You will recall in an earlier article I noted Cheshire Police Chief Constable, Peter Fahy, comments on the murder of Garry Newlove:

"I personally think we cannot have a society where law abiding people like Garry Newlove cannot go out and challenge people that are damaging their property, otherwise we'll just have the yobs ruling the streets.

People should go out and certainly confront, that's my own personal view."

The fact that Mr Newlove "confronted/challenged" the yobs, and was murdered by them, seems to have escaped the Chief Constable.

However, aside from that remarkably obvious point, the Chief Constable needs to address another issue; namely, if you do decide to "confront" some yobs and manage not to get your head stoved in by them, then you have to deal with Nanny's police.

This is what Bill Marshall, 73, found to his cost recently when he confronted some yobs throwing stones at some ducks at Chesterfield Canal in Worksop. He shouted at them to stop, but was on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse for his trouble and the gang continued to throw stones.

One yob reported the incident to police, claiming that the pensioner had hit him during the altercation. Mr Mashall denies this.

Nanny's police officers duly knocked on his door, and Mr Marshall was expecting them to investigate his complaints about the unruly gang.

Instead he was arrested and taken off to a police cell accused of attacking the youths on the canal bank.

Mr Marshall said:

"I was shocked when a police officer turned up on my doorstep. I had made a number of complaints about anti-social behaviour from these yobs so I expected it was a response to that.

I was quite happy to invite him in but then he said I was being arrested and taken to the station accused of assault. I thought it was a joke at first but then I realised he was perfectly serious.

The officer ordered me to take the laces out my shoes as I was being arrested for common assault. I didn't know what to think."

Mr Marshall was put into a cell, and had to wait two hours for a duty solicitor.

He was interviewed by officers over the alleged assault, before finally being released pending further inquiries.

Now, some weeks after the incident, police have formally dropped any charges against him and apologised.

As Mr Marshall said:

"I am a 73-year-old pensioner and they were a gang of youths. I wasn't going to try and take them on at my age.

It took 73 years for an idiot to put me in jail. All I did was try to stop these louts throwing rocks at the ducks on the canal.

I felt degraded spending time in that cell. I can't believe I ended up in jail at my age. I've never seen the inside of a cell before and I don't want to see it again. The police seemed to automatically assumed I was guilty instead of talking to me first."

Therefore, taking the above into account, who in their right mind would ever dream of "confronting" yobs in this country anymore?

Confront and get your head kicked in?

or

Confront and get arrested?

Nanny is clueless.

Scum

Mrs Helen Newlove, widow of Garry Newlove (who was kicked to death by scum):

"Parents should take responsibility for their children. Garry and I have brought up three girls together to respect other people and to be home, not walking the streets causing damage and intimidating other people by drinking and abusive language."

Exactly!

It's not the state's role to bring up children.

Cheshire Police Chief Constable Peter Fahy, commenting on the murder:

"I personally think we cannot have a society where law abiding people like Garry Newlove cannot go out and challenge people that are damaging their property, otherwise we'll just have the yobs ruling the streets.

People should go out and certainly confront, that's my own personal view."

Three points re Fahy's remarks:

1 That's exactly what Mr Newlove did, and he got murdered for doing it

2 It is meant to be the role of the police to patrol the streets and to deal with criminal behaviour

3 Mr Newlove had tried to ask for police and council help before, at various meetings. However, he became so frustrated at the lack of action that he walked out of one of the meetings. Why did the council and police not help him?

Human scum, such as those who murdered Mr Newlove are formed in their early years by parents who indulge them (ie they don't say no), let them run riot and ignore them.

It is very easy to blame "society", the blame lies full square with the parents.

Question:

Why do parents allow "adolescents" out on the streets at all times of day and night?

Answer:

Because they don't care.

Conclusion

The blame lies full square with the parents.

Solution:

-Curfew the entire family, ie put them under semi house arrest

-Remove the family's TVs, mobile phones, DVD's, iPods etc

-Cut/stop their benefits (or fine them if they are not on benefits)

"Parents should take responsibility for their children. Garry and I have brought up three girls together to respect other people and to be home, not walking the streets causing damage and intimidating other people by drinking and abusive language."

Nanny is Mother Nanny is Father II

We all know how keen Nanny has been over the past few years to get her hands on children as young as possible, and put them into her "educashun" system pre school.

Her logic being that this frees up the mother, so that she can go out and fulfill herself by working again.

The reality of course being that Nanny is so expensive to run that she needs everyone working 24/7, so that she can maximise her tax take from us.

The needs of the family and children don't come into Nanny's thinking.

Now here's a funny thing, it seems that snatching children away from their families at such a young actually damages them.

How surprising!

Thirty years' of evidence has been built up that shows that preschool children who spend long hours in nursery are more likely to display aggression and disobedience than those who stay at home or attend part-time.

Even more interesting is the fact that these effects may be contagious.

Jay Belsky, the director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues at Birkbeck University, London, who led the study, recently said:

"Being in a classroom with a high proportion of children who have extensive childcare histories affects those with little or no early childcare experience.

So if your child had no childcare, but ended up in a class where lots of children had childcare, you child ends up being more aggressive. There is a contagious effect."

The researchers found that children placed in childcare of any kind, and for longer hours and at earlier ages, displayed significantly more problem behaviour.

Where there were lots of classmates with childcare experiences, these effects spread to all children in the class.

Needless to say Nanny is quick to defend herself; Beverley Hughes, Nanny's Children's Minister, said that it should not be assumed that findings from the US would apply equally to Britain.

She would say that wouldn't she?

She then went on to contradict herself by saying that British evidence suggested a small negative impact on social behaviour for some children from long hours in childcare.

As said, the reality of course being that Nanny is so expensive to run that she needs everyone working 24/7 so that she can maximise her tax take from us.

The needs of the family and children don't come into Nanny's thinking.

Nanny Speaks!

Dear Chums

I am testing out a new toy on this site that, if it works, I will roll out across the other sites in the www.kenfrost.com network.

Introducing audio posts!

Those of you who are too lazy, pissed, or stupid to read the text can sit back and listen to it being read for you. All you have to do is click the "listen now" link, at the top left hand corner of each post.

You can even subscribe to feed the post into iTunes or other media, by clicking the link at the bottom.

The only downside is that the voice is not mine and that it is American (no offence to my American friends, but this site should be read in a British accent).

Anyhoo, let's take it for a spin. Here are a few words that feature regularly on this site:

-Knobhead
-Twat
-Council
-Prat
-Utter Bollocks
-Jobsworth
-Fark
-Nanny

Enjoy!

Ken

Nanny Bans Nanny

Well, there's a title that I never thought that I would write.

It seems that Nanny has got her knickers in a twist over Nannyism, and is rather upset by the fact that we are all upset by her, as such she has come to the conclusion that she has been far too strict with us.

Her solution?

Simple, she has set up a new government body to...errmm...look into cases of "excessive" Nannyism (eg anything mentioned on this site) and issue edicts and advice against them.

So, just in case you haven't quite grasped that, Nanny is going to set up another Nanny organisation to lecture herself and us about the danger of Nanny.

That helps us how?

Wouldn't it be better to scale back on the bureaucracy, reduce the number of 'elf and safety jobsworths, cut back on 'elf and safety rules and abolish local councils?

Well, of course it would!

However, Nanny doesn't work like that.

The new body is called the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council (a warm, cuddly name if ever I heard one...not expensive to run I assume?), it has a nice little website (interim website) which starts off:

"On taking office as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown committed to taking the Better Regulation agenda to a new level by focusing upstream at where policy-making engages with risk. This is the critical starting-point of the regulatory process. It is here that culture and process must achieve a better understanding of public risk:

The Government believes that policy-making would benefit considerably from a fuller and more rounded consideration of public risk. I have asked the Better Regulation Commission, building on its report 'Risk, Responsibility and Regulation', to devise a structure and approach that ensures that this ambition is embedded in real policy action, even when facing pressures to react to events."

Pass the sick bag someone!

Any organisation that kicks off by using phrases such as "upstream" and "policy-making engages with risk" clearly has no concept of the real world, and no intention of simplifying Nanny's edicts.

These people are up their own backsides (so to speak). In fact, if you look at the website you will see that RRAC appears to have been tagged onto a body that has been in existence for some years now, The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory reform (BERR contains numerous committees) that itself recommended the creation of RRAC.

As per the website:

"The RRAC will initially consist of seven people, including the Chair, Rick Haythornthwaite, drawn from the pool of strategic regulatory experience in the Better Regulation Commission."

It is basically a version of BERR, and will grow like crazy "initially consist of..."

I would venture to suggest that if BERR had being doing its job properly, it would not have needed to create another quango to mull over the creation of even more regulations.

FYI, the chairman of RRAC is Rick Haythornthwaite. He used to be chairman of the Better Regulation Commission (BRC), which is meant to provide independent advice to government, from business and other external stakeholders, about new regulatory proposals and about the Government's overall regulatory performance.

Has that body cut down on government regultions and bureacracy, since it was formed in 2005?

Errmmm...no it hasn't.

Seems like a case of jobs for the boys to me.

I think it fair to say that this is Smiler Brown's attempt at catching the wave of public repulsion and opinion re Nanny; he has absolutely no intention of lightening Nanny's grip on us, as he is a control freak.

BTW, RRAC will be starting a campaign soon whereby Nanny will tell us how important it is to be self reliant...that will be a laugh, rich pickings for this site I shouldn't wonder!

I wonder how much this little "initiative" from Nanny will cost us?

Quite how you contact these people directly is a little unclear (policy being made up on the hoof as it were?).

However, here is a link to BERR enquiries@berr.gsi.gov.uk.

I suggest to point them to this site, which has been doing their job for them since 2004.

To repeat myself again:

Wouldn't it be better to scale back on the bureaucracy, reduce the number of 'elf and safety jobsworths, cut back on 'elf and safety rules and abolish local councils?

A Nice Little Earner II

Nanny is forever labouring away looking for ways to increase her tax take, necessary to fun her ever burgeoning bureaucracy that she uses to dictate to and bully us how we should live our lives.

Recently she came up with a real corker, using her old favourite, parking charges.

Owners of many ordinary cars (including the Ford Focus, Renault Scenic and Vauxhall Vectra) will face an increase in the price of their annual parking permits, almost double in fact.

For why?

Simple, Nanny will be taxing people on the length of their conveyance.

Yes folks, size really does matter!

The fact that Nanny taxes motorists already via; petrol, congestion charges and road duties is neither here nor there.

Nanny's chums in Labour controlled Norwich Council will be the first authority to bring in the new "length tax", which will fill their coffers with millions more readies.

The Local Government Association said many other town halls were watching the experiment "with great interest".

I bet they are!

The Norwich scheme charges according to the car's dimensions, with vehicles divided into three bands.

Any car longer than 14ft 7in will be in the highest category, with the cost of an annual on-street parking permit rising from the current flat-fee of £16 to £30 (an inflation busting 90% rise).

The middle band of cars over 12ft 10in, fees will rise to £22; while all smaller cars will enjoy a price freeze.

The trouble is "large" cars are not always "gas guzzlers", many ordinary family cars will be placed in the same bracket as Nanny's hated 4x4.

Labour councillor Brian Morrey admitted that the move would lead to a rise in revenue...no kidding?

He then went on to insist that raising revenue was "not the point" of the plan, and the money would be ring-fenced for transport improvements.

That is utter bollocks!

The same lying shit has been used by government over the years re car tax and national insurance.

Nanny puts all the money she collects into a large pot, then divis it up between her acolytes.

It's a simple as that.

Coming soon, the sex tax!

Nanny's Body Snatchers

Oh dear, this story has raised its head again.

Sometime ago I wrote about Nanny's plans to harvest the organs from dead people without their explicit consent.

I see that our beloved, unelected Prime Minister has waded into this "debate" and come out in favour of automatic harvesting of organs unless there is an explicit written opt out from the corpse or the corpses' family.

Here's why Nanny is wrong on this:

1 The state does not own our bodies, we do. It is up to us to decide what we do with our bodies.

2 The butcher's profession will be sorely tempted to call death early, if it sees a chance to harvest fresh organs

3 I don't believe in God, but some do; their religious views, as to what happens to their corpse, need to be taken into account in a civilised tolerant society.

4 Any attempt by the state, or butchers' profession, to take organs without prior express consent is theft.

The state does not own our bodies, we do!

Right of Entry

Guess which organ of the state has backed down over its plans to try to enter your homes without a warrant?

Read more: "Here's Johnny".

Nanny Bans Heroes

In the Nanny state nothing is more threatening to Nanny than independence of thought, action and displays of leadership and courage.

Who better to demonstrate such positive traits than a hero?

As such, it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has banned heroism and heroes.

Paul Waugh, a volunteer coastguard who was nominated for an award for rescuing a schoolgirl from a cliff, found this to his cost recently.

Mr Waugh rescued Faye Harrison, 13, who in January 2007 was hanging on by her fingertips and about to fall 200ft (60m) at Salburn-on-Sea, Teesside. He climbed down and held on to her for 30 minutes, until she could be winched to safety.

Unfortunately, he was not wearing safety equipment as it would have taken time to go back to his vehicle which was some distance away.

Mr Waugh, despite rescuing the girl, was later told by Nanny that he had broken rules.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said it was not looking for dead heroes.

Mr Waugh said:

"I understand I broke a rule,

but I felt it was a matter of having to

because she only had minutes to live.

She said that herself, she was planning her own funeral.

When you see a little frightened face looking up at you,

all you want to do is help.

There's no way I'm going to stand back and watch a

13-year-old girl fall off a cliff."

Faye later nominated him for a life saver award as her "guardian angel".

However, Mr Waugh, who was with the MCA for 13 years, was told that the organisation had carried out an internal investigation into the team's handling of the incident, and the health and safety issues surrounding the rescue.

He has decided to leave the MCA rather than put up with any more health and safety bullshit.

Quote:

"I'm leaving now due to the hassle

I've had over the last nine months.

In fact, I've been depressed over it.

Yes, fair enough, I broke a rule,

but when I started my training a long time ago,

I was told, one time, you'll work outside the box.

And in this case I had to help her, she was ready to fall.

I'm very, very sad. It's a shame I'm having to go."

The MCA said it was very grateful for his past activities and wished him well in the future.

The statement said:

"Our responsibility is to maintain the

health and welfare of those who we sometimes

ask to go out in difficult and challenging

conditions to effect rescues.

As such we ask our volunteers to risk assess

the situations they and the injured or distressed

person find themselves in, and to ensure that

whatever action they take does not put anyone

in further danger.

We are proud of our safety record and we will

seek to maintain the safety of our volunteers,

and minimise risk in what can be inherently

difficult situations."

No, that is wrong, their responsibility is to rescue people!

This is not the first time that Nanny has banned heroism, see here.

In Nanny's world, a dead girl is far better than a living hero.

Nanny Bans De Frost

Oh dear, Nanny has banned my Dutch cousin..there's a very lame joke there folks, if you think hard about it!

OK, on with the story...

Ken Hardman was recently defrosting his car outside of his home, in Whittle-le-Woods Lancashire, and was fined £30 by Nanny for the offence of "quitting" the vehicle and leaving it vulnerable to theft.

However, Mr Hardman disputes the validity of the fine; he noted that thieves had no way of stealing his Mercedes saloon, because its windows and doors could be locked while the engine was running.

Quote:

"I heard a knock on the door at 8.20am.

The officer asked me whether the car was

mine and said that, if it was, I was committing a crime.

I think it's completely outrageous.

This fine means that I'm paying stealth charges

even though there was no way of stealing it."

A police spokesman said:

"The officer tried to offer words of advice

but the male refused to accept them.

So the officer was left with no option

but to issue a fixed penalty notice of £30.

Every year we appeal to the public not to

leave their cars running unattended on frosty

mornings as they are easy pickings for thieves."

So, let's get this straight, Mr Hardman was fined because in the view of Nanny his car might have been stolen?

Isn't that Mr Hardman's business as to how well, or badly, he safeguards his property?

Does that mean Nanny will be fining all and sundry every time she sees a risk of a car or other object of being stolen?

Is this just an excuse to make money out of us?

Big Brother

Did you have a nice Christmas and New Year?

Did you go down the pub, and sink a few?

Maybe you are thinking of popping down to the boozer tonight, for a quick one?

Well, have a care!

It seems that Nanny is sending her spies into the ordinary local, in order to keep an eye on how much we are drinking.

In Blackpool recently, Nanny's police piloted a scheme whereby undercover officers spied on patrons and bar staff.

The spying was not just for information gathering purposes re drinking habits etc, which would be bad enough, but in order to issue fines.

It seems that two bar staff were fined for serving drunk customers.

Please note that this is a pilot scheme, this means that it will be rolled out to a boozer near you in the near future.

So, the question is, what constitutes "drunk" in Nanny's eyes?

-Falling flat on your face?

-Walking in a wobbly line?

-Speaking loudly about how you hate the state?

-Would Nanny care to provide us with a definition of "drunk"?

Nice to see that the police in Blackpool have nothing better to do!

Knobheads

I can only describe Brighton and Hove council as being utter knobheads, in relation to this sorry tale of woe.

Priscilla Thomas, an elderly woman, had her rubbish collection stopped at the end of last year because Nanny's knobheads in the council decreed that a four-inch step outside her home was a health and safety hazard.

The "good old" Health and Safety Gestapo are on the march again!

Mrs Thomas was told that unless she lowered her wheelie bin down the step, and on to the pavement herself, her rubbish bags would not be collected by binmen.

Errmmm...so let's get this straight?

The council believe that a lady of 76 (5ft tall and only 6 stone in weight) is in better shape to move a wheelie bin around, rather than a couple of fit younger binmen?

Are the members of Brighton and Hove council taking the piss here?

Mrs Thomas said:

"I live on a hill and if I try to roll

the bin out into the street for them to collect,

it might overbalance and spill rubbish everywhere.

What more can I do?

It's bureaucracy gone out of control."

After a considerable amount of negative publicity, the knobheads in the council relented and have said that they will deal with it.

A spokesman for the council was quoted in December:

"We apologise for the problems that have

unfortunately occurred with Mrs Thomas's

refuse collection and the inconvenience

this has caused her."

Now can someone please tell me:

-What use are farking local councils?

-What are they there for?

-Why do we pay council tax?

Nanny Bans Photos

Oh dear, Nanny does seem to be having trouble these days with the once taken for granted right of the British citizen and Japanese tourist to take photographs of whatever they want.

Mandy Smith found this out to her cost, at the tail end of last year, when she tried to take of a photo of something that Nanny has forbidden to be photographed.

What was Miss Smith trying to photograph?

-A nuclear missile?

No!

-Gordon Brown Smiling?

No!

-The MOD?

No!

I will tell you.

Miss Smith and her partner were out with their 11 month old daughter, playing on the swings in Alexandra Park Oldham.

Wanting to capture the moment, Miss Smith reached for her camera to photograph her daughter playing on the swings.

Big mistake!

As if by magic a park warden appeared, and ordered them to stop taking photographs; even though the shot was only of their daughter, they were her parents and no other children were in shot (or indeed even present)....why the latter point should matter anyway is beyond me.

Nonplussed, Mr Parkie informed them that it was "illegal" to take pictures of children there.

Nanny's chums in Oldham Council claim that it was a "mistake". A spokesman for Oldham Council said parks staff were trained to spot inappropriate behaviour. However, the warden had "interpreted policy incorrectly".

Haven't we heard that excuse before from Nanny's jobsworths, only the other day?

HMRC Resignation or "Planned Departure"

Fun and games at the HMRC today, re the departure of Stuart Cruickshank (the CFO) after only one year in orifice.

See today's articles (8th January 2007) on www.hmrcisshite.com for the full monty.

What a mess!

Nanny's Family Planning Advice

Prats Of The Week II - Update - From Pam Gillard

Re today's earlier article.

Thank you for your comments. Please see attached the statement to the press hopefully giving a more balanced view.

"After recent ramraids we keep a watchful eye on anyone photographing the front of our jewellers which Mr Sparshott, on the 17th November, was doing. When Mr Sparshott made his visit he admits himself he was swearing loudly at my officer when asked politely what he was doing. Despite what has been said we gave no life ban from the Centre, did not take his camera, did not call him a terrorist, and we did not see grandchildren with him which would have made it more understandable. I have already apologised to Mr Sparshott if either the contract security officer (who has now left) or duty manager didn't explain this clearly."

Prats of The Week

Tis the start of the week, and indeed the start of the year (one week in), time for a Prats of The Week Award.

As if by magic, Nanny's chums in the Fareham Shopping Centre proudly present themselves for the award.

It seems that the jobsworths who are in charge of security of the centre are so worried about the threat of terrorism that they have banned photographs being taken, even when the photographs are being taken by grandparents of their grandchildren.

Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ordered to stop taking photos of their grandchildren, because they were causing a security threat. Then, for good measure, they were banned from the shopping centre for life!

They were thrown out of the centre, after they tried to photograph the look of surprise on their grandchildrens' faces when they turned up unexpectedly.

The Sparshotts were taking a break from their home in Spain, and wanted to surprise their family by arriving at the centre, in Fareham, Hants, while they were shopping.

Mrs Sparshottis quoted:

"I couldn't believe it. I was so shocked.

He said we had committed an act of terrorism."

Errmmmm...wouldn't an act of terrorism actually be a bombing or attempted bombing of said centre?

I suppose they should feel lucky that the guard didn't also try to accuse them of being paedophiles, which is the normal response from Nanny when a parent/grandparent/adult tries to photograph a child these days.

Jobsworth actions like this merely aid the terrorists.

Fareham Shopping Centre, well deserving Prats of The Week.

Feel free to drop them a note here manager@farehamshopping.com

The Dangers of Snow

OK folks, where the fark has all this snow that we were promised in London by Nanny's chums in the media gone then?

Not one flake has fallen in Croydon.

Yet the media were working themselves up into a veritable wank fest over this a couple of days ago. I even saw some hapless reporter from Auntie (the BBC) reporting live from Crystal Palace, saying that the first flakes were falling there; he was almost jumping up and down with excitement.

What a load of hysterical nonsense.

My useless council even had their gritters out (WARNING - do not attempt to take your gritters out in public, unless you have written permission from a doctor).

Nanny really has turned us into a nation of scared pussies.

Nanny Bans Motherhood

It seems that the Health and Safety Gestapo have over reached themselves this time. Not content with banning all sorts of normal, everyday activities on the grounds of the "risk" that they pose to health and safety, Nanny has decided that motherhood is itself a risk and banned it.

That is what Liz Cooper, and five month old Dominca Jimenez, found out recently when they were at an evening group study session in St Mary's College (Blackburn) library and IT room.

Security staff asked her to leave.

For why?

Seemingly on health and safety grounds because of dust, temperature and hard-edged surfaces!

Ms Cooper has been been told that she can only have Dominica with her in the breast-feeding room, or the baby-changing facilities.

Ironically Ms Cooper is in fact studying for a degree in early years health, and one would have thought that she had some idea about the health and well being of her daughter.

Sarah Flanagan, spokeswoman for the college, said the decision was made on health and safety grounds.

As Ms Cooper said:

"The breast-feeding facilities are

all well and good, but if I can't take

her onto the rest of the site,

what is the point?

I'm not going to take her to

college just to feed her.

It's not as if I was in a lecture

at the time, it was a small study group.

The college accommodates people will all

sorts of disabilities and other learning

needs, so why not mums?

The college is saying that the problem

is health and safety, because of dust,

temperature and hard-edged surfaces,

but that's exactly the same as you would

find in a supermarket at home or anywhere else,

so I don't see the problem.

She was asleep and quiet and I was carrying

her in a sling so she wasn't disturbing anyone.

If she had woken up and cried

I would have immediately left the room.

I was very embarrassed and upset -

they called me away from my group and

asked me to leave. It was absolute madness

and I was made to feel like a criminal.

I was working in a group of four people and

there were only another four people there

they weren't being disturbed either.

It seems like I have to be either a student

or a mum and I can't be both."

Ms Cooper has not yet learned the rules of the Nanny state:

1 Parenthood is a disability and a disease

2 Nanny can't have children herself, and hates those who can

3 Parents wasting their time looking after their own children are not working to provide Nanny with the tax revenue she craves

4 Parents are not best suited to bring up children, it is the role of the state

Nanny is very annoyed that people have not yet learned these rules, and will be spanking your bottoms soon if you don't learn them.

A Nice Little Earner

Congratulations to my beloved Croydon Council who have almost come up with a nice way to make even more money out of the hapless citizens of and visitors to Croydon.

They had constructed a parking deal with European parking firm APCOA, which was supposed to come into force in November 2007. APCOA was then supposed to take over complete control of Croydon's parking services.

APCOA were pushing the council to agree to a clause which would allow them to issue an extra 20,000 tickets each year.

This would bring the total up to 300 Penalty Charge Notices issued in Croydon on a daily basis, generating a revenue of £15K a day for the company with doubtless benefits for our beloved council.

The deal collapsed in December, and the council admitted it "inadvertently" disclosed sensitive information due to an administrative error.

This sorry tale does of course not end there. APCOA are now threatening to sue the council for the collapse of the deal, and the disclosure of confidential information.

Guess who will get stuck with the legal bill?

Yes, that's right, the hapless taxpayers of Croydon.

All because the council tried to screw more money out of the residents and visitors to this blighted borough.

The question is, why on earth did they choose APCOA to work with?

See what the BBC has to say about this firm here APCOA.

Local councils, what the fark are they here for?

Nanny Bans Fat People, Smokers, Humans etc

Our beloved unelected Prime Minister, Gordon "Smiler" Brown, the high priest of Nannyism has decreed that we really are rather too unhealthy to be treated by the NHS.

Brown only wants healthy people to show up at doctors surgeries and hospitals. You have to admit that this is a brilliant way to save money!

Under Brown's new Nanny constitution, patients face having to meet conditions to qualify for free healthcare.

Smokers, fat people and others of whom Nanny disapproves will have to agree to end their "nasty" lifestyles if they wish to be treated.

Nanny's spokesman from Downing Street, needless to say, played down the prospect of sanctions if people refused to comply. Seemingly, it is "too early" to discuss details.

How often politicians use that weasel phrase to avoid the annoyance of discussing "details".

However, a source in Nanny's Department of Health was quoted in the media as saying:

"If you are smoking too much

should you be entitled to an operation?

Should we say you can have an operation

if you give up smoking and change

your pattern of behaviour?"

So there you have it folks, the NHS will be used as a tool by the state to change our patterns of behaviour.

Are you happy with that?

Here's why the plan is bollocks:

1 Will fat, substance abusing, MP's be refused treatment?

2 Will fat, substance abusing, MP's in fact bother using the NHS?

3 Doctors, by their Hippocratic oath, are honour bound to treat all people irrespective of their personal views about lifestyle, morals etc. The plan contradicts the Hippocratic oath.

4 Having got rid of the fat people and the smokers; next will be the old, the meat eaters, the drinkers and finally the human beings.

5 Given that the NHS will have the option of not treating certain types of patient, will we have the option of not paying for the NHS?

A pile of bollocks from start to finish, and highly indicative of Brown's views on the freedom of the individual and the role of the state.