Nanny Bans Fake Penises

I am gemused to see that Nanny and her officers have been busy in Newquay during the halcyon days of summer (all two days of it), ensuring that the Cornish resort shed its reputation as a haven for drunken revellers and stag parties.

How so?

Nanny has introduced a zero-tolerance approach to "risque" fancy dress.

The result being that some visitors to Newquay have had "risque" costumes seized by police.

What is an example of  "risque" costume?

A mankini!

Devon and Cornwall Police Superintendent Julie Whitmarsh recently gave an interview (as per the Telegraph):

"We have had this consistency of seizing inappropriate items of clothing, sending people home to get changed, and that has worked, it has made a real difference, this 'no-nonsense attitude'.

Mankini is what we term 'offensive clothing', so we won't accept people wearing them. They are just hideous.

Is it just me, but if you were living in Bath for example, or Bournemouth, is that something you would wear to walk into town on a Saturday afternoon? 

No."

For good measure, Nanny also banned fake penises (preferring, I assume, the real thing?); as per Super. Whitmarsh:

"They are just revolting, there is nothing pleasant about seeing anybody in a mankini. We have had a real crackdown on the fake penises. 

And people are getting that message. You look at the images you see of Newquay now, 2009 is three years ago and we are in a very different place."

I wonder how that approach would work in Brighton?

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Prats of The Week - The Dangers of Standing Up To Scum

Ooh, it has been a long time since I have awarded my prestigious and world famous "Prats of The Week" Award.

Time, I think, to make another award.

This week the award goes to Devon and Cornwall police.

For why?

Ask Alma Harding (a retired postmistress of 63), of Kenton Exeter, who tackled a yoof with that most dangerous of weapons, a rolled up copy of church council minutes.

Mrs Harding was returning from a church council meeting, and was crossing the village green. Thereupon she encountered some "lippy" 13 year old and his mates, who swore at her when she told them to stop playing football near some flowers that she had planted on the green.

Mrs Harding therefore remonstrated with them, and "brushed" the boy across his cheek with the paper.

Needless to say, this being Nanny Britain, the boy's mother felt that this was an affront to her son and lodged a complaint.

Mrs Harding now faces a police investigation into claims of common assault, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

Mrs Harding said:

"I have done nothing wrong. It would not have hurt the boy. It was only rolled up paper and I am a little old lady."

Devon and Cornwall police said Mrs Harding would be interviewed "in the next couple of weeks".

Shouldn't common sense dictate that this matter be dropped?

Devon and Cornwall police, well deserving Prats of The Week.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Drowning

Those of you who, having gone for a swim or who have fallen into water, find themselves in difficulties in water may find themselves in an even worse predicament in the future.

Nanny has decided that a policy of "you're on your own chum" is now to be implemented for water based "risk situations".

As such, Nanny's chums in the Devon and Cornwall Police have decreed that police officers in the region must not to hold out a hand to drowning swimmers in case they are pulled into the water themselves.

Errmmm...isn't that down to the individual police officer to make that judgement call, according to the circumstances and his/her capabilities in the water?

Clearly not!

The decree, quite unsurprisingly, comes in a health and safety policy document which says officers should also think twice before throwing a lifebelt.

You will recall that this policy of "you're on your own chum" has been tested in Greater Manchester, where two police community support officers did not enter a lake to try to save Jordon Lyon a ten-year-old boy from drowning. They were told their training had not equipped them with the skills to go in the water.

The document, Health And Safety - Water Safety - states:

"Devon and Cornwall Constabulary does not

expect or require any member of staff

to enter water in a rescue attempt of any

person or animal under any circumstances.

The task of rescuing members of the public

or animals from water lies primarily with

other emergency services that are equipped

and trained to undertake such tasks."

As if to add insult to injury, the health and safety Gestapo also decree that staff should not throw a lifebelt into the water, until they have completed a "dynamic risk assessment".

What utter BOLLOCKS!

But Graeme Hicks, a member of Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, thinks it's bollocks as well:

"It's quite unbelievable that a police officer

could walk past an incident like that and ignore it.

If a child drowned in Cornwall

in those circumstances

we would come under criticism and it

concerns me that there are

policies like this in place."

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said:

"No organisation can expect staff to risk their lives."

What planet does this guy live on?

Firemen, the armed forces, police officers, traffic wardens, the waiter who served me a tough steak the other week etc etc all risk their lives on a daily basis...that's what these jobs are about!

Nanny Shoots Her Own Fox

You may recall that Nanny went to great lengths, a while back, to try to stamp out fox hunting.

Fox hunting is now illegal.

As with any illegal act, one might assume that Nanny's forces of law and order would be actively prosecuting those who perpetrate it.

Umm, well not so, this you must remember is Nanny's Britain; a looking glass world where things are never what they really seem to be.

It seems that Nanny's chums on the police have been told not to stop illegal fox hunts, when the hunting season begins, because of health and safety regulations.

Guidance drawn up by police chiefs instructs officers to take the most cautious approach when investigating reports of illegal hunts, for fear that they might injure themselves. They have been told not to go near hounds or horses, and not to confiscate dead animals as evidence in case of injury or infection.

Nanny has instructed officers to carry out risk assessments before embarking on an investigation.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Er no, it's not.

Police must also ask farmers for permission to go on their land, and not to use police helicopters in case they "cause alarm to horses".

Oddly enough this makes the Hunting Act of 2004 was completely unenforceable.

Gloucestershire and Devon and Cornwall police chiefs have stated:

"Police officers will not routinely be deployed to hunt meetings."

If officers are deployed it will only be after a detailed risk assessment completed on the deployment of that officer, or team by a responsible person. Appropriate support must be considered.

Officers sent to investigate a hunt should:

"record all available evidence (visual or verbal) in the most appropriate manner, by pocket notebook".

Nanny makes it makes clear that the police should not try to catch an illegal hunt taking place, but wait until it has run its course before investigating.

The police must use the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act, to see whether they have access to a particular piece of land.

Nanny concludes by saying that it might be "more appropriate" for an individual or organisation to take a civil or private action against an illegal hunt, rather than have police embark on a criminal investigation.

Were I a cynic, I might assume that Nanny wants her police force to follow up crimes that are easier to "solve"; which make good statistics for her annual crime survey and which are revenue beneficial.

You know, like speeding offences.

However, I'm not a cynic; am I?