Prats of The Week - Poole Council

My goodness me, it has been quite some time since I have awarded my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Award. Therefore, without further ado, I name Poole Council (regularly featured on this site)as this week's honoured recipients.

For why?

Just ask Roy Farnham, a 67 year old scout leader, who recently made the heinous mistake of using his initiative and did something proactive without first asking the council.

Mr Farnham's scout hut (First Lilliput Sea Scouts in Poole) is at the end of a potholed ridden lane/bridle-way.

Fearing that someone might injure themselves if they fell into a pothole, Mr Farnham took it upon himself to fill in the (5ft wide - 18 inches deep) holes with hard-core.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, Poole council threatened him with a fine for fly tipping!

Was that not a tad "aggressive" and "jobsworthy" of them to use the fly tipping law against him? The council claim that the hard-core is not the correct substance to use, then why not give him the correct substance?

For good measure they also told him that if anyone fell over on his hard-core, then he faced the risk of being sued.

Will the council repair the bridal-way then?

Errmmm..no.

For why?

It would cost £150K, and they are under no legal obligation to repair bridal-ways!

Now, the council is of course correct that if someone fell over on Mr Farnham's repairs (given how we are so happy to sue each other these days) he does indeed face the risk of being sued. However, if they won't repair it and they won't let Mr Farnham repair it or give him the correct filing to make the repairs, what happens next?

Poole council, 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"

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

The Grim RIPA

My compliments to Jenny Paton who took Poole Borough Council (a Conservative council!) to a tribunal, after it admitted using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to spy on her family 21 times (see an article on thsis ite from 2008).

For why was Poole council spying on Miss Poole?

Did they suspect her of being a terrorist?

No!

Did they suspect her dog of fouling the pavement?

No!

They wanted to check to see if she and her family lived in the right school catchment area.

She does live in the right area by the way!

Anyhoo, Poole lost the case and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that it was not a proper purpose and not necessary to use surveillance powers.

The tribunal also found that the surveillance breached the family's right to privacy, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Miss Paton and her family were tailed round the clock, spied on at home and their movements were recorded in detailed surveillance forms. Their car was also described as a "target vehicle".

As ever with councils and jumped up jobsworths, if you give them a smattering of power they misuse use it and abuse it.

Councils, whatever political party they claim to represent, are not to be trusted and are the enemy of the people.

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 booze. Click and drink!

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, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Prats of The Week - Poole Council

Well done Poole council for winning my prestigious "Prats of The Week" award.

The other week it was widely reported that the "good" councillors of Poole had installed a fake cone shaped Christmas tree, costing £14K, in the town centre.

For why?

There were "health and safety" fears that the real one, that they normally use, would fall over.

The cone was made of artificial turf stretched over an aluminium frame, and stood 33ft high. It was weighed down with two tons of ballast to prevent it from toppling, had LED lights around it and played Christmas carols.

Can you guess what happened next my loyal readers?

Yes, that's right, owing to a public outcry (and the fact that some people climbed on the cone and damaged it) the council have now replaced the cone with a real tree!

Poole council, 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 booze. 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

Swimming Banned

Nanny is, as we know, a tad worked up over health and safety issues. However, even by her standards this is completely stupid.

It all began during a "Boredom Busters" session for children (why do children need to have every waking moment of their live's structured by Nanny? Why can't they be bored for a bit?) in a swimming pool at Stourfield Infants School in Bournemouth.

A six year old girl allegedly slipped into the pool. Thus it was emergency services were called.

She was taken to Poole Hospital for treatment, and later discharged.

Nanny then promptly banned swimming sessions for children.

Service director for children's learning and engagement ("engagement"??!!, where does Nanny get these ridiculous phrases from?), Di Mitchell, said:

"The safety and well being of children is our number one concern and the team on site worked swiftly to respond to this incident and immediately called in the ambulance and police services.

Following the incident we took the decision to cease the swimming sessions that were scheduled at the school this week and we are now undertaking a thorough investigation to determine how this incident occurred."

So let's get this straight, Nanny deems that it is too dangerous to teach children to swim lest they have an accident.

What happens then, given that Bournemouth is by the coast, were a child to fall into the sea and drown because Nanny had banned swimming lessons?

Isn't this ban rather stupid?

Won't someone think of the children?????

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 booze. 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

The Grim Ripa

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions.

In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Wise words indeed!

It is "reassuring" to see that our local councils (those organs of the Nanny state which, as you know, I have such a high "respect" for) are testing out Herr Shickelgruber's ideas at this very minute.

Following on from last week's story about Poole council using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) to spy on a family, over the non terrorist issue of school catchment areas, it transpires that other local councils have been invoking Ripa for spy missions too.

Were they invoking Ripa to counteract possible terrorist threats?

No!

They invoked Ripa, and spied on their voters to investigate petty offences such as dog fouling, under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations.

Councils and other public bodies are using Ripa (anti terrorist legislation) to spy on people, obtain their telephone records and find out who they are emailing.

Did you know they could do all of that?

In 2007 councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for "directed surveillance", according to figures released by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. This was almost double the number for the previous year.

Ironically, applications from police and other law enforcement agencies fell during the same period, to about 19,000. One local government body stated that councils and other public bodies would soon carry out more surveillance than the police.

That's reassuring isn't it?

Ripa is now being used by councils to spy on otherwise law-abiding people committing minor offences such as; fly-tipping, failing to pick up dog mess and to gather evidence that can be used to instigate fines.

Gosport borough council is currently using Ripa for an undercover investigation into dog fouling. Council officers equipped with digital cameras and binoculars are spying on dog walkers.

Chris Davis, the council's head of internal audit, said without irony:

"We have strategically placed members of our enforcement team to blend in with the natural environment and observe people walking dogs.

They are using digital cameras to get hard evidence. Dog fouling is a real issue and in this case it is happening close to a leisure facility where children play."

Dog fouling may well be a nuisance, but why is anti terrorist legalisation being used to combat it?

Why are innocent people being spied on by the council?

What controls are in place wrt the data gathered? (None I would warrant!)

When Ripa was passed in 2000, only nine organisations, such as the police and security services, were allowed to use it. That number has risen to 792, including 474 councils.

Whilst councillors can be held to account, and indeed can be voted out of office; Local Government Officers (LOG's), on defined pensions and very generous pay packages, cannot be held to account and are virtually impossible to remove from office.

Do we really want people like that spying on us?

When Ripa and other anti terrorist laws were introduced by our political "masters", we were assured that they would only be used against the "bad guys".

It transpires that we are all now "bad guys".

How did this happen?

1 The politicians lied

2 Politicians are incompetent headline grabbing fools, who don't think things through

3 Politicians ignore the fundamental principle of British law, ie innocent until proven guilty. The reason that we have limits on detention without charge etc is to protect the innocent from being held on false charges. Without that failsafe, we would all be held by the police on the slightest whim.

4 Brown and his ilk are control freaks, who do want to monitor what we do

5 Local councils are worse than worthless

6 It is the nature of councils et al to use all the tools at their disposal, to monitor and control their populations. The more we give them, the more they will use.

Brown and his mob even now are pressing for the police to have the wright to detain someone for 42 days without charge, if they suspect him/her of being a terrorist. How the hell do we know that one day we will not be held for 42 days, without charge, on suspicion of being a terrorist?

The solution?

-These festering sores on our democracy, LGO's et al, brought in en masse by "Nu Labour" should be removed from office in one massive culling operation.

-Ripa needs to be repealed and reworked.

-The 42 days detention rule must be stopped.

-Brown and Labour must be kicked out.

Nu labour and the local councils have marked out a path (by misuse of Ripa) that others, even more repellent people, will follow.

You have been warned!

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions.

In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Big Brother - Local Council's Licence To Spy

I have often questioned on this site the use/value of local councils. More often than not they seem intent on screwing the local residents for as much money as possible (in order to pay for their defined benefit pension schemes - long since abandoned by much of the private sector) and imposing a veritable smorgasbord of petty rules and regulations to make our lives more unpleasant and difficult.

The question often posed:

"What use are they, and what value do they add?"

Now, dear readers, I am happy to tell you that the answer has been provided (like manna from heaven) by Poole Council.

It would seem that the role of local councils, as they see it, is to spy on their own citizens; in the same manner as one would find in a dictatorship.

Poole council decided to spy on a couple and their three young children. The family were followed, watched at home, and had their movements scrutinised and timed without their knowledge.

Indeed, Nanny's chums in the Borough of Poole has admitted to using such "physical surveillance" on residents on six separate occasions over the past year.

Now, the question naturally arises, why did the council spy on this family?

Were they benefit cheats, defrauding fellow taxpayers of their hard earned taxes?

No!

Were they criminals/terrorists posing a threat to the citizens of Poole?

No!

Were they trying to jump the housing queue?

No!

The council justified its decisions to spy on the family, by stating that it needed to know if they lived in the correct catchment area for their three-year-old daughter to be accepted at a local school.

Hang on a minute...since when was the possibility of lying about one's catchment area a potential crime or threat to society?

The mother has now been shown a detailed surveillance record, listing her movements on an almost daily basis from February 13 to March 3, including school runs with her children and the exact routes they drove.

They were followed more than once, and someone regularly parked outside their home, taking detailed notes such as "female and three children enter target vehicle and drive off" and "curtains open and all lights on in premises".

The report was signed off by a Borough of Poole education officer, and it also names the couple and their children aged three, six and 10 as subjects for surveillance.

The authority, or shall we say the right, for councils to supervise its own citizens comes from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This allows councils to carry out surveillance, but only for the investigation of crimes.

Again, catchment area issues are surely not crimes?

The mother said:

"I have had nothing to say how long the information will be kept for, who holds it and what the implications of having a RIPA order executed against you are. I'm absolutely incensed.

To be following us around for nearly three weeks, apart from being very creepy, is a huge infringement of my liberty."

My daughter is still having trouble sleeping. She's asking if there is a man outside watching us.

They could have contacted us, or come and knocked on the door rather than opting for surveillance which is completely underhand.

They could have treated us like human beings and come back for more information."

The council have also used the act to gain access to telephone subscription and billing information.

The family have lived in their Parkstone home for the last ten years, and their two eldest children went to the local first school.

Their property, which is in the correct catchment area, was put up for sale, but the couple made sure they remained living there until the end of January to ensure their youngest daughter qualified under Poole's school admission rules. After that, they moved to a property near Westbourne.

They explained the situation to the council, and provided bills and documents as requested. At a meeting with a schools admissions manager in mid March they were told they had been under surveillance.

However it was carried out after the council's admissions deadline, so, under the council's own rules, appears to be irrelevant.

Their daughter was accepted at the school.

Tim Martin, head of legal and democratic services, Borough of Poole, said:

"On a small number of occasions, RIPA procedures have been used to investigate potentially fraudulent applications for school places. In such circumstances, we have considered it appropriate to treat the matter as a potential criminal matter.

An investigation may actually satisfy the council that the application is valid, as happened in this case."

Catchment areas are not criminal issues!

The council has carried out physical surveillance on six occasions over the last financial year using RIPA procedures.

So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, we now know what local councils are put on this earth for; they are here to spy on us!

It is now official, Nanny and her lackeys in the councils routinely carry out surveillance of her citizens.

Are you happy with that?

I'm not!

FYI, here is Poole council's email enquiries@boroughofpoole.com feel free to have a chat with them.

BTW, Poole is a Tory council. I suggest that you have a few words with Cameron too about this matter. Here is his contact page David Cameron.

We have sleepwalked into a dictatorship!

Nanny Bans Hot Cross Buns Again

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

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

Why?

Nanny feels this might upset non-Christians.

Few points here:

1 So farking what?

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

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

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

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

Quote:

"We the kitchen staff of Poole Hospital

were disgusted to find that the patients

were not getting hot cross buns this morning.

The manager of the catering department said

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

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

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

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

"We do apologise to patients who missed out

on their hot cross buns on Good Friday.

This was due to an oversight by the catering manager

who forgot to order them in time.

It was nothing to do with religious beliefs.

The buns were handed out on Easter Monday instead."

Well that's plausible, isn't it?

Nanny Bans Fag Ash

Nanny really does seem to have an obsession with smoking, the way that she goes on about it anyone would think that it was bad for you.

Anyhoo, not content with obsessing about the actual smoke produced by a fag, she has now turned her beady little eyes towards the end product of the "deadly weed", that of the ash itself.

Alan Joyce of Lower Parkstone, Poole, got on the wrong end of Nanny in July when he was having a fag in his car.

One of Nanny's ever present spies, ie a council worker, saw him flick some fag ash onto the pavement whilst driving along Sandbanks Road.

Nice to know that council workers throughout the land are now employed as spies by Nanny, isn't it?

Given Nanny's zero tolerance of crime (as we all know muggings, assaults and robberies are now non existent in Britain), Nanny issued Mr Joyce with a £75 fine.

Councillor Don Collier, when asked about this over reaction, said rather robotically:

"The people of Poole won't tolerate littering."

Poole operates a vigilant fixed penalty notice scheme to discover people who are littering our town."

I take it then that fag ash remains clearly visible once it has been "flicked" onto a pavement, and that there is no other worse form of litter on the streets of Poole?

Nanny Bans Skirts

Nanny get's some strange ideas into her head at times.

This time she has taken it upon herself to interfere in the clothing of school girls.

Nanny's chums at Broadstone Middle School in Poole have decided that the skirts, worn by the girls, represent a safety hazard.

Incredible isn't it?

Therefore Nanny has banned the girls from wearing skirts, and insisted that they wear trousers.

Nanny also points out, in a very Victorian manner, that the trousers will ensure that the girls can "maintain modesty".

Seemingly Nanny's friends on the board of governors want to ensure that the girls could join the same lessons as the boys.

May I ask what they were being excluded from before?

Some parents are unhappy at the ban, and think that it has been imposed because some girls were wearing short skirts.

Head teacher Marilyn Warden said skirts were not appropriate during lessons such as music and drama.

Music?

Quote:

"In order to give girls the same opportunities as boys for a safe, active and healthy lifestyle, while maintaining their modesty, it has been considered by our school governors that trousers for all pupils is a practical and appropriate dress requirement."

Safe, active and healthy lifestyle?

Precisely how dangerous are skirts for goodness sake?

Please could some of the women readers of this site comment on the dangers of skirts.

The school website also rather pompously notes that the wearing of skirts will be:

"gender free so that elements of discrimination should be avoided wherever possible"

Precisely how will that be achieved by a change in dress?

The school will impose the ban from January next year, and rule that all 673 pupils at the school wear full-length trousers.

So, if the ban is so important, why will Nanny wait until January?

What will the girls do in the meantime?

Doesn't this ban strike you as being a tad daft?