Covid-related flight cancellations are back. 50 Gatwick flights cancelled/diverted on Sunday and many others delayed due to air-traffic controllers contracting the virus. As a result 8,000 passengers, mostly on easyJet, woke up where they didn't want to behttps://t.co/BYZ014Ntc3
Nanny's chums from the Institute of Alcohol Studies have recommended applying the Licensing Act to airports, allowing time restrictions to be imposed (ie pub opening hours would be applied).
Airports have accused the authors of pandering to the "vested interests"
of Ryanair, which supports a change to stop the sale of alcohol in
airports in the early morning and after 11pm.
Currently airports are exempt from the legislation but Nanny
is considering changing this as part of efforts to reduce disruption by
drunk passengers.
Here's why this proposal is bollocks:
1 People arrive and depart from airports at all times of the day and night (and their body clocks are not necessarily set to Brit time), as such they should be allowed to have a drink when they want.
2 People will still drink on the planes and indeed in the airline lounges (if they have access).
3 Travelling by air is a miserable experience, the only thing that makes it bearable is the booze.
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
How "ironic" that Ryanair, Easyjet and Panorama are all bleating at the same time about boozed up passengers.
A cynic might suggest that this is some co-ordinated ploy devised by Nanny in order to allow her to ban boozing at airports!
Anyhoo, be that as it may, the BBC and all other major news organs report that Ryanair has called on UK airports to
enforce a two-drink limit, after a BBC Panorama investigation suggested
arrests of drunken passengers have risen by 50% in a year.
The airline has already banned customers from drinking duty-free alcohol on board (fair enough!).
It seems that a total of 387 people were arrested between February 2016 and February 2017 - up from 255 the previous year.
Needless to say Nanny's Home Orifice is "considering" calls for tougher rules on alcohol.
Ryanair
is also urging airports to ban the sale of alcohol before 10am, and
to limit the number of drinks per boarding pass to a maximum of two.
Here are a few thoughts:
1 To put the number of arrests (387) into context, annual passenger numbers published by the Civil Aviation Authority show
that in total 251.6 million passengers used a UK airport in 2015.
2 Many of the budget airline destinations are to "all you can drink" resorts, as such what sort of passenger do the budget airlines think they will get if they cater to "all you can drink" holiday makers?
3 I and many others can drink like a fish on a plane, but manage not to assault anyone or ending up being arrested. The issue is down to the nature of the cretins who end up brawling.
4 Banning booze before 10am sounds very "modest", yet airports are international and people are travelling in their own timezones where 10:00GMT may in fact be 18:00 according to their body clocks.
5 Limiting sales of pre flight booze, and stopping drinking duty free on board, may to a cynic seem to be a way of increasing sales of on board drinks!
6 Flying is hellish enough, without the comfort of booze it would be an even more joyless experience.
7 Shite airlines that charge for everything, but still cram people in to seats designed for midget, get bad tempered customers.
8 How the hell do they think that they can enforce a two drink limit? People will get their friends to buy the booze, or they will simply get boozed up before arrival at the airport.
All in all this is a coordinated piece of bollocks that will be used by Nanny to impose unenforceable drink restrictions on 251 million people!
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
Oh dear oh dear, I had hoped that the Tories were going to one day get over their Nannying fetish, sadly not yet.
Step forward Lord Ahmad (Nanny's aviation minister) who has got his knickers in a twist over people drinking at airports.
He is concerned that between March 2014 and March 2016 442 people were held after air rage incidents, this is a piss pathetic percentage when you consider that 8 million people fly EVERY DAY!.
His solution to this piss pathetic problem?
Stop 24 hour drinking at airports.
He says that he does not
want to “kill merriment altogether” but feels that the current
regime may not “fit for purpose”.
He wants to “look at” the fact that
airport pubs, bars and restaurants can sell alcohol 24 hours a day
because they are not subject to licensing laws.
Ironically Graham Stringer, a Labour
MP on the Transport select committee, basically said that the idea is bollocks:
“My instinct is that there
are already rules and if people fancy a drink at the start of their
holidays then why shouldn't they have one?
It sounds to me like nannying and I think he's looking for something
to do. There are perfectly adequate rules to stop anti-social and
drunken behaviour both in airports and on planes."
Here are a few reasons as to why Lord Ahmad is talking bollocks:
1 People such as Ahmad fly business/first class, as such they sit in nice lounges with access to free booze. The rest of the world has to use bars and pay for the booze, why restrict only the "plebs" rights?
2 People are flying 24 hours a day, and their body clocks are generally fucked. Therefore to restrict sales to only certain times of the day makes no sense at all, given that major airports operate 24/7.
3 Bar staff are trained to stop serving people who are clearly well out of their boxes.
4 There are already plenty of rules etc that can stop unruly idiots even boarding a plane.
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
On Monday I wrote that Nanny's ever "efficient" and "respected" Borders Agency "in the spirit of keeping our country safe from felons and evil doers, has banned Dog The Bounty Hunter from coming to the UK this
week to appear on Celebrity Big Brother."
I went on to conclude:
"I dare say that we all feel a lot safer knowing that the UKBA are clearly on the ball!"
Well then, imagine my "shock" and "surprise" when I read that the UKBA had managed to let a violent crossbow wielding stalker into the UK despite being warned before he arrived that he was dangerous.
The Argus reports that the UKBA has now apologised to the family of Dr Alison Hewitt,
who was subjected to a four-month stalking campaign by her jilted lover,
Al Amin Dhalla.
Dr Hewitt’s mother, Pamela Hewitt, had written to the agency in November 2010 warning them about Dhalla.
The letter warned the UKBA that he had an extensive criminal record
for violence, was banned from the US, used three aliases and had
previously entered the UK illegally.
Despite giving the agency his passport number and flight details of
when and where he would return to Britain, Dhalla was able to walk
through immigration unhindered and begin a terror campaign
against the family.
For why did the UKBA allow this man into the country?
Simples...it seems he failed to declare his
previous convictions when applying for a visa.
Aha!
Tip for Assange: don't tell anyone who you are when you try to leave the country!
Dhalla was arrested at Princess Royal Hospital
in Haywards Heath, where Dr Hewitt worked. Police found a loaded
crossbow, a large knife and a
fuel-soaked envelope addressed to Mrs Hewitt in his car.
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 Independent reports that Nanny USA now wants monitor those who fly to its neighbours:
"One million British travellers planning to fly to Canada, the
Caribbean and Mexico this year face the risk of being turned away at the
airport – at the insistence of the US Department of Homeland Security.
New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to
certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to
US authorities. The information is checked against a "No Fly" list
containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers
well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as
suspicious will be denied boarding."
It seems to me that a little bit of reciprocity is called for here, namely that the details of US citizens flying to the UK and its neighbours (ie Europe) should be requested pre flight; and that the UK be given the right to block US citizens from flying if their names appear on UK Nanny's no fly lists.
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
It seems that Nanny continues to crack down on freedom of speech and our freedom to ask questions.
David Jones, a retired fireman and the creator of Fireman Sam, discovered this to his cost the other day when he went through the security gates at Gatwick airport.
As we all know, Nanny has done her best to increase our paranoia and fear about terrorism and has increased the level of security checks over the years at UK airports (all rather pointless on some long haul flights, if the same level of checks are not carried out at other airports en route or for transit passengers).
Anyhoo, Mr Jones placed his belongings, including a scarf, into the tray that passes through the X ray (that can't of course pick up certain types of explosives). Whilst waiting in line he observed a Muslim lady in a hijab pass through the area without showing her face.
Mr Jones made a comment to one of Nanny's security officers thusly:
"If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, Mr Jones was detained by Nanny's security staff and accused of racism.
Factoid: for the benefit of Nanny and her lackeys, any person of any race or colour can be Muslim (it is a religion not a race!).
Mr Jones then was subjected to a one hour stand-off, as Nanny's lackeys tried to force him to apologise.
To whom should he have apologised may I ask, and for why?
1 He wasn't being racist.
2 The comment was not aimed at the lady, nor heard by her.
3 The lady had long since gone.
Mr Jones then claims that, in addition to security staff giving him a verbal going over, the BA duty manager (he was trying to fly BA) got involved and took their side too.
The security staff insisted that he apologise to a Muslim security guard who had "apparently", on being told of the comment (ie she was not initially involved), became offended.
Mr Jones requested that a police officer be sought, unfortunately the police officer also kowtowed to the concept of political correctness. Mr Jones was told that "some things are not to be said".
We have now entered the Orwellian world of thought and speech crimes!
Mr Jones eventually (as he really did want to catch a flight) came to an agreement whereby he consented that what he said "could" be considered offensive by a Muslim guard.
Needless to say, Nanny insisted on making him go through the security check and full search again.
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
A large roll on the drums ladies and gentlemen, for today I award my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Award twice...to the same organisation, Mole Valley District Council.
For why I hear you ejaculate (can I say "ejaculate" before 9PM?).
For the following two reasons:
1 Mole Valley District Council is attempting to dictate to people what they may plant in their hanging baskets and floral displays.
2 My thanks to a loyal reader who tweeted me a link to a site that is campaigning for the Gatwick Aviation Museum.
"Built up, preserved and funded over decades by one gentleman (now
elderly) and his team of enthusiastic volunteers and WWII airmen heroes,
this Aviation Museum has a unique collection of rare British Aircraft,
engines and models from the "golden age" of British aircraft
manufacture. It is a national treasure and a perfect example of David
Cameron's "Big Society" at work." --- Howard Smith.
Unfortunately for the museum there is one small fly in its oinkment wrt its plans for improvement.
Can you guess what that is children?
Yes, that's right, Mole Valley District Council!
The museum has been [is] in dispute with Mole Valley District Council
concerning planning permission, as despite its co-location with Gatwick
Airport, the council has refused permission for a permanent museum site,
citing it as being an inappropriate place for an aircraft museum.
You couldn't make that up could you?
So there we are, Mole Valley District Council well deserving Prats of The Week!
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
I know that Nanny has been pumping up the volume about the terror threat that we all face. However, I think that the security officers at Gatwick may have lost the plot a bit.
Julie Lloyd was flying back to Canada with a present for her husband, a plastic model of a Royal Signaller (the present, not her husband!) complete with a three inch plastic gun (no moving parts or trigger).
The toy was in her carry on luggage.
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, the security personnel told her it constituted a weapon and that she could not take it on board.
Rules is rules!
Tell me again then, if security is so tight, how is that an arms smuggler was able to conduct a thriving trade in real guns by importing them into the UK in his suitcase from the USA?
Anyhoo, Mrs Lloyd posted the toy from Gatwick instead and it arrived safely (by plane) a few days later!
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
Despite the remarkable failure of BAA to keep Heathrow, one of the world's busiest (yet truly awful) airports, open during the inclement weather my partner (Eva) managed to fly back from Stockholm yesterday without any delay or fuss.
How?
Oh, simple, she flew Norwegian Air to Gatwick (an airport not "managed" by BAA).
Her journey though was not without an element of Nannyism.
On board the flight she was about to open a chocolate bar that contained nuts.
Can you guess what happened next children?
Yes, that's right, she was forbidden from opening it.
For why?
Seemingly, somewhere on board was a person with a nut allergy.
Now if this person was sitting next to her, was going to lick the bar or sniff in the nuts I could understand the concern. However, this was simply not the case.
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
How lovely to have such a "seasonal" snowfall in the weeks leading up to Christmas!
That of course would be fine were we living in a country with a decent transport infrastructure, and well managed central and local government services. However, in Nanny's Britain the state (despite being remarkably good at telling us how to run our lives) is incapable of managing basic services.
As usual the UK ground to halt within hours of the first snowflakes appearing; roads were not gritted, trains were stuck and airports closed.
For why?
Those who are responsible for managing the transport infrastructure are simply not up to the job, and trot out all the usual complacent excuses about the weather being unpredictable and it being the worst since 989BC etc etc.
Bollocks!
Countries such as Russia and Poland (who are not meant to be as well off as the UK) manage to keep their trains, buses and airports running.
What does Nanny do?
She bleats out the same tired old line "do not travel unless your journey is absolutely necessary".
Lovely advice if you live in Lah Lah Land. However, the majority of people have to travel to get to work, go to school and shop etc.
Here's what needs to be done:
1 Gritters, snow ploughs and track de-icers should be working during the night, not just during daylight hours.
2 School kids should be advised to walk to school, rather than rely on their parents driving them.
3 Individuals should be responsible for clearing their own pathways (and those of their elderly infirm neighbours) of snow (this is the law in other countries, eg Poland).
4 The Meteorological Office should be fined when they screw up their forecasts.
5 It should be mandatory for everyone (on cold days such as this) to have a bowl of porridge fortified with a tot of whisky or rum for breakfast.
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
I would like to wish all my loyal American readers, wherever they are in the world, a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving in the USA is one of the busiest periods for travelling in the year. Therefore this story from the USA is rather appropriate.
In Europe, over the past few years, we have become accustomed to increased security checks at airports eg; shoes and belts have to be removed, passengers have to walk through metal detectors, pat downs are common place, body scanners are now being installed etc.
These security checks are as a result of the perceived increase in threat level from various terrorist groups, and the increased security requirements imposed on Europe by the US authorities.
I was therefore somewhat surprised to read that in the US, only recently have pat downs and body scanners been introduced and that a vocal minority of the travelling public there are rebelling against these on the grounds that they represent a threat to individual civil liberties.
John Tyner, a software engineer from California, has become something of an internet "hero" when he recorded his run-in with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at San Diego airport on his mobile phone.
The new security pat-down procedure, introduced on November 1, has caused an uproar; the alternative, walking through a body scanner, is not trusted by people in the USA on both health and modesty grounds.
Mr Tyner refused to submit to the body search, and told security officials in San Diego "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested".
Apparently there is now a range of T shirts with that motto emblazoned on them, and a movement has formed declaring 24 November to be "National Opt-Out Day" (urging passengers to refuse to be searched).
I can, to a degree, sympathise with the idea behind this; innocent until proven guilty ought to be the maxim, yet we are all seemingly treated as potential terrorists. The delays to travel brought about by the increased security checks is also a major hindrance to the "enjoyment" of flying.
However, I do wonder if these same people who are complaining would be quite so vocal if a bomber manages to get through and blow up a plane?
There needs to be a balance struck between sensible precautions (eg profiling etc), and excessively intrusive time wasting searches.
We, in Europe, have rolled over and meekly accepted all the security "upgrades" (eg body scanners, no liquids, show removal etc) without so much as a whimper. This passive obedience particularly sticks in the gullet, when one reads that the country that has insisted on Europe introducing these measures can't introduce them in its own borders without an almighty fuss from the travelling public there.
European and US travellers may well have some lessons that they could learn from each other, with a view to persuading the authorities to make the security checks more focused and less intrusive for the ordinary non terrorist passenger.
Do remember this, the terrorists win if they force us to live in a state of fear and siege.
On this rather "heavy" note I wish you all a peaceful, happy and rewarding Thanksgiving.
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
How amusing I see that, despite denials that airport scanners would be misused, police recently warned an airport worker about a crude remark he made about a colleague's breasts as a newly-installed security scanner took a full body X-ray of her.
Seemingly Jo Margetson walked into an X-ray machine at Heathrow by mistake, whereupon the incident allegedly occurred.
She claimed that she is now "totally traumatised".
Can anyone tell me why the police were called in though?
Surely the employer could have handled this?
If Ms Margetson is really so "traumatised", she could undoubtedly sue the worker for the alleged damage done to her?
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
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
I realise that I may now be sounding like a scratched record on this subject. However, this ongoing incident has so clearly highlighted how schizophrenic and easily swayed Nanny and the media are (ie they are clueless).
Initially safety was the watch word.
All flights banned.
Then comes the baying and moaning from the Brits abroad (who regard 3 holidays a year as part of their national right), about how disgraceful it is that they are stranded in sunny climes.
The media, ever keen to change tack in order to keep a story running, then says that the health and safety issue is overplayed.
Airlines run a few test flights, and pronounce that everything is safe.
Nanny, in the middle of a general election (and worried about looking useless), sends three warships to Europe to rescue our "brave" British holidaymakers.
European heads of travel finally (some days after the event) pick up their video phones and realise that they look incompetent. They authorise the gradual unlocking of the skies of Europe.
Hoorah!!??
Wait until a plane crashes, then we will see the self same media scream that not enough was done to protect people!
The wheel of life turns full circle and strafes our buttocks!
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
I see that Krakatoa continues to spew forth its content into the atmosphere.
However, here is a rather interesting phenomenon that I have observed over the past few days (certainly in my location in Brighton). Ever since the planes have stopped flying, the skies have been clear blue and the weather really brilliant.
Funny that!
Anyhoo, I am becoming rather irritated by the continual news reels (a delightfully old fashioned word) of Brits stuck in airports whinging that "something should be done".
It shows that the way people are cosseted and "protected" from reality, in our small part of the world, does not prepare them to cope with life's screw ups.
Millions of people each day in the world have to cope with famines, disease and starvation. They do so with far greater dignity, and far less moaning, than our fellow citizens who are stuck in airports.
I dare say though, if the stranded passengers become really hungry, they could eat each other.
Would these people prefer to be on a plane that crashed because its engines seized up?
Kudos to Dan Snow for displaying some Dunkirk spirit, if this isn't a PR stunt, by organising a flotilla of "little ships" to cross the Channel:)
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
I am decidedly gemused at the massive health and safety eruption currently spewing (and I don't use that word often enough) forth in the banking capital of the world.
Grounding planes is 100% sensible.
However, the huff and puff about the risk of lung issues though is somewhat overworked (in Sweden I am advised that they are advising people to close their windows).
That being said surely the greatest benefit of this event is that it has pushed the election off the top of the headlines, and given us all something far more interesting to talk and think about!
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
I amused to see that our "beloved" PM Gordon "Smiler" Brown has authorised the installation of body scanners, at all of the UK's airports, in response to the threat posed by morons who try to detonate their underpants.
Here are a few observations about Brown's "great" plan:
1 Scanners have been considered in the past, and deemed not up to the job.
2 Scanners require a human to spot the "bomb", they are therefore not infallible.
3 Scanners will not pick up certain dangerous substances.
4 Brown has ordered a review of security, with special emphasis on scanners. Yet he has overridden the review, even before it has concluded/reported, and ordered scanners.
Why?
It's an election year, and he has to look "decisive".
5 Body scanners will most likely break Nanny's anti child porn laws.
6 Why waste resources treating all passengers as suspects, when experts in the field of terrorism have stated (time and time again) that the terrorists fit a reasonably "easy to identify" profile?
Nanny is just trying to look busy, to make us think that she is useful to us.
However, do not be too alarmed, as said this is a "directive from Brown himself:
1 Orders from Brown never actually come to fruition.
2 These days orders from the Number 10 bunker carry as much weight as Fuhrer orders did in April 1945.
3 Brown/Labour will cock this up, as they have done every other thing in the past 13 years.
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
Way back in 2004 I designed a special new security chair, The Electric Commode, to be used by airlines when transporting their customers from "A" to "B".
The device ensures that the customer is well and truly strapped in during the flight, with no chance of moving around and causing a potential terrorist incident.
Following the actions of that complete and utter knobhead from Nigeria, who attempted to detonate his own underpants, the new security measures being introduced by US bound airlines include toilet restrictions.
Sadly, it seems, my design (especially the commode part) will come to fruition and be onboard some airlines in the not too distant future.
Short of injecting every passenger with a coma inducing sedative, for the duration of the flight, there is little else that airlines can do to prevent passengers from moving around other than strap them in.
BTW, even this and full body searches won't stop the determined knobhead intent on killing him/herself. There is an obvious method, which I will not discuss (lest I give some moron an idea), for concealing explosives etc.
My views on terrorism and religion are noted on my Blue Blog.
It is sad that "religion" is used as an excuse to kill more people than any other of man's "beliefs/traditions/addictions/habits".
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
Congratulations to BAA (Britsh Airports Authority) for out "Nannying" Nanny.
How has this historic achievement been effectuated? (Can I say effectuated on a public website?)
I shall tell you...
When Terminal 5 at Heathrow opens on 27th March, all passengers passing through its portals (including British citizens flying on domestic flights) will be fingerprinted and photographed.
For why?
BAA claim that it's because the design of the building mixes transit, international and domestic travellers all in one huge shopping mall.
BAA also claim that the photos and prints will be destroyed after 24 hours, and will not be given to the security services.
Well, here's why this is a load of old bollocks:
BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities
BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?
The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say
This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)
There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)
The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?
Just to put this truly in perspective, I have travelled to Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang; I have never had to give my fingerprints at these airports.
All in all BAA are taking actions way above their lowly station in life.
I suggest that people bugger up their new system by spraying plastic skin on their fingers, thus making the system inoperable.