How To Defecate Efficiently

I am gemused to see that Stanford University has revealed a new study that shows squatting is the proper and recommended way to go to the bathroom. This conclusion is not unique, Henry L. Bockus in Gastroenterology, the standard textbook on the subject, is quoted by Medical Diagnosis:

"The ideal posture for defecation is the squatting position, with the thighs flexed upon the abdomen. In this way the capacity of the abdominal cavity is greatly diminished and intra-abdominal pressure increased, thus encouraging expulsion ...".

Indeed, societies outwith the Western one which we inhabit (eg France, Asia Pacific) have squatted for centuries.

Why is squatting so much better?

The answer lies with the puborectalis muscle which acts as a sling for your rectum and maintains continence. When we sit down on the toilet, the hold on the rectum is loosened, but only partially. In a squatting posture, the hold is completely relaxed, allowing for an easier release of your bowel.

The modern toilet, rather than the modern diet, is to blame for all manner of ailments including; constipation, haemorrhoids, and appendicitis

Does this mean we should redesign our Western toilets?

Will Nanny send around the Bottom Inspectors?

No!

Simply place a stool (the sitting kind!) under your feet when you are next astride the toilet, and you will be able to squat in comfort upon the throne!

Simples!

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 EU Talks Shite

Oh dear, instead of focusing on resolving the self inflicted Euro crisis, our chums in the EU are focusing their gimlet gaze on other matters.

Prunes!

Contrary to popular belief that prunes are most efficacious for the bowels, Nanny's chums in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have decreed that there is "insufficient" evidence of a link between prunes and normal bowel function after looking at three studies of prune consumption.

Thus, the labelling etc of prunes and prune products will not be allowed to make any claims wrt bowel matters.

Sir Graham Watson MEP is far from impressed, and hopes to get to the bottom of the matter by challenging the Commissioner responsible for health and consumer policy, John Dalli, to a prune-eating contest.
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 Return of The Bottom Inspectors - Clench Your Buttocks!

Oh dear, it looks as though Nanny's feared and hated Bottom Inspectors have returned.

Nanny is now so fearful about our level of fatness, funny how it is that so many MPs are real porkers isn't it?, that she is mounting (can I say mounting so early in the morning?) a campaign to have us exercise at bus stops.

Nanny believes that the time spent at bus stops could be better spent by standing on one leg, pointing our toes and clenching our buttocks.

I have to say it has been a fair while since I had a good old "clench"!

Nanny is handing out leaflets and posters setting out six Pilates-style exercise moves to do at the bus stops, for bus routes between Blackburn and Manchester.

The "Every Stop Helps" leaflet tells passengers:

"Healthy living is all about having a good diet and getting the right amount of physical exercise.

Make exercising on the X41 part of your everyday bus travel. The exercises are easy, fun to do and discreet!"

Come on everyone, let's show Nanny what we think of her by engaging in a mass buttock clench!

The good news is that we are funding this scheme via Nanny's Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Errmmm...given that this is a health issue, shouldn't the money come out of the NHS?

Let's cut the crap shall we?

If Nanny wants to get us all slim again (quickly and cheaply) all she has to do is get us hooked on cocaine, an appetite suppressant favoured by the glitterati. It's cheap, readily available and provides thousands of people who deal it with a living.

Nanny should legalise it and tax it.

Problem sorted!

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

Bottom

A dental chum of mine advises me that there are more bacteria in your mouth, than in your bottom.

Why is that Nanny has not warned us of this?

Why do Nanny's acolytes, ie politicians, persist in going round kissing babies at election times?

The public have the right to know!

The Taxman Cometh

What Nanny takes with her right hand, she also takes with her left too!

Despite all her urging for us to get off our bottoms and do more exercise, it would seem that Nanny has not told her chums in HMRC.

The taxman is trying to add VAT to membership of local leisure centres. This would of course undermine Nanny's campaign to tackle obesity, as millions of people use swimming pools, gyms and leisure centres run by non-profit making leisure trusts.

HM Revenue & Customs is demanding 17.5% VAT on monthly and annual subscriptions to trusts, which include access to sporting and non-sporting facilities such as steam rooms and saunas.

The Revenue has also indicated that it will collect unpaid VAT retrospectively over the past three years, and could even charge interest on the debt — placing a huge financial burden on trusts.

A fine example of non integrated, non joined up and unconnected government policy.

Nanny's Child Catchers

Give me a child, and he/she will be mine for life...not my philosophy, but Nanny's.

In Nanny's world, the way to ensure that she leaves a permanent legacy on Britain's psyche is to ensure that she gets her message across to the children.

Nanny's increasingly politicised police force are only too willing, these days, to help her achieve her goal.

In the dying days of 2006 it seems that Nanny once more struck a blow against common sense, and scared the hell out of some poor kid, as Guya Persaud's son found to his cost.

Persaud junior is 14 years old, and committed a terrible crime in Nanny's eyes.

What was his crime?

Did he deal drugs?

No!

Did he steal?

No!

Did he wear a hoodie?

No!

He pushed a boy over, who he suspected of bullying his younger brother.

Guess what Nanny did?

She sent her chums from Hertfordshire Police around to sort him out.

Persaud junior is a prefect, and was described as a "model pupil" by his school. That didn't stop Nanny's police from using the full powers of the law to scare the sh*t out of him, officers gave him a formal reprimand after an investigation. His name and offence have now been placed on the Police National Computer.

His reprimand for a "violent crime" will also remain on the separate Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) database, jeopardising his hopes of following in his parents' footsteps and becoming a teacher.

Question...do they do this for all the youths who steal cars, mug people, deal drugs or who are just scum?

Er no...

Why?

Simple, Persaud junior is a soft target and easy to use to improve the police "clean up rate". The others are just too much hard work.

Grant Shapps, the local MP, thinks that the police action was bollocks.

Quote:

"Parents will be concerned to hear police

are invading the classroom

rather than solving violent street crime.

I fear this is the Government's target culture gone mad.

Officers are meeting their targets for

solving violent crime by busying themselves

in the playground

and undermining the authority of schools in the process."

This roots of this sorry little example of lousy police work go back seven months or so. Persaud junior's 11 year old brother had seemingly been enduring racist bullying at secondary school in Welwyn Garden City, Herts.

Persaud junior confronted one of the alleged tormentors in May, and pushed him three times and on the third occasion, the alleged bully fell over, though he did not report any injuries.

Persaud junior then told a teacher that he had pushed over another pupil. He was suspended from school for two days and had to write a letter of apology.

Problem solved!

Not so, the "victim's" parents needless to say felt obliged to report the incident to the police. Goodness me, if every incident of some child being pushed over in the playground were reported to the police they would really have some work on their hands!

Guya Persaud said:

"When the police first came to see us,

they were slightly embarrassed

and said the whole thing seemed ludicrous.

But the next we heard they had decided to issue a formal reprimand

which means he is now on the Police National Computer.

It will show up on criminal record bureau checks

for the rest of his life.

As a deputy head, I know that if a school gets a positive CRB check

on an application from someone to be a teacher,

it goes straight to the bottom of the pile."

Hertfordshire Police, seemingly, are more than proud of their contribution to law and order.

Quote:

"As in this instance,

if someone makes a complaint or reports an alleged criminal offence

to the police we are obliged by the Government's crime recording standards

to record the offence and investigate it.

The individual concerned admitted the alleged offence

and accepted a reprimand."

So many words, yet so little understanding as to what the role of the police is really meant to be.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the police's actions and attitude in this case scare the hell out of me.

Oh, one more thing...do you think that Nanny's police pressed charges against the racist bully?

I bet they didn't.

Nanny Fiddles The Figures

As we all know, Nanny believes that everyone in Britain should be given a fair chance in life...er so long as they comply with her views on how they live their lives, and so long as they fit her ethnic/social ideal.

Nanny is proud to remind us daily that we live in a utopia, which could only be possible under her benign rule.

The trouble is, life doesn't always work out in the way that Nanny would like it. Sometimes the facts do not always fit Nanny's propaganda.

Have no fear, when reality does not match expectations, Nanny has a simple fix.

What's that then Ken?

Nanny fiddles the figures!

Today we see such a case in point. Nanny has fiddled the education figures, to favour those who come from what she would describes "deprived" backgrounds.

Nanny has done a wee bit of "jiggery pokery" (can I say "jiggery pokery"?) on the school tables.

Now Nanny has "engineered" the figures to show the new paradigm, the worst schools in the country for GCSE results are now near the top of the new list, whilst some of the best grammars are near the bottom.

It's Orwellian reality revision at its very best!

Needless to say, this "jiggery pokery" (are you sure that I can say this?) does the pupils no good. Teachers will of course use poverty and other social issues as an excuse for under-achievement.

The "jiggery pokery" comes in the form of the "contextual value added" table (CVA), who thinks these BOLLOX phrases up?, which has been introduced alongside standard tables this year.

The CVA judges schools less harshly if they have large numbers of pupils who claim free school meals, due to family poverty, or live in deprived postcodes.

What the fark is a deprived postcode?

Other factors are also taken into account, eg ethnicity of pupils and sex.

Before we get some racial bigot saying something unpleasant, let me point out that the CVA tables are skewed in favour of white males; Nanny deems white maels to be thick and the most deprived.

Nanny has even imposed a maximum limit on the number of GCSEs that schools can count towards their results. No more than eight GCSEs per pupil are allowed.

Nanny's Schools Minister, Jim Knight, said:

"I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from these figures.

If I were to be fair to grammar schools,

it could be quite difficult for them to show improvement

because they are already doing so well thanks to their selection."

Which translated means, the figures are bollocks and grammar schools are the best.

The CVA system does the pupils no favours, no matter how much you try to explain away under achievement and make them feel good about themselves, these kids will one day become adults and enter world that is unforgiving and does not accept excuses.

Life is hard!

In truth Nanny is abusing these children, by shielding them from life's hard realities.

As regards which schools are better, state, private or grammar...well I think Ruth Kelly (Nanny's favourite little minister) has demonstrated the stark reality there...hasn't she?

Labour

Do as we say

Not as we do!

Nanny's Segregated Swimming Pool III

Well lookey here folks, Croydon Council actually sent me their official press response to the media stories about their segregated swimming pool.

Rather a surprise, considering that they never respond to the issues that I raise in www.croydoniscrap.com. Then again, the swimming pool story was featured by several large media organs (can I say organ?), so they were rather forced to say something about it.

Anyhoo, at the end of this article you can read the full text of their press release. The Croydon Council spin doctors have made a good effort to spin the story around, and to try to present it as a storm in a tea cup. Rather a nice touch to use the title "Single Gender Swimming Lessons".

See, it's nothing to do with religion; it's a sex issue!

So that's alright then isn't?

Er...no it's not.

The trouble is, if you read it carefully, it doesn't quite stack up:

• Is not the provision of single sex sessions, in a public facility (as opposed to a private members only club), discriminatory?



• Why do women or men need to swim separately?



• The title and tone of the media release would have you believe that this was merely a gender issue. However, if this is only a "gender thing", why do the sessions require a greater level of covering-up than would be the case during public opening hours?



• Why, if this is only a "gender thing", are the "Single Gender Sessions" run in conjunction with Norbury Islamic Academy? (Scroll down to the bottom of this page from the pool's website).



• Croydon Council would have you believe that the sessions (which have been going on for a year) are outside of the normal opening hours of the pool, and as such no member of the public is being inconvenienced by this. However, it seems that they are being a tad disingenuous when they say that it is outside of normal hours. It may now be outside of normal hours, but the opening hours of the pool have been shortened (see the pool's website updated December 2006).
  
  Sarah Fellows, a pool regular is quoted as saying:
  
  "I take my kids all the time
  
  but I did notice they had introduced the men-only Muslim afternoon
  
  a while back though they've now changed the times as well."
  
  In fact, if you go to an old version of the pool's website, you can see that the swimming pool was open on Sunday May 2006 up to 17:45, which was later than it is now. However, the male only sessions now start at 16:45. The pool opening times on Sunday have been shortened, thus it is perfectly "correct" for the council to say that the sessions are now outwith the normal hours.



• Why, if this is a "gender only thing", do people need to adhere to a dress code.

Why does the council need to try to spin the story in this manner? The council, if it really believes in its policy of providing Muslims with separate sessions, should have the balls to say so. At least people would respect them for saying, and doing, what they believe.

This policy, and the spin reaction, helps no one. Contact details for Croydon Council are in the original article on this site.

Full Text of Press Release

Single Gender Swimming sessions at Thornton Heath pool

Croydon Council is monitoring attendances at its weekly, single gender swimming sessions that have been held at Thornton Heath pool throughout the last year. Attendances have averaged 250 each weekend. The sessions have been organised to help ensure that as many local people as possible are able to make use of the facilities. Those attending have also been able to use the fitness suite and sports hall.

Contrary to national press reports over the weekend, sessions are open to all faiths. The sessions for women are held on Saturday afternoon (6.45pm - 8.45pm) and the sessions for men are held on Sunday afternoons (4.45pm - 6.45pm). The dress code during these sessions requires a greater level of covering-up than would be the case during public opening hours.

Provision of the sessions is in line with the council's policy of ensuring leisure facilities in the borough are accessible to the whole community. They are particularly appreciated by members of the Muslim community as well as other local people who feel more comfortable attending single gender sessions.

Croydon is in no way unique in offering such sessions to minority communities outside public opening hours and they have operated with the consent and understanding of all pool users since their introduction in November 2005.

Nanny Bans Fat Women

Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering, and in keeping with her campaign against all things fat she has drawn up recommendations that further ostracise the fat community.

Nanny's chums in The British Fertility Society (BFS) have decreed that free IVF treatment should be limited to those who are of a healthy weight, ie fat women will not be given IVF treatment.

BFS chairman, Dr Mark Hamilton, said that women who were clinically overweight faced safety risks and should make an effort to get fit for pregnancy.

The guidelines say women who have already embarked on a weight loss programme should be considered for treatment.

The question is, what constitutes fat?

Doctors have been using body mass index (BMI) as a measure of fatness, yet according to some the BMI is in fact bollocks; eg a fit rugby player will come in at over 30 on the BMI, yet Nanny's doctors say that 20-25 is the "correct" BMI.

Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS 'value for money' watchdog, say that patients should 'ideally' have a BMI of between 19 and 30, with no absolute upper limit for treatment.

Oddly enough Nanny's other bane of her life, smokers, would not be excluded from treatment, but would be given advice on quitting.

A tad hypocritical, given the fact that Nanny tells us that smoking is the most evil thing that you inflict upon yourself and others.

The bottom line is this, when governments try to social engineer society they always cock it up.

This ban is just a nasty way of trying to save money, other "savings" will be sought in the future; whereby fat people, smokers, drinkers, wankers etc will be denied treatment in the interests of "saving" money. After all, if you are a non smoker, non drinker and not a fat person you are alright aren't you?

Nanny is avoiding the real issue here, namely how do we fund an NHS that seeks to satisfy an ever increasing demand for its services?

Answer: WE CAN'T.

There has to be a debate about what services the NHS can actually provide to everyone (fat people, smokers and wankers etc), and how much we are able to pay for them.

Nanny of course likes to avoid painful questions, and instead enjoys lecturing us on our lifestyles.

Nanny Bans Cartoon Smoking

Nanny Knows Best has been up and running for almost two years now, during this time I have written many articles about Nanny's nasty little rules and absurd political correctness.

Given Nanny's daily output of rules and regulations there is a danger that one becomes somewhat "numb", for want of a better word, to Nanny and her rules. As such, sometimes, even I have to step back and read a few times what I have written before the absurdity (no, I don't mean that I write in an absurd fashion!) of it really sinks in.

However, in this particular case my dander was well and truly up before I even set finger to keyboard.

I think it is the combination of the sad little loser being able to stifle artistic creativity, and the fact that a large media organ is playing out Orwell's warning about history being literally airbrushed away that has really got my dander up.

Anyhoo, it seems that in shades of Orwell's 1984, history is being airbrushed away by Turner Broadcasting.

This all started when some sad loser, with nothing better to do than complain, made a complaint to British media regulator Ofcom about the content of a couple of Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Horror of horrors, they showed Tom smoking!

Needless to say, "Disgusted of Pratt's Bottom" or wherever the sad little loser resides took umbridge at this, and told Ofcom that these scenes (scripted back in the 40's) would encourage children to smoke.

Ofcom, following Nanny's mantra that the prejudices of the minority outweigh the commonsense of the majority, immediately sprang into action. Disregarding any form of commonsense they contacted Turner Broadcasting (part of Time Warner) who own the channel (Boomerang) on which the offending cartoons were aired, and asked them to stop showing them.

Turner, showing no backbone whatsoever (this is the result of living and working in the Nanny state), not only complied but are now scouring more than 1,500 classic cartoons including; Tom and Jerry, The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo to edit out scenes that "glamorise" smoking.

Yinka Akindele, spokeswoman for Turner in Europe, said:

"We are going through the entire catalogue.

This is a voluntary step we've taken in light of the changing times."

I have a number of points to make about this nonsense:

1 What about the numerous occasions when Tom and Jerry do immense damage to each other with pots, pans, guns, explosives etc? Are these not also a danger to "innocent" children?

2 Smoking was de rigeur in the 40's and 50's. The cartoons are a reflection of the social mores of the day. To pretend otherwise and airbrush them in this "Nazi/Soviet like" manner, is to deny our own history and to lie to the children. Is this the way we want to raise children, with a lie?

3 Many other characters from history smoke, real and imaginary; Popeye, Churchill etc. Should we airbrush them too?

4 Why does the prejudiced view of one sad loser carry more weight with Nanny and her acolytes, than the unspoken views of the majority?

5 Given the fact that, in Nanny's world, the views of the minority carry more weight than that of the majority I would ask you top drop Turner and Ofcom a line to the effect that:

"I was appalled to learn that you are airbrushing historical cartoons to comply with the prejudiced views of one individual, who has a grudge against smoking.

I would note that your actions are depriving children of a true and accurate historical perspective of society in the 1940's and 50's, and as such your actions constitute a breach of the rules that require impartial and accurate broadcasting.

I would also note that by taking these actions, as a result of the complaint of only one person, you are in effect liable to accusations of being biased and prejudice; ie you are guilty of discrimination.

In view of this I would like to raise a formal complaint with you about this matter, and request that you investigate and reconsider your actions.

I would note, that since you have taken these actions based purely on one complaint, you are obliged to respond to my complaint with the same attention to detail and thoroughness.

I will, depending on your response, consider taking the matter further."

Here are some useful addresses for you to send the above to:

Offcom - graham.howell@ofcom.org.uk

Investor Relations Time Warner - ir@timewarner.com

Turner
Phone 404.827.1700
Address: 1 CNN Center
100 International Blvd.
Atlanta GA 30348
USA

Boomerang - toon.pressoffice@turner.com

Time Warner Board
c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
USA

Don't let 1984 happen because of apathy.

What A Ranker

Following on from my earlier article today, on the subject of A level results, the results are now out and this year has seen yet another rise in pass rates and scores.

A stonking 24% of examinees scored an A grade, up from 22% last year.

Congratulations to the successful candidates.

Now all you have to do is find a job, earn a living and not rely on the state to wipe your bottoms!

On the subject of ranking, I too can lay claim to being a bit of a ranker.

Not only has this blog achieved 13th place in the MSN list of top blogs, but type Ken Frost into Google and you will see that I rank number one on the serach list.

Yes folks, number one out of 5,120,000 entries.

It is fair to say that I am indeed an enormous ranker!

Time for a pint.

Nanny Bans Granny

It seems that not only does Nanny hate teenagers, but she also hates the elderly.

That at least is the experience of Betty Wilbraham, an 82 year old grandmother, who was going for a quiet drink in her local pub - the Hereward in Ely Cambridgeshire.

Betty, as per the custom of a lady brought up in a more genteel age, wears a hat when she goes out. Unfortunately the Hereward has imposed a "No Hats" policy, in order to allow their CCTV system to identify trouble making scumbags.

Now this policy, if applied in a sensible manner, is perfectly reasonable; there are trouble making scumbags who use hoodies and hats to hide from the camera. It is not unreasonable for the pub to ask "likely looking lads" to reveal their acne and pox ridden faces, lest they start to "kick off".

Unfortunately we live in the age of Nanny, where the state has taken responsibility for every aspect of our lives.

The result?

We no longer take responsibility for any aspect of our lives, and we have stopped thinking and using our common sense.

Needless to say Betty's hat caused the jobsworth morons running the pub some form of seizure, they asked her to remove it for security reasons.

The staff were of the opinion that there was a risk she would not be recognised on CCTV cameras if she started any trouble.

I would point out that the hat had maroon ribbons, I am sure that she could have been tracked down by our ever resourceful boys in blue in the event of her "kicking off"; after all if they have the nonce to record the Attorney General on the phone, then they certainly can track down an 82 year old.

Betty, towering above many at just over 5 foot, is none too impressed with the pub and vented her spleen:

"It is ludicrous to think that a little old lady like me could cause trouble in a pub.

I don't consider myself a threatening person.

It just shows the ridiculous nature of some of these rules and regulations.

Everyone is obsessed with security these days.

The girl told me that the pub was a hatless zone.

I did what she said because I did not want to make a fuss and I don't like to disobey orders.

I'm a hat person.

If I am going out to lunch I always wear a hat.

My mother wouldn't have set a foot outside the house for a loaf of bread without her hat.

She would have been horrified if ladies went to lunch without their hats."

Tony Love, the manager and evident lackey of the Nanny state, said:

"We put up the new signs

because we were finding it difficult classing what was a cap.

All customers and staff are treated the same.

In this day and age you don't know who are the troublemakers.

It is pointless having CCTV to protect people if those who cause trouble hide their faces.

I do understand Mrs Wilbraham's point of view but it is for her protection as much as anything else."

Love has clearly fallen under the dubious spell of Nanny, he misses the essential truth that is vital to the harmonious interaction of a mature and vibrant society; namely that people should apply common sense and use their judgement when interacting with people.

Relying on the state to act as arbiter will simply turn us into a nation of mindless automatons, destined to decay and wallow in our own filth as we wait for Nanny to wipe our bottoms.

Scum!

My thanks to John, who sent me this story about the goings on in the parish of Threemilestone in Truro Cornwall.

Threemilestone Parish Council have provided a play area, equipped with play equipment, in the locality for very young children.

However, it was recently vandalised by youths putting broken glass bottles in strategic places; such as at the bottom of a slide and amongst the bark chippings, which had been provided to stop children from injuring themselves.

Scum!

A few weeks ago three of the Parish Councillors were trying to clear this glass from amongst the bark chippings, when a small group of local louts (Scum!) approached them and started shouting obscenities.

One of the Councillors started to take photographs of the youths (Scum!), using his camera in his mobile phone to record the incident.

Full marks to him for his initiative!

Unfortunately, Nanny then decided to involve herself in this matter.

A few days later, these same Councillors received a letter from one of Nanny's chums in the Social Services telling them that they were wrong to take the photos.

Why?

Because the Scum were classified by Nanny as being children!!

As John says, it speaks volumes does it not??

Nanny has made the mistake of classifying the vandals as human, their actions clearly define them as sub human scum.

As such, they do not deserve to be accorded the same rights accorded to decent human beings.

I wonder what precisely Nanny would have done if a child had injured himself/herself on this glass?

True Grit

In the wake of last Thursday's attack on London we have seen the expected messages of resolve and determination from our politicians to carry on as normal, and not to allow the terrorists to win.

Quite rightly so, in my view.

However, despite this, one of Blairy's close chums in the so called "war against terror" seems to have let the side down; and has had an attack of the "health safeties".

It seems that the thousands of US military personnel, based in the UK, have been banned by commanders from travelling to London and the inner ring of the M25.

The reason?

Seemingly London is just too dangerous.

That's odd, some 8 million people live within the M25, myself included; what are we meant to do in this "cauldron of terror"?

Personnel, most of them from US Air Force units at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, and family members who are from the US are being urged to stay away.

Defence Secretary John "20 a day" Reid said the US Embassy had told him the advice was being urgently reviewed. He said that he was "trying to get to the bottom of this".

It seems that the US air force said that the order had been made in the interests of the safety of its troops.

RAF Mildenhall spokesman Matt Tulis said:

"We are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them...This is the best course of action right now."

Rather incongruously he then said:

"Obviously it's in the interests of the air force to ensure its personnel are as vigilant and as safe as possible...

While it's important for some to carry on business as usual, the interests in keeping the air force out of harm's way until we have a bit more knowledge about what has happened is greater than the need to send them back into the city."

He added:

"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you".

This ludicrous ban sends totally the wrong message to both the terrorists, and to the citizens of Britain (the allies of the US).

It highlights a lack of harmony in the methodology of Nanny and Uncle Sam as to how they intend to pursue the "war on terror".

Rather alarmingly it also contradicts the message sent by President Bush who yesterday, at the FBI Academy in Quantico, said that the US would "not retreat in the face of terrorists" .

Adding:

"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you.....We continue to take the fight to the enemy and will fight till this enemy is defeated," he told the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

He finished by saying:

"The only way that terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve...These kind of people who blow up subways and buses are not the kind of people you can negotiate with or reason with or appease. In the face of such adversaries, there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until this enemy is defeated".

The chain of command must not be seen to contradict itself.

Regrettably the orders issued to the US service personnel in the UK transform the image of the US military from that of "gung ho" John Wayne to "risk averse" Sgt Bilko.

I am not in the US military therefore I will be ignoring these orders, and risking life and limb by going into Central London (Canary Wharf) later today for a large steak.

Nanny Bans Jokes

I am beginning to suspect that dear old Nanny doesn't really have much of a sense of humour.

That certainly appears to be the case with her chums in Newcastle Upon Tyne Council.

They have announced a rather bizarre plan, to make comedians sign a contract agreeing to avoid jokes which might offend minorities.

Have they not understood that the very nature of humour and comedy is that it does make people feel uncomfortable by highlighting pain, idiosyncrasies and misfortune?

The members of the council, rather than addressing more pressing issues, have devoted their considerable intellects to banning performers whose acts are considered by some to be; offensive, racist, sexist or homophobic.

Step forward another of Nanny's humourless apparatchiks, public sector union Unison, who want to ban the comedian Roy Chubby Brown from playing the City Hall.

Chubby has performed there for the last 20 years but Unison, as befits a friend of Nanny, knows best; and does not believe that the fact that the show is a commercial success (ie people want to see it) should in anyway detract from their mission of interfering in people's lives.

The equalities board of Newcastle council has recommended that the council bans from its venues:

"acts contrary to the council's visions, values and social inclusion agenda, and which conflict with its community leadership role".

The bottom line is that Nanny, like all dictators, hates free speech; comedy is an essential part of free speech.

Nanny Bans Hot Cross Buns

As Easter is almost upon us I thought you would be pleased to know that Nanny has, just like she did at Christmas, stuck her interfering nose into this celebration as well.

It seems that schools across Britain have been ordered by local authorities to abandon the ancient tradition of serving hot cross buns at Easter, so that non Christians won't be offended.

The scary thing here is that we pay these council dimwits a salary.

Can anyone tell me why?

Nanny's friends in the councils are running scared of receiving complaints from non Christian religions.

Pathetic!

The morons who run Tower Hamlets have slapped a ban on hot cross buns, after they received complaints about serving....wait for it...pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

A jackass (I would use stronger words, but it is Easter!) spokesman for the Labour-run council claimed that there had been "a lot" of complaints but did not have a figure.

The spokesman then added for good measure:

"We are moving away from a religious theme for Easter and will not be doing hot cross buns...

We can't risk a similar outcry over Easter like the kind we had on Pancake Day. We will probably be serving naan breads instead."

I'm sorry, call me old fashioned if you will, but isn't Easter a religious festival??

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this!

Liverpool council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has seemingly told reporters that the symbol of the cross had the "potential to offend"; buns will no longer be served to children.

Despite this ruling, the council confirmed that it will continue to organise special menus to celebrate events as diverse as the Chinese New Year, Italian National Day and Russian Independence Day.

Twats!

Other councils on the hit list for removal from office, for not serving hot cross buns, include; York, and Wolverhampton both Labour run. Officials in Wakefield, which is also controlled by Labour, have decided it would be more appropriate to tailor the Easter menu to information technology.

"We are not serving hot cross buns at all..Each term we try to come up with a menu which encourages children to think about different issues...

This Easter term we chose information technology and did not even consider putting hot cross buns on the menu."

What were they smoking when they came up with that, I wonder?

Ann Widdecombe summed it up just right:

"These people are silly asses,".

"It would appear that we should know about everyone else's culture apart from our Christian tradition. It seems that anything that comes from an ethnic minority is fine, while anything Christian is wrong...

What can be more innocent than a hot cross bun?

There's no more fun way to explain the Christian tradition to a child and it is not as if eating a hot cross bun automatically makes you a born-again Christian."

I would note that the Muslim Council of Britain called the decision "very, very bizarre..This is absolutely amazing..

At the moment, British Muslims are very concerned about the upcoming war with Iraq and are hardly going to be taken aback by a hot cross bun."

Adding:

"Unfortunately actions like this can only create a backlash and it is not very thoughtful. I wish they would leave us alone. We are quite capable of articulating our own concerns and if we find something offensive, we will say so...

We do not need to rely on other people to do it for us...British Muslims have been quite happily eating and digesting hot cross buns for many years and I don't think they are suddenly going to be offended."

Given the above, I wonder precisely who Nanny is seeking to serve by banning these buns?

By the way Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Authority believe that hot cross buns are very healthy. On a weight-for-weight basis, the buns contain the lowest amount of sugar and fat; as well as having the highest fibre and lowest calorie content.

The bottom line is this, Nanny has gone mad and must therefore be "retired" immediately.

Drowning in a Sea of Legislation

When Blairy Poppins first ascended the throne 1997, he famously pledged to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".

Nanny, as we all know, has some very imaginative ideas as to what constitutes crime.

Since 1997 Nanny has created a total of 1,018 extra criminal offences.

Some of these new "criminal" offences are at the very cutting edge of innovation, viz:

• Performing a concert in a church hall without a proper licence, will leave the organisers facing a potential jail sentence of six months



• Producing a tobacco advertisement, which is subsequently published, can result in two years imprisonment



• Assisting a woman in childbirth, when you are not a registered doctor or midwife, can give rise to a large fine

The problem with all these new "criminal" offences is that someone has to police them, and enforce them. The result is that the police are diverted away from the more mundane offences such as, assault and burglary.

In essence the creation of these spurious laws is nothing more than a neat diversionary tactic, designed to take people's attention away from the one irrefutable fact; namely that Nanny doesn't know how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement and, more importantly, crime prevention.

The bottom line is this, does anyone actually feel safer now that we have all of these new laws?

Nanny Bans Pancakes

Today is Shrove Tuesday, doubtless many of you will be "tossing away" like mad; as you gorge yourselves to death on homemade pancakes.

However, I must caution you, Nanny has her beady little eye on the whole pancake experience.

Not only are they rather fattening, you know how she hates fat people, but they are now deemed to be a health and safety issue as well.

Nanny's chums in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) predict, in a report issued today, that around 250 people will end up in hospital after cooking pancakes on Shrove Tuesday.

Do these people have nothing better to do?

The dangers include:

- Burning you hands on hot frying pans

- Burns from spitting fat

- Excess tossing leading to pancakes landing on people's heads and wrists

Please, give us a break Nanny!

Nanny is so concerned about the dangers, that she has designed a special safety suit to be worn when cooking and tossing.

Should the number of accidents not fall, she will ban pancakes altogether.

You have been warned!

Therefore, in order to really annoy Nanny, here is a nice recipe for Swedish pancakes; go on, live a little!

Ingredients

- 2 cups milk
- 4 eggs
- 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
- 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
- 3 tablespoons sugar
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- Lingonberries or raspberries
- Seedless raspberry jam or fruit spread, warmed Whipped topping

Preparation

In a blender, combine the first six ingredients. Cover and process until blended. Heat a lightly greased 8-in. nonstick skillet; pour 1/4 cup batter into center of skillet. Lift and tilt pan to evenly coat bottom.

Cook until top appears dry; turn and cook 15-20 seconds longer. Repeat with remaining batter, adding oil to skillet as needed. Stack pancakes with waxed paper or paper towels in between. Reheat in the microwave if desired.

Fold pancakes into quarters; serve with berries, raspberry jam and whipped topping.

The Rise of The Bottom Inspectors

Nanny, although a strict disciplinarian herself, tried to outlaw parents smacking their own children this week.

However, her plans came a little unstuck when MP’s in the House of Commons voted to allow “reasonable chastisement” of children to continue; so long as there were no visible marks.

Should there be a visible mark on the child’s posterior, the parents will have been deemed to have broken the law.

Needless to say, Nanny knows that this “fine piece of legislation” is of course unworkable.

Precisely how will Nanny’s snoopers and spies know if there are marks on children? The police, quite rightly, pointed out that it was a nonsensical and unenforceable piece of legislation.

However, do not despair, Nanny has a plan.

Nanny remembers reading the British satirical comic Viz in her youth. One storyline that featured regularly in this fine publication, was that of Britain being ruled by a Gestapo like authority known as “The Bottom Inspectors”.

Their mission was to ensure that peoples’ bottoms, have you noticed that it’s always bottoms with the Brits, were up to the standards of the “Bottom Reich”.

Viz unknowingly, but presciently, had provided Nanny with the solution to her problem.

Nanny will form an elite body of men and women, known as “The Bottom Inspectors”. They will, like all other organs of the nanny state in the UK, poke their noses into the very private aspects of peoples’ lives; namely, their bottoms.

Should you wish to join “The Bottom Inspectors” please send your CV, and a brief summary of why you want to join, to anthonyblair@gmail.com

Nanny's Rose Coloured Spectacles

Nanny love statistics, ahem, when they work in her favour. However, she hates to be reminded of life’s unpleasant little realities.

One such reality is the fact that people, from time to time, are killed on Britain’s roads. Now this is a fact of life, and it is not Nanny’s fault. However, Nanny likes to see the world through rose coloured spectacles; and insists that her subjects use the same spectacles.

Therefore she gets into a “right old strop” when she is reminded of road fatalities. Incidentally, fatalities on Britain’s roads reached 3,508 last year, a 2% rise on 2002.

One very public reminder of these deaths is the informal laying of flowers at the spot of an accident, by friends and relatives of the victim.

Nanny wants this abolished.

She has therefore persuaded her lackeys in local government to come up with a cunning plan, to remove any tangible evidence of an accident.

Anxious to please their mistress, they have obliged her. Four local authorities (including Lincolnshire and Aberdeenshire) have told bereaved families that they must not lay flowers at the site of a fatal road crash, after a predetermined period of mourning; and are seeking to ban permanent memorials.

The councils claim that they are acting in the interests of those who place the flowers, and the drivers who may be distracted by the memorials.

Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, a national road safety charity is reported to have said:

“This is the most offensive thing that has ever been done by any official body, against people who have been violently bereaved through road accidents..It’s unbelievably crass and insensitive to suggest that traumatic grief lasts for a fixed period of time. These are people whose lives are changed for ever and the policies being implemented are depriving them of the right to tell others where something appalling has happened...”

The bottom line is that Nanny is crass and insensitive.

To see the world like Nanny does, order a pair of Nanny’s rose coloured spectacles today.


They are not only fun, novel and amusing to wear; they are compulsory.