A Belated Thank You

A belated thank you and "hat tip" to Anthony Wright for mentioning this site (and my good self) in his book "Personal Tapestry", published by The One Roof Press.

Thanks Anthony:)

Best regards

Ken

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

Nanny Bans Casinos

Three cheers for Nanny's ever vigilant and proactive Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Always keen to ensure that adverts are legal, decent, honest, non offensive etc they have decided to ban some of Ladbroke's adverts for their online casino.

One of the adverts features a skydiver trying to use a crisp packet as a parachute (implying that his thirst for risk could have been quenched at Ladbrokes).

Anyhoo, this advert was far too much for the people at ASA.

For why?

One person complained and the advert was banned because it:

"portrayed gambling in a context of toughness and linked it to excessive risk-taking and reckless behaviour".

Errmm...isn't that what gambling basically is, the thrill and risk of possibly winning/losing?

Where were the ASA during the endowment mortgage binge of the 1980's, or the credit binge of the last decade (where financial institutions duped some people into losing their houses and tied them into debt for decades)?

FYI, if you mention those episodes to the ASA they tell you that the responsibility rests with Nanny's other toothless and passive organisation the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

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

Curfews R Us

It seems that, if reports are correct, Nanny is considering imposing a curfew on 16 year olds being on the streets after 9PM.

Police would take the children home or to a safe place, such as a community centre, where parents could collect them.

On the face of it I would guess that many people would raise a cheer to sweeping the streets clean of the feral yoofs that are rumoured to infest every corner of every town in the UK, striking fear into the hearts of anyone over the age of 20.

However, let us look beneath the surface here and see what Nanny really is proposing and really can do.

For starters the proposal is only going to be used in "hot spots"; ie where crime is considered to be above that which doesn't cause the police too much bother with local residents or the media.

Fine, except that this will simply disperse the "feral yoofs" elsewhere.

One might ask why is that a curfew in hotpsots is required, given that if the police wre really doing their job the criminal elements of these wild packs would have been dealt with and sat on by now.

Secondly, not every 16 year old on the street after 9PM is a criminal or indeed should be treated like one. For that matter not every person over 16 is entirely innocent, eg it has been rumoured that 17 and 18 year olds also commit crimes. What about them then?

Why 9PM, why not 8PM or 10 PM? What about the gangs that strut and loiter before curfew hour?

This is merely a gimmick to make it look as though Nanny is doing something.

I also read that the Sunday Times found that nine out of 10 parents wanted legal restrictions on their children going out after dark.

Here is where I instinctively reach for my sick bag.

Read the above bit again..."parents want legal restrictions on THEIR children going out after dark"!!!

What the fark is the matter with these people?

Their children are their responsibility, not the state's. Parents should not hide behing Nanny's bloomers to try to discipline their own children.

Are parents now so weak, stupid, lazy and fearful of their own offspring that they need the state to hold their hands when dealing with them?

It is hardly surprising some kids who are out of control, if parents are so weak and pathetic.

It is not the role of the state to clean the streets of kids, it is up to parents to maintain discipline and to ensure that they know where their kids are, and who they are with. I was never allowed to loiter and to hang around til the wee small hours, neither should these kids.

That being said, I am not so blind as to not see that there is a hard core element of useless, lazy, selfish parents who couldn't give a rat's arse where their kids are.

Given this, it is hardly surprising that there are wild packs of feral youths running wild in certain parts of Britain.

The solution to this is not a new wave of laws cufewing all kids, but using current laws (goodness knows we have enough of those) to target the criminal youths and their families.

Once you have found the hardcore of useless parents, you make them take responsibility by tagrtetting the things that they like; their housing benefits, and removing their favourite possessions eg pcs, TVs, DVD players, mobiles etc.

Having denuded the family of their toys, you impose a family curfew; forcing the entire brood to sit together night after night in their cave, and confront each others' failings head on (alone - no social workers - and undistracted by TVs etc).

Trust me, once you force them to sit with each other, nature will find the solution to their errant ways! One way or another.

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

Happy Thanksgiving

I would like to wish a Happy Thanksgiving to my American friends and readers.

When will the ambassador invite me to annual party in Grosvenor Square by the way?

Cheers.

Ken

Nanny Bans Bonfires

Remember Remember

The 5th of November

Gun Powder Treason and Plot etc


Tis Guy Fawkes night and, as is tradition, thousands of homes across the country will be preparing bonfires and fireworks parties to celebrate the disemboweling and burning to death of a 17th century terrorist.

Halcyon days!

To be fair, the tradition of bonfire lighting goes back many more centuries than just the 17th. Bonfires were used in the bleak mid winter months to cheer people up, and to celebrate good news.

However, we live in 21st century Nanny Britain now; as such it should come as no surprise that Nanny's minions in her local councils disapprove of such frivolity.

Nanny's chums in Slough Borough Council have banned bonfires and burning Guys from its 5th November celebrations.

What is wrong with burning the effigy of someone who is dead?

There are many countries in the world where effigies of people, who are still alive, are burnt on an almost daily basis.

Anyhoo, Nanny's trolls in Slough Borough Council claim that the polluting effects of smoke would go against its environmental policies, but said rather perversely that it would still display fireworks.

Now tell me I am stupid, but aren't the sulphurous emissions from fireworks equally polluting?

There are some cynics out there who do not believe Slough's rather dodgy explanation, the cynics claim that the change has been ordered so as not to exclude ethnic minorities.

Frankly, if that is true, it sounds a bit half baked to me.

The council have denied the charge, and said the decision was based on environmental concerns alone.

Councillor Dexter Smith, the council's commissioner for planning, said there was a "responsibility to look after our environment and reduce our carbon footprint".

One night, one bonfire!

Seriously, how much of a difference will that make to the world?

It's our farking cultural heritage to set fire to things!

Happy Bonfire Night folks!

Nanny Bans Christmas Lights

In the traditional run up to Christmas, nice to see the stores are already stocking their Christmas items (absurdly early, quite sickeningly early in my view), it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has launched her own traditional" attempt to put the mockers on the event.

In the old days, high streets up and down the country would be festooned with coloured lights and Christmas decorations; adding a little cheer to the gloomy December night sky. Unfortunately, Nanny has a belief that thousands of people have been killed an injured by falling decorations and electrical short circuits. As such she and the health and safety Gestapo have so tied the process of mounting a light display up in red tape, that many councils can simply not afford to put them up.

The Federation of Small Businesses says that the rules and requirements introduced by Nanny and the Gestapo are making insurance premiums too expensive for councils and traders.

Insurers, as is the norm, insist on strict adherence to health and safety guidelines. These guidelines require councils to use expensive specialist equipment to test the safety of light fittings.

Ladders are, of course banned, council workers have to hire hydraulic platforms.

Every light fitting must also undergo a "pull test", using specialist equipment to make sure it is strong enough. Lampposts are also now banned from being used as a hanging point for decorations, they are "unsafe".

Stephen Alambritis, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

"The festive period is looking darker

and bleaker year on year

Britain is facing a Christmas blackout this year.

The sense of pride a good festive display

can instill on a town centre is immeasurable.

Spiralling costs and exhaustive safety

concerns are ruining the festive spirit."


That is because Nanny doesn't give a stuff about Christmas, or about people having fun. Dictatorships throughout history, have been more than happy to ban or highjack a particular festival in order to use it for their own ends (eg Nanny's lickspittles in Birmingham, some years ago renamed Christmas "Winterval").

North Somerset Council have told traders in Clevedon that lights can no longer be attached to lampposts or buildings, therefore there will be no lights this year.

The council, as befitting a local council, have absolved themselves of any responsibility and blame a new code of practice. Its spokesman, Nick Yates, said:

"There is a code of practice which has to be followed

regarding the installation of Christmas lights.

The lighting columns are concrete and it is

not possible to attach lights to them."

A small point, Mr Yates, codes of practice are simply codes of practice; they are not mandatory. The council, if it had the will and the cajones, could simply elect not to follow the code of practice. However, as with all councils, they adopt the zero risk approach because they are weak, untrained and unsuited for their roles.

You cannot zeroise risk, Nanny and her lackeys have yet to grasp that important point!

Bodmin council, in Cornwall, have issued an edict ordering that a pressure gauge be used to test all 150 bolts which hold lights or cables around the town.

This must be carried out by two workmen in a cherry picker, which will cost the authority £1,200 in training fees, plus their wages and the cost of the equipment. To test the bolts the town centre roads have to be closed for a day, and then closed again while the lights are put up.

Kim Roscoe, council spokesman, said:

"Health and safety requirements have

greatly increased the costs.

Bodmin will not be the same without its

Christmas lights, and it is particularly

galling as last year was the best ever."

In Sandwell, Worcestershire, traders have been told that lights cannot be hung across the widths of roads, because of fears that cables may break.

Last year Scarborough Council cancelled the celebrity switch-on, because of police objections on various health and safety issues.

There will be no lights in Northampton, because the council cannot afford them.

The good old boys in the Association of British Insurers are quick to cover their backsides. A spokesman said that, because of an increasingly litigious culture, the cost of the liability cover was increasing.

"Insurance is a risk-based product

and a high proportion of that risk is liability.

If councils are protecting themselves from being

sued by a private party then the policies will be expensive."

Can someone from Nanny's little world please tell me how many people in the UK have been injured, or killed, in the last 50 years by public Christmas decorations?

I am willing to bet the number is but a handful.

As to how we got ourselves into this mess, I am afraid it's a combination of a number of factors:

• Greed of the insurance companies, who now regularly quote a minimum £5M figure for any public event



• Weakness of local councils in not challenging the quotes of the insurance companies



• Greed of individual citizens who sue for the slightest injury or accident



• Greed of the ambulance chasing private injury law firms, who proactively encourage people to sue



• Nanny and her lackeys in the health and safety Gestapo pushing through countless regulations that are ill thought through, and are designed to restrict people's daily lives rather than enhance the quality of their lives



• Laughably poor quality local councils, feeble minded, weak in spirit and ill trained to understand or manage risk issues. They instead choose to adopt the "safe" zero risk approach

We really do need to make a stand against this nonsense, before we are totally swamped by rules and regulations that will destroy the very fabric of our lives.

Nanny Doesn't Ban Cheese

Further to my earlier article about Nanny banning cheese adverts, I am pleased to say that it would seem that she has been overruled on another cheese related matter.

Namely, the cheese rolling contest of Cooper's Hill in Brockworth.

The cheese rolling contest takes place annually, and involves rolling an 8lb Double Gloucester (shaped like a wheel) down Cooper's Hill. The competitors chase the cheese.

This Monday Bank Holiday, around 3,000 spectators gathered in the rain to cheer the cheese chasers, who stumble and tumble 200m down Cooper's Hill (which has a 1 in 3 gradient).

Jason Crowther from Pembrokeshire, won the first of the five races and is now the proud owner of a large cheese.

Quote:

"There's no training you can do for this.

You have just got to go for it.

It was a bit slippery and I heard something crack,

which I think was my knee.

But there aren't any tactics involved

as you can probably see."

The winners keep the cheese, runners-up get £10 and £5 for finishing third.

Twenty people were treated for minor injuries, paramedics said, down from 34 last year.

The event is thought to have its roots in a heathen festival to celebrate the return of spring.

Congratulations to the good people of Cooper's Hill, for ignoring Nanny and her minions. As Richard Jeffries, the event organiser, said:

"There are various people who would like to

see it stopped but it's a British tradition."

Long may they continue to stick two fingers up to Nanny!

Nanny Bans Christmas Decorations

'Tis the season to be jolly, tra lah lah lah lah tra lah lah lah...etc.

In keeping with the season Nanny has decided to play Scrooge this year, and recently banned Christmas decorations in a South London Job Centre.

In Nanny's view Christmas decorations are offensive to the unemployed!

Where on earth does Nanny get these strange ideas from?

Chris Nicol, the area manager of South London, is of the belief that benefit claimants who can't afford tinsel may be upset by the sight of decorations; therefore he has banned them.

A somewhat prissy overreaction wouldn't you say?

Given that the British winter is miserable enough already, and Job Centres aren't exactly brimming with comfort and joy even in mid summer, a few cheerful decorations might at least provide a nano second or two of cheer to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Evidently the staff of the South London Job Centre are none too happy either.

One worker said:

"All the shops and offices around us are happily putting up their Christmas decorations but ours are in the cupboard.

Most people have complained about the lack of decorations.

The twinkling lights and tinsel always seemed to lift people's spirits.

Now we are all glumly sitting in the dark in case someone takes offence."

Mr Nicol doggegdly stuck to his role as Scrooge, saying:

"It's about considering the feelings of people

who might not to be able to afford Christmas.

Because of their circumstances they might not have decorations at home.

I don't think they should have their noses rubbed in it

by walking into a Job Centre.

I haven't heard that staff are unhappy

but it is impossible to please everyone."

Unless the those on benefit shut their eyes whenever they go to the Job Centre, it is highly likely that they will see Christmas decorations elsewhere; in shops, houses, offices etc.

Does Mr Nicol keep his eyes shut when he goes to work?

Does Mr Nicol in fact never leave the Job Centre?

Does it not occur to Mr Nicol that by not decorating the Job Centre, he makes claimants feel more miserable than they already are for walking in there?

Nanny does seem a tad anally retentive doesn't she?

Is it one "l" or two "l's" in "anally" (my spell check doesn't seem to cover that word)?

Maybe a good strong enema will sort Nanny out in time for Christmas.

Here's Johnny!

At this time of year, as the tinsel and the tree begins to droop, we all need a little something to cheer us up.

That's why God created the Smooth Talking Bar Steward, Nanny's special little court jester.

Dear old John has seen our torpor and depression, and decided to cheer us all up with his special little scheme for keeping council tax records up to date.

The Smooth Talking Bar Steward has advised council tax inspectors to use "spy in the sky" satellite cameras to snoop on people's homes; to see if they have added extensions, conservatories and sheds that could boost the value of their property.

Dear old John plans to use these pictures as part of his revaluation of homes across England.

Country homes will be at particular risk from the technology. According to an official handbook for inspectors:

"Aerial photographs are particularly effective in rural areas where improvements are hard to see from the road."

Thanks John, that really cheered us all up!

Nanny Bans Cherie

Here we go folks, some seasonal cheer for you all; something that will really brighten up your Christmas.

Nanny has banned Cherie.

Yes, that's right!

Nanny has banned Cherie Blair from appearing on TV in the UK.

What!!!???...I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate at Christmas time?)

It's true...Nanny really has banned Cherie.

Cherie recently recorded an interview to be shown on American TV with Katie Couric, anchor of NBC Today.

In the interview Cherie ruled out a career in politics, when Blairy leaves Downing Street.

What a relief!

Asked if she had political ambitions of her own, Cherie said:

"No, because I have been there."

Cherie unsuccessfully contested the 1983 general election as a Labour candidate in Thanet, before quitting politics to focus on law.

US President Bill Clinton had said that he would support her if she ran for power.

Cherie continued:

"I don't want to duplicate something my husband's done.

I've got plenty of things I want to do in my own right."

Now, here's the interesting thing.

The interview with NBC was only allowed/granted by Nanny's trolls in Downing Street on the strict condition that it would not be broadcast in the UK.

BBC Two's Newsnight made a bold attempt to find out why this ban was put in place, yet the trolls would not comment.

Whatever the reason, I would like to thank Nanny's trolls for sparing us from this.

Merry Christmas everyone, God bless us one and all!

Cheers

Now that Nanny has allowed pubs to open beyond 11pm, for the first time since the First World War, has anyone noticed any difference?

Have England and Wales (note they have had late licensing in Scotland for years) been torn apart by drunken rampaging gangs?

No!

As I look out of my window today, I see no evidence of the total breakdown of civilisation that was predicted by the doom-mongers.

Cheers.

Ken

By the way, there is a very real threat to our drinking liberties; it comes from Systembolaget in Sweden.

Systembolaget is the state run alcohol monopoly, you can only buy booze in Sweden through their stores. They are designed to cut down your right to choose when and what you drink; by only opening between 9:00am and 5:00pm on working days, and a few hours on Saturday.

I lived in Sweden for 5 years, believe me Systembolaget is awful.

They feel that their monopoly is threatened by the fact that Swedes can now go abroad, and buy cheap booze (welcome to a free market economy!); therefore they have put together this little film Systembolaget.

Be afraid!

Nanny Bans Christmas

Following on from yesterday’s post about Nanny’s friends in the TUC and RoSPA trying to stop people enjoying themselves at Christmas parties, it seems that Nanny’s friends in local councils and other organisations around Britain have been conspiring together to ban Christmas.

Here is a seasonal line up of some of the Nanny nonsense that threatens to spoil Christmas:

• My own borough of Croydon have managed to snuff out any vestige of Christmas cheer in the borough this year, as they have banned Christmas decorations in the main shopping centre (see this site’s post "Croydon’s Crappy Christmas”). Those of you who wish to see how bad Croydon really is to live in, are cordially invited to visit www.croydoniscrap.com



• The Red Cross have banned Advent calendars, and Christmas decorations in their shops, as they deem that they may offend non Christians



• Luton Council have given their Christmas lights the sinister sounding “Orwellian” name of Luminos. In their sick and perverted view of the world, the word Christmas is offensive to minorities



• Nanny’s friends in Camden Council followed suit by renaming their lights, Festive Lights



• Bury St Edmunds banned lights this year in case one fell on someone’s head.
  Jobsworth bosses at Jobcentres have banned Christmas decorations, they are a safety hazard!



• Tower Hamlets Council have banned their staff using the word “Christmas”, when they attend their “Ch***tmas” lunch



• Nanny’s Fourth Reich Council of Birmingham have banned Santa, as Santa is very offensive to non Christians

Now here’s a few radical thoughts, Ladies and Gentlemen:

• We do, do we not, live in a Christian country



• Our Prime Minister claims to be a practising Christian



• Christmas is a Christian festival



• We do not force non Christians to participate in Christian festivals



• We do not suppress other religions, unlike some countries

Therefore we, as the residents of a Christian country, are perfectly entitled to observe a Christian festival; without Nanny’s Gestapo, and Council scumbags, trying to ban it.

There will come a time, and seemingly that time is close at hand, when we the citizens of Britain will come to regard Britain as a foreign land; ie we will feel that we are strangers, and outsiders, in our own country!