Nanny's Chip Inspector

The other day Nanny's chums from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) stated that crispy roast potatoes and browned toast (starchy foods that are roasted/toasted form acrylamide) cause cancer.

All very well and tedious, except for the fact that there is no proof that there is a link to cancer.

Anyhoo, undeterred by lack of scientific evidence and a general drubbing by all and sundry that the advice is bollocks, Nanny is now gearing up to enforce a "no burn" rule in pubs, cafes and restaurants.

The Telegraph reports that under a new European Union food hygiene directive, due to be adopted in the UK by the the end of 2017 (ermm aren't we leaving?), pubs and restaurants will be told to take reasonable steps to reduce acrylamide in food or face enforcement measures.

It means those eateries continuing to serve "high acrylamide" foods, such as brown roast potatoes or burned Yorkshire puddings, could be visited by the Food Standards Agency's enforcement officers and face hefty fines.Restaurants will be offered a guide full of tips on how to reduce acrylamide in food which will also be used by the FSA's enforcement team to gauge whether levels are unacceptably high.

The guide will include colour charts designed to be kept in kitchens to show chefs which shades of yellow and brown are safe for cooked chips and potatoes to match.

It will also advise chefs to buy types of potatoes which are low in starch and blanch chips and potatoes before frying or roasting, and cooking them at a lower heat and for less time.

Were this 1 April I would have assumed that this was a joke, but it isn't!!

Well I don't know about anyone else, but if I want dark brown tatties etc in a restaurant I will order and eat them, and if I don't I won't. I don't need Nanny stepping in to help me order food when eating out!

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 Joy of Chips

My thanks to a loyal reader who alerted me to an utter load of Nanny fuckwittery, emanating from Cheltenham Borough Council.

The Nannies of Cheltenham have £3K of taxpayers' money they want to squander, and have decided to piss it away on a scheme to "educate" takeaways about the best way to cut and fry their chips.

The scheme is known as the “healthy chips” scheme.

Seemingly businesses will receive one-to-one help with Nanny looking at “educating” them about the size of the cut chip, the different types of oil available, how long things should be cooked for, how hot the oil should be and how often it should be changed.

All very well if these takeaways had never fried a chip in their lives. However, given that they are in the business of cooking and selling chips, I would have thought that their staff had already been shown how to cut and fry chips!

James Ritchie, co-owner of Simpsons Fish and Chips in Priors Road, is quoted in the Gloucestershire Echo:

“I would go to the National Federation of Fish Fryers for advice and not the council.

They couldn’t tell us anything. There is nothing they could tell us that we don’t already know.


But it could be a good idea for people that may need a bit of help.

I can see what they are trying to do but they would be better off sending people to training courses run by the NFFF.”

Coming soon...teaching your gran to suck eggs!

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

Saucy Racism In Edinburgh

I see a Glaswegian is claiming a chip shop in Edinburgh (ironically one that I used to frequent during my student days) was racist because it wanted to charge him 25p for a sachet of tomato ketchup whereas a squirt of brown sauce (an Edinburgh staple) would be given for free.

As per the Edinburgh News Glasgow-born Tony Winters is taking his complaint to trading standards after the Gold Sea chippy tried to charge him 25p for a small sachet of Heinz 
tomato ketchup. He says he is being unfairly treated because he is Glaswegian and that that amounts to “racial discrimination”.

Feeling peckish, he went to the Gold Sea, Ferry Road, and ordered a sausage supper for himself, and a hamburger and fish supper, for his fiancé and a friend. But he left with a real chip on his shoulder after staff told him there was a charge for his ketchup while the Edinburgh favourite –salt and sauce – was free.

He said:

“I couldn’t believe it. Every chip shop I know gives ketchup free of charge. A condiment is a condiment. 

You can’t offer one customer brown sauce for nothing and then charge another for tomato sauce.

I said I thought it was racist that if you come from Edinburgh you can get brown sauce free but people from elsewhere, who like ketchup, have to pay. They just said it’s what they do.

We went to another chip shop and the guy was killing himself laughing when we told him. It reeks of racism. Just because we come from the west and tend to like ketchup instead of brown sauce. It’s clear they’re discriminating and I don’t think it’s right.”

How can you be racist against your own race?

Tis truly the silly season!

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 Dangers of Salt - The New Cocaine

Those of you with long memories (not addled by age, drink or drugs) may recall that way back in 2008 I wrote about councils trying to limit the number of holes in salt shakers at fish and chip shops.

"Seemingly at least six councils have ordered five-hole shakers, at our (council taxpayers') expense. These are being given away to chip shops and takeaways in their areas.

Drywite Ltd make the five hole shakers at £2 each. They have now received orders from at least five other councils, including Gateshead and Middlesbrough Council.

As one rather wise chippy owner said, it doesn't matter how many holes it has, people are going to put on as much salt as they want.

Additionally, why not save yourself the £2 and simply bung up some of the holes with sticky tape or glue?

Carol Ackerman, who runs Carol's Plaice in the suburb of Acklam, said:

"People will just put on more salt if they want more.

In fact, we have had some people unscrewing the lids to do so."

Another brilliant use of council taxpayer's money!"

Well it seems that the anti salt lobby is up to its old tricks again (quite why Nanny has such a bee in her bonnet over salt - a necessary part of the human diet - I don't know...could it be that Nanny is related to slugs?), Stockport council (Lib Dem run) wants fish and chip shops, cafes and Indian restaurants to hide salt shakers behind the counters.

The "thinking" being that if people don't see the salt they may not use it, and those that do want it will have to ask for it.

Ironically Stockport is facing a budget cut of around £50M, so quite how they have found the resources necessary for this campaign I don't know.

The campaign is part of the Greater Manchester ASK campaign, which aims to cut salt consumption.

All utter bollocks:

1 One size fits all does not work wrt "safe" levels of food, drink or drugs.

2 A healthy person, who drinks water and exercises regularly, will excrete (I like that word:)) excess salt via urine and sweat.

3 As a child I used to shave blocks of sea salt for my mum (anyone know where I can get these now?), and would enjoy eating chunks of salt (I have not got a sweet tooth). I am now middle aged, and in ruggedly good health!

4 We should be allowed to eat food in the way we wish.

5 Shall we criminalise salt to such an extent that it will become the new "cocaine" of the street dealers?

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

The Dangers of Pies II - Who Ate All the Pies? I Did!

On Friday I wrote:

".. the financially opaque, yet vociferous, lobby group the Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) has made a study of 526 pie, mash and gravy products.

They conclude that they are too salty!.."

In order to show my true "respect" for CASH and their opinions I decided to conduct my own study this weekend. I consumed a large number of pork pies, sausages wrapped in bacon and scotch eggs on Saturday; followed by a chicken and bacon slice and scotch eggs for Sunday lunch, rounding off Sunday evening with a minced beef and onion pie with large chips, mushy peas and saveloys.

I was worried about the salt content of Sunday's pies, therefore I added more (freshly ground sea salt of course).

I was also concerned that the salt should be adequately excreted from my body, so therefore on Saturday I washed the pork pies down with copious quantities of Mateus Rose, Bacardi, Red Stripe and Champagne. Sunday's pies were washed down with 3 cans of Red Stripe and 2 pints of Fosters.

Sorted!

Eat More Pies!

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Nanny Wants Thicker Chips

Well now, here is a Nanny scheme that in theory I could almost buy into.

Nanny's chumps (sorry, chums) in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are concerned that thin chips absorb more fat than thick chips.

As such they are campaigning for chunkier chips to be produced.

In theory this is an excellent idea, the thin reconstituted "potato type" reheated shite (aka "fries"), offered by certain fast food chains and "restaurants", are an abomination and have zero taste/sensuality in the mouth.

Factoid: contrary to what some would have you believe frying chips in dripping or lard is better for you, because vegetable oils contains trans fats.

I am all for a return to the more traditional thick cut chip, as served by our traditional chippie.

However, as with all of Nanny's schemes, there is a fly in her oinkment.

Can you guess where the FSA intends to start rolling out her "thick cut chip" scheme?

Yes, that's right, chip shops!

The FSA will run pilot schemes in Cambridgeshire, Greater Manchester and Northern Ireland. Officials will visit 80 chip shops to examine how much fat is in their chips and offer advice.

Message to Nanny, chip shops already serve thick cut chips and cook them fresh (ie they are not injected with fat and then reheated).

Nanny should be visiting those outlets that serve "fries" not chips.

A remarkable waste of time and money.

Oh, and by the way, I have never forgiven the EU for banning newspaper as a means of wrapping my chips!

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

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

Prats Of The Week - The Dangers of Fish and Chips

Ooh my word, I haven't awarded my world renowned and internationally respected "Prats of The Week" Award for quite some time.

Methinks it is time to do so!

This week it goes to the wardens (and Norwich council who employed them) of Lakenfields sheltered housing complex in Norwich.

Lakenfields is a sheltered housing complex for elderly people. It has a good community spirit, whereby each week George Pretty (72) would do a fish and chip shop run and bring back fish and chips for his 18 fellow residents who were not able to get out.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, the health and safety gestapo decreed that there may be a health and safety risk wrt the ambient temperature of the fish and chips.

The result being that the wardens banned Mr Pretty from doing the run, as the fish and chips (at possibly low ambient temperature) presented a clear and present danger to the residents.

OK, here's why this is total bollocks:

1 Fish and chips can be eaten stone cold, with no ill effects.

2 The residents, if they thought they were too cold would doubtless not bother ordering/eating them again.

3 The residents are doubtless intelligent enough to determine what they wish to eat, and how they wish it to be provided.

4 The complex is not a prison camp.

5 It is not the wardens' business what private citizens choose to eat.

6 Banning the one highlight, for the entire community, of the week was by anyone's standards mean spirited and cruel. A thoroughly loathsome thing to do.

7 How many people in the UK die from cold fish and chips...errrmmm...no one!

8 The journey takes all of 5 minutes!

Needless to say once a bit of a media storm erupted over this, the dorks at the council backed down and claimed that the wardens were being "over zealous"...done with the "best intentions" (Pah! the road to hell is paved etc). I guarantee that had not a storm erupted the council would not have lifted a finger.

Meals on wheels type boxes are now being provided; all very fancy, but I guarantee that the fish and chips arrive no warmer than had they been wrapped in paper only!

The wardens and Norwich City Council, well deserving Prats of The Week!

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

Celebrate the joy of living with 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

The Dangers of Chip Pans

I am sure that readers of a certain age (I include myself in that category) well remember either the live demonstrations or information films made by the firebrigade about the dangers of chip pan fires, and how to put them out safely.

Given that Britain is still a nation of chip eaters, we built our empire on chips, you would have thought that such a safety campaign would be as relevant today as it was some 30 years or so ago.

True enough, except for one small problem; Nanny believes that the demonstration itself is in fact dangerous.

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service recently banned firemen from demonstrating how to put out chip pan fires to school children, due to our old "friend" health and safety.

I would have thought that a chip pan fire was in fact a major health and safety hazard, but what the fark do I know?

For decades fire crews have visited schools to deliver safety talks, and give practical demonstrations of the best way to extinguish fires.

However, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service has now withdrawn the chip ban demonstration for schoolchildren in case it encourages children to tackle one at home.

Errmmm...isn't that the idea?

Surely the kids should be taught how to protect themselves?

Isn't that kind of a useful tool for life?

Seemingly not, instead the pupils will be handed leaflets and given instructions telling them what they should do in the event of a hot oil blaze occurring at home.

Firemen and parents needless to say think that the idea is bonkers, and say children need to be shown how to deal with an emergency.

During a traditional chip ban fire demonstration, a mock kitchen is used to show how fiercely the fires develop and "flashover" — where all combustible material in a space suddenly ignites — occurs.

Unless the kids are shown what can happen, and what to do (use a damp cloth, do not use water), they will instinctively pour water on it and cause an explosion.

I repeat, how on earth is denying the kids this very useful lesson protecting them?





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

Swedish Lessons

In keeping with the Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow) Terminal 5 theme, I would like to draw your attention to this little article from a Swedish site E24:

Pommes-fritt på nya Heathrow-terminalen

Londonflygplatsen Heathrow har öppnat en ny jätteterminal - där man förbjudit förekomsten av pommes frites och annan snabbmat.

Monsterflygplatsen Heathrow, med Europas största flöde av privatpassagerare tillika den flygplats som slussar vidare flest internationella passagerare i världen, har fått ett rejält tilltaget terminaltillskott.

Den nya terminalen är tidsenlig på många sätt. Framförallt är den befriad från transfetter och osund kost. I sann Jamie Oliver-anda har man bestämt sig för att förbjuda snabbmatsrestauranger till förmån för sunda och miljövänliga alternativ, rapporterar norska Aftonposten.

Den etablerade brittiska pubkedjan JD Wetherspoon har därför tvingats radera frityrstekarna och fish-and-chipsen från sitt utbud på Terminal 5.

Bygget av Terminal 5, som den nya terminalen heter, har tagit nästan åtta år. Men terminalen har varit i pipeline längre än så. Redan 1982 inleddes en debatt kring huruvida man skulle bygga ut Londonflygplatsen Stansted eller satsa på att bygga ut Heathrow.

Tio år senare bestämde man sig slutligen för att satsa på en femte terminal för Heathrow. Sammanlagt 80 000 personer har varit involverade i bygget.

Terminal 5 kommer att besökas av uppskattningsvis 30 miljoner passagerare årligen, vilket ökar Heathrows totala kapacitet till 90 miljoner passagerare per år, en ökning med 22 miljoner passagerare eller dryga 30 procent, från dagens 68 miljoner passagerare.

Den totala kostnaden beräknas till 4,3 miljarder pund, motsvarande 52 miljarder kronor i dagens penningvärde.

How very cosmopolitan of me!

The title says:

French fries-free new Heathrow terminal!

It goes on to say that that the established British pub JD Wetherspoon had to remove deep fried steak and fish-and-chips from the menu in Terminal 5.

Most assuredly, we should boycott Terminal 5!

Here endeth today's Swedish lesson.

You've Had Your Chips

Oh dear, there really are some prissy people in some (Hah!...let's be clear...ALL) of our local councils.

It seems that in the Royal Borough of Maidenhead, there is something of a row going on about the opening of a fish and chip shop in Clifford Crescent.

A relatively harmless enough business venture, one would have thought?

Not if you are a Liberal Democrat.

Councillor Humaira Jared (Liberal Democrat) is against the shop.

For why?

Chip shops, according to the councillor, encourage rats, obesity in children and risk an increase in anti-social activities.

What a load of bollocks!

Isn't it funny how that party more often than not seeks to curtail individual freedoms and liberties, hardly very liberal or democratic is it?

Prats of The Week

Time for another of my prestigious "Prat of The Week" awards.

This time the award goes to an entire council, actually it often goes to entire councils; as they are remarkably adept at acting like prats.

Crawley council win this week's award, for their remarkably prat like behaviour recently over the dropping of two crisps (chips for my American readers) on the pavement (sidewalk).

Aside from the obvious fact that two crisps are very small, and indeed biodegradable, the story has added prat qualities in that the council fined the person who dropped the two crisps £80.

Who was that person?

Emily Jubb...

Oh, didn't I mention?

Emily is two years old!

Emily, dropped a packet of Quavers in Crawley, her grandmother then picked up the bag...but...

Wait for it!

Two stray Quavers fell upon the ground...much like the sin of Onan.

Nanny disapproves of that kind of thing and, out of nowhere, appeared two council wardens.

Mrs Jubb, speaking of one of the wardens, said:

"She promptly brought out her badge and said,

'You are being fined'.

I was absolutely gobsmacked."

Councillor Beryl Mecrow said:

"People have a responsibility not to drop litter."

However, Crawley have been persuaded as to the stupidity of their action and have cancelled the fine.

How very magnanimous of them!

Crawley council, well deserved Prats of The Week.

Another example of why local councils are a waste of space.

Feel free to drop them an email comments@crawley.gov.uk

Tuck Off!

I really do think that Nanny is overstepping herself this time. Aside from her non stop lecturing about how badly we eat, and what we should be feeding our children, she has now taken it upon herself to inspect that most sacrosanct of a schoolchild's satchel the tuck box!

The Fat Owl of the Remove would be rolling in his grave at the very thought.

Nanny's chums at Bayards Hill Primary School in Barton have taken it upon themselves to inspect the contents of tuck boxes (lunch containers to you), and confiscate foods that they consider to be the creation of Beelzebub!

Nanny knicked the kids' chocolate and crisps.

Hah!

In my day she just confiscated your porn mags!

Keith Ponsford, the headteacher of Bayards Hill Primary School in Barton, admitted that maybe his said staff had been "a bit vigorous".

Last term the school wrote to parents urging them not to send their children in with chocolate and crisps.

On the subject of crisps I offer you the following thoughts and factoids:

1 They are a very good source of vitamin C...yes, really!

2 My mum used to make home made crisps for me to take to school, with grated cheese and extra salt. They were bloody good, and they did me no harm; I am 42, gorgeous, slim and am told that I have the body of a 41 year old.

Yah boo and sucks to you Nanny!

Anyhoo, Nanny confiscated all the offending snacks.

Poor Christopher Cummins, aged seven, fell foul of Nanny's tuck off regime; much to the annoyance of his mum, Debbie.

In true British style, she and 20 other mums marched to the school this week to give Nanny a right old ear bashing.

She said:

"I've got no problem with healthy eating I've got a problem with schools and the Government telling me what to do.

Christopher's packed lunch contained a sandwich, fruit juice, a yoghurt, a packet of crisps and a chocolate biscuit.

Normally I give them a mixed salad with apples,

oranges,

grapes and pear.

What made me angry was that the school canteen actually served pizza and chips

the same day it was taking packets of crisps off children.

So it's one rule for hot and one for cold?

How long until they start telling us what to give them at home?

Where are they going to draw the line

about how we bring up our own children?"

Exactly!

Assistant head Elma Cameron is coordinating the health drive, and said that the school would hold workshops with parents to help them improve their children's health.

Good grief...work shops!

It is not the state's place to act as "mother and father"...of course Nanny does this to ensure that she makes us dependent on her.

However, those of you are worried that your child's human rights will be infringed by this new hard line approach from Nanny should have no fear.

Children will still be able to bring the following items into school, unencumbered:

- Knives
- Mobile phones
- Porn
- Drugs
- Drink
- Fags
- Body piercings
- Ipods
- Glue

Nanny will of course also still be serving children the reprocessed high fat muck, that we all know and love, in her canteens!

Tuck Off Nanny!

PS My Mum's crisps recipe is as follows:

-Peel a large spud

-Use the potato peeler then to make the crisps

-Soak in water, then dry thoroughly

-Plunge into hot oil, and cook until just turning golden brown (the centres should be slightly soggy in my view)

Season with salt and grated cheese...Yum!

They can be stored in greaseproof paper when carried to school.

Nanny Bans Pies

Yesterday I made the rather "throwaway" comment, that Nanny would move on from regulating ice cream sales to regulating what we eat at home.

Well it seems that she has moved a step closer to doing that.

Nanny's best chums in the Scottish Executive, these guys really like to regulate people's lives, have warned bar owners in Scotland that they may be forced to stop serving chips and traditional pub meals.

The Executive are considering proposals to force landlords to have policies to promote "sensible eating", as a condition of their licences.

Next they will be banning booze in pubs!

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said that the eating advice was aimed at banning meals such as pies, beans and chips from being served.

Quote:

"It's a dangerous road to go down, and we are very concerned about it.

Everybody has their own ideas about food - if you speak to vegetarians for instance.

There is a danger most customers will get caught in the middle between official guidance and people who want to eat what they want.

It should be up to the individual to decide what they consider healthy."

As we all know, pies are an excellent means of soaking up the booze. A rocket salad simply won't do that!

Anyhoo, under the proposals bar owners would have to provide healthy-eating advice to their customers. This would be something to witness in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night!

Janet Hood, a lawyer who is head of the British Institute of Innkeeping in Scotland and is helping to draft the guidance, said the "sensible eating" clause had been proposed by advisers appointed by the Executive.

She said:

"It would be quite inappropriate for licensees to offer eating advice.

They are not qualified to deal with this sort of thing.

I would normally have assumed that the protection of public health would relate to the sale of alcohol.

What if a hefty person comes in asking for something considered unhealthy?

Do we direct them to the salads and face accusations of being 'fat-ist'?"

Quite right!

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said:

"We will listen carefully to all views before taking decisions."

Does anyone seriously believe that?

Last month it was reported that Nanny's Executive was considering banning the sale of packets of ten cigarettes, in a bid to tackle smoking among young people.

My sympathies are with the good people of Scotland, who seem to have a more rampant infestation of Nannyism than we have in England.

The Dangers of Fruit

Nanny is a strange and tormented old soul. On the one hand she berates us for our poor diet of chips, burgers and pizzas; whilst imploring us to eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day.

Yet, on the other hand, she has now decided that fruit presents a clear and present danger to our health.

It seems that Nanny's trolls and goblins in Scotland who work in some of her "educahsional" establishments there, are worried about the threat that free fruit given to their pupils poses to their delicate charges.

It seems that the danger lies not with the flesh, but with the pips. A recent study, carried out for the Executive by the Scottish Centre for Social Research, identified an underswell of worry and concern about the dangers of fruits.

One respondent said:

"We tend not to use stone fruits because of the safety issues. Orange pips fall into that category."

Many of the school staff who responded to the study said that their specific safety concern was fruit stones.

As well as worrying that the delicate and fragile creatures that they attempt to teach would choke to death, some teachers were concerned that they could slip over on dropped fruit, or be allergic to it.

A spokesman for the Executive said that the children were still receiving free fruit, whether it had pips in or not.

"It is up to individual schools what fruit is served. The important thing is that children eat it."

According to the report, 14% of respondents had some fears over health and safety issues. Most worrying were the hygiene aspects of preparing, storing and handling the fruit.

Mankind has managed to survive and flourish for the last 150K years or so, quite happily side by side with fruit.

Why, may I ask, do we now need to fear fruit?

A crucial part of growing up is about learning how to handle accidents and mishaps. Children who are wrapped in cotton wool grow into immature pathetic adults who are incapable of looking after themselves, and who rely on the state for every little thing.

It seems that the real threat to the health and safety of the children comes not from the fruit, but from the brain dead trolls who work in some of Nanny's schools.

Nanny Scares Children

Nanny felt a little left out of the Halloween celebrations this year, and has decided that although it was over a week ago she would still like to give someone a fright; just to show us that she is human.

Now she put her thinking cap on and wondered, who would it be best to frighten?

The elderly?

No, she frightens them on a daily basis with her council tax and crime stats.

Working adults?

No she frightens them with her tax rises and health care system.

Wait a minute, what about children?

Brilliant, she hasn't frightened them for a while.

Therefore she got together with her chums at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), and formulated a campaign to scare children about fast food.

This way she kills two birds with one stone, she gives the kids a scare and pisses off the fast food industry (which she hates with venom).

Brilliant!

An awareness campaign called Food4Thought found that more than a third of 8-14 year olds had no clue what the main ingredient in potato chips was (some children answered oil, eggs, apples, and flour). Additionally, another nearly 4 in ten of them did not know that milk was the primary item that comprised cheese.

What does this tell us about many children in this country?

They are pig ignorant.

How has this appalling level of ignorance come about?

Parents no longer spend time with their children, in the kitchen, showing them how to cook.

Why?

Nanny has told parents that both of them must work, and parents have happily handed over the upbringing (aside from just the basic 3 R's) to Nanny.

A very dangerous state of affairs indeed.

The BHF has a solution to this, they intend to put up over 600,000 posters all across the UK that show the contents of an average chicken nugget and hot dog (gristle, bone, chicken scrotum and general gunge of that ilk).

This, in their view, will help educate children and deter them from mindlessly consuming foods that they have no idea what it is made of.

Peter Hollins, the director general of the BHF, said:

"Kids have lost touch with the most basic foods and no longer understand what they are eating.

Banning foods or telling children not to eat them is not enough - we must engage children in understanding why certain foods are less healthy than others."

Notice how easily Nanny uses the word "ban" whenever she pontificates on a subject that she disapproves of.

The trouble is, best practice with respect to eating is learnt at home; until parents wrest responsibility for the upbringing of their children from Nanny, change and improvement will not occur.

Relying on Nanny to sort out this mess, merely gives her more power over our daily lives.

Tuck Off! Part II

Yesterday I noted, see "Tuck Off", that Nanny's ban on traditional tuck food fayre would mean that schools would have to start inspecting lunch boxes.

Well guess what?

Some already do!

Wharrier Street Primary school, in Newcastle, has already instituted this policy. Dinner ladies at the school, acting "under orders", are confiscating "banned" products from pupils' lunch boxes.

Bernadette Doherty, the headmistress, says in an Orwellian fashion:

"This is for the benefit of the children"

Now some of the crafty scamps will of course try to get their daily sugar and fat fix from outwith school premises.

Nanny is trying desperately to stop that, and is using all the laws at her disposal to prevent her rules being disobeyed.

At Thomas Tallis secondary school a fast-food van regularly turns up outside of the gates, and teachers have to watch as children go out and buy chips at lunchtime.

Nanny tried to stop this by invoking her environmental laws and health and safety rules, but to quote a spokesman for Nanny:

"Unfortunately he (the fast food man) was complying with everything and there was nothing we could do."

That statement raises all sorts of concerns about Nanny's approach.

Don't you think it is rather scary that Nanny will bend and twist laws, designed for an unrelated purpose, to try to get her own way?

Nanny doesn't get it does she?

People won't change unless they want to change.

Tuck Off!

I am really beginning to think that Nanny must have had some very unpleasant experience with food, when she was a child; that at least would be one explanation for her seemingly never ending obsession with telling us what we should eat.

Nanny's dear old chum Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly decided to have another go at our diets last week, by banning most of the products on sale in the school tuck shop (for my non Brit readers, a tuck shop is a sweet shop based within school grounds).

Opus Kelly said that crisps (did you know that crisps contain a very high amount of vitamin C), chocolate and fizzy drinks would be banned from sale in schools from September 2006.

If they are so dangerous, why is she not banning them now?

Does that not leave a whole year for the greedy and ignorant to sue Nanny for putting their little brats at risk, by exposing them to these "dangerous" products?

Anyhoo, in 2006 schools will be required by law to empty vending machines of the products, and remove them from tuck shops.

Opus's spokesman said that new legislation would cover "any way that food is served in schools, in tuck shops and vending machines".

That surely means that a child's packed lunch box is also subject to this law?

Taken to its logical conclusion it means that, in order to comply with the law, schools will have to search lunch boxes and confiscate "non conforming" sandwiches and biscuits etc.

It's not just crisps and fizz that are banned; burgers, sausages and other foods high in fat, salt and sugar content will also be outlawed as part of new nutritional standards for school canteens.

Ms Kelly told delegates at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last week:

"I am absolutely clear: the scandal of junk food served every day in school canteens must end.

And because children need healthy options throughout the day, from next September no school will be able to have vending machines selling crisps, chocolates and sugary fizzy drinks."

If these products are so bad, why has Nanny taken since 1997 (when she first grasped power) to act?

Aside from the obvious issues about freedom of choice and packed lunches, we do live in a free market economy etc, there is another small point. Vending machines are controlled by outside contractors, under the Government's Private Finance Initiative.

The contracts will have to be changed; that will cost a lot of money, if the companies are willing to change them.

I would like to make simple personal observation here.

When I was a child; I ate chips, burgers and sausages at school with no ill effects. I am now 43, and am not obese (in fact ladies, I am quite fit and trim;)).

The reason being, that whilst at school I may have indulged, at home my parents made sure that I ate properly; ie vegetables, fresh meat etc.

The health issue for some children is the fact that they eat shit all day; the fault lies not with Nanny, but with their lazy ignorant parents.

Now, we as a society are going to have to make a choice; do we let people live their lives as they wish (even if soem of us disapprove of their ignorance and stupidity), or do we dictate what they eat at home as well.

If Nanny is serious about her desire to improve the eating habits of the children, then this is the nettle that she will have to grasp.

To my view, Nanny is not serious at all; these headline catching "bans" are merely gimmicks pushed onto Nanny by other headline grabbers, such as Jamie "I work for Sainsburys" Oliver.

That is the real trouble with Nanny, she is not sincere; and that is why no one listens to her.

The Dangers of Trampolines

Nanny likes to come out with statements on "the bleedin' obvious" at times.

Don't know why, maybe she just likes the sound of her own voice?

Anyhoo, her so called "health experts" have just issued guidance on how to use trampolines.

Now that's a useful way to spend taxpayers' money!

The "experts" have noted that people can injure themselves if they fall off a trampoline, or if they jump into a tree.

No kidding!

Therefore physiotherapists have said that equipment should be set up away from trees and fences.

Those of you who are too dimwitted to appreciate the risks of falling off one of these things, or of bouncing up into trees and other assorted overhangs, should read the advice given out by Nanny's experts:

-Set the trampoline up in hole, so falling distance is not as great
-Keep it free of fences and trees
-Ensure springs, hooks and frame all covered by padding
-Place cushioning, such as wood chips or padding around trampoline
-Children should always be supervised
-Only one person should use it at a time
-Children under six should not use them
-Do not exit trampoline by bouncing
-Remove all jewellery

Got that everyone!

Call me stupid, but isn't the above list just plain simple common sense?

As Chartered Society of Physiotherapy representative, Peta Smith, said:

"..bounce safely"

Those of you who are just too stupid to use one of these things, without a book of instructions, should visit the ROSPA trampoline factsheet.

Nanny Hates Democracy

The recent collapse of the EU constitution (see "The EU Constitution The Longest Suicide Note In History"), as a result of the democratic actions of the French and Dutch, has led me to ponder a while on Nanny's schizophrenic views on democracy.

How sad am I?

On the one hand Nanny says that she is very supportive of democracy. She did, after all, happily invade Iraq; in order to overthrow a dictator, and to provide the Iraqi's with the peace and prosperity that they now enjoy.

Additionally, Nanny and her chum Gordon "Smiler" Brown have happily latched on to St Bob's plan to rid Africa of debt; that'll work!

Think I'm cynical about Africa?

Read my recent article "Make Poverty History", on my In Your Face site, and make your own minds up.

Smiler Brown has even encouraged people to demonstrate at the forthcoming G8 summit in Gleaneagles. That could turn quite ugly, so I can't but help feel that the good citizens of Gleaneagles may be a tad pissed off with Smiler.

However, grandstanding on the world stage means that Nanny and her friends can happily forget the local consequences of their actions. Playing the "we believe in democracy" card works very well for lazy politicians, who need a "big popular cause" to be seen to be associated with.

However, when the "chips are down" and things don't go the way that Nanny wants she reveals her true colours.

Nanny's chum Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, recently said in response to the vote against the EU constitution:

"the experience begs the question of whether it was ever appropriate to submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites".

In other words Nanny thinks that you, the voters, cannot be trusted with voting on what he perceives are important issues.

Nanny thinks you're thick!

His comment reveals the real thinking that goes on behind Nanny's smile.

Nanny to Reintroduce Food Rationing

Nanny, as we know, hates the way that we live our lives. We are fat, lazy and we eat too much of the wrong food.

Nanny feels that she has done her best to try to persuade us to change our lifestyles, yet we seem to be ignoring her. This inattention to her lectures really annoys her.

Well, Nanny is fed up with being ignored, she does “know best”; and has decided that action will be taken.

One of her special friends, Dr Rachel Davey of Staffordshire University, has been thinking about the problem; and has presented Nanny with a special paper that makes a few radical proposals.

Davey’s paper correctly identifies that the more we eat, and the less that we do, the more weight we will gain.

No problems with her most excellent analysis so far.

Now here is where it becomes a little more worrying; she says that when we are confronted with food we are weak willed, and that we will not voluntarily change our habits.

Oh to have Nanny’s moral backbone!

However, do not despair, this is where Nanny will help us.

Dr Davey, who views our current eating habits as “insidious” and likes to use the word "enforce" (let’s not mince words here doctor), proposes a number of “helpful” measures designed to make us fit Nanny’s ideal:

• She proposes taxing certain food items, that Nanny dislikes, much like tobacco and drink are taxed



• She proposes that the advertising of certain food stuff be controlled; in the same way that tobacco and drink advertising is controlled



• She proposes, and this is the real killer, that certain foodstuffs be rationed; just like they were in the war!

Quote:

“..It is not inconceivable that some form of food rationing and portion size control may be required in future if the dramatic rise in obesity continues. This could be done via supermarkets since most of the food we consume in the home is purchased at a relatively small number of food outlets. Obesity is virtually impossible to treat by conventional methods so efforts need to be directed towards prevention. To change social attitudes and challenge social norms, governments must implement radical policy changes which will enforce an environment in which food production, marketing and consumption are controlled…”

During the last war, the British government rationed food via a points system. Everyone was allocated 16 points a month, which they could “spend” on food of their choice. Once the points were used up, they could buy no more.

Dr Davey argues that people were fitter and healthier then; therefore it is the right solution for the “obesity” war that Nanny is fighting on our behalf.

Dare I inject a note of reality into Nanny’s view of history here?

• Rationing was introduced because Britain was at war, people had no choice but to live in this manner; the country was facing starvation, as the U boats cut our supply lines.



• The war lasted 1939-45, rationing persisted until the 1950’s; by which time people were heartily sick of it. The then labour government had to abolish it, or face a mini “revolution”. Oddly enough people don’t like being restricted in their choices, when there is no war to fight.



• During rationing there was a thriving “black market”. Nanny’s attempt to introduce rationing will merely produce the same result. An affluent criminal element in society, which will control the supply of burgers and chips.

By the way regarding the current lard shortage, that is threatening to ruin Christmas for many a British household, I have a pack of lard in my fridge; and am open to offers.



Please submit your bids to lardbid@kenfrost.com, marking them "I love lard".

As ever, with Nanny’s “solutions” to problems, she has not thought through the consequences of her actions; and blatantly disregards the right of people to choose how they wish to live their lives.