Jobs Galore - But We Don't Know What or Where

Directors (various opportunities across Government)

Cabinet Office

Apply before 11:55 pm on Sunday 14th June 2020

 

Return to search results

Reference number

53706

Salary

£100,000

(Circa salary)

Grade

SCS Pay Band 2

Contract type

Permanent
Fixed Term
Secondment

Length of employment

To be confirmed at a later stage following completion of the selection process

Business area

Other

Type of role

Analytical
Operational Delivery
Policy
Project Delivery

Working pattern

Flexible working, Full-time, Homeworking, Job share, Part-time

Number of posts

10

Location

East Midlands, Eastern, London, North East, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber

About the job

Summary

It’s a very rare organisation that can point to its mission as the defining leadership challenge of a generation. With the impact of COVID-19 being felt in every area of public life, the Civil Service in England can do just that.

The unprecedented scale and complexity of this fluid challenge are bringing together leaders from all over Government, and we’re now looking to add to them with the highest calibre professionals.

Whether your experience is from inside or outside of the Civil Service, what’s on offer is a career-defining experience. Your inspirational leadership qualities, fresh perspectives and ability to work on a multitude of emerging priorities will be hugely influential in shaping the Government’s response to the pandemic.

We have Director opportunities across multiple departments, including the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the Department for Health & Social Care (DHSC), the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). These organisations have very substantial budgets, complex cross-cutting programmes and a nationwide remit you simply won’t find anywhere else.

We’re looking for significant experience of engaging at executive and board levels, excellent relationship and influencing skills across organisatons, and the ability to work creatively at very fast pace. You’ll need to see ambiguity as an opportunity for innovation and be motivated by the chance to help guide the nation through complicated and uncertain times.

In return, you can look forward to an impressive package including valuable Civil Service pension, generous annual leave and much more.

"At this stage we are unable to say specifically where successful candidates may be posted but roles are likely to be available in a range of departments."

In the old days I would have taken this to be an advert for The Service.

However, we are not  in the old days any more.

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Nanny's Gagging For It

During all the fuss and razzmatazz of yesterday's Budget, Nanny snuck out a civil service gagging order.

As per the Guardian:

"On 16 March, 51 days before the general election and two weeks before parliament enters purdah, the Cabinet Office changed the civil service code to introduce a new requirement on all 447,000 civil servants to secure ministerial authorisation for contacts with the media. 

Failure to do this risks disciplinary action, the new code says."

It is ironic that this was done during the Budget, given that large parts of that were leaked well in advance doubtless on the nod of Osborne!

Factoid: in my day, breach of Budget purdah was a flogging offence!

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

Nanny Bans Jubilee Bunting

Good heavens, that was a long and wet weekend!

Anyhoo, here we are back again after the Jubilee celebrations. Unsurprisingly, Nanny did her best to put the mockers on them.

In the build up the the celebrations Nanny told her civil servants in Whitehall to remove bunting and decorations from her offices.

For why?

It was not "appropriate to a professional workplace" to have the decorations and, seemingly, the use of chairs/tables etc to stand on to put up the decorations was a health and safety hazard.

Therefore Nanny instructed her civil servants to remove the bunting, but not to take it down themselves (lest it be a further breach of health and safety)!

For good measure Nanny also told her staff that using printers to make the bunting was not helping the environmental targets!

 

I understand that George Osborne stuck two fingers up to Nanny, and told the staff to ignore the anti bunting memo.

 

I have to say that I find Nanny's attitude to health and safety wrt the Jubilee somewhat confusing. On the one hand she bans people from using chairs etc to hang bunting yet, on the other, she forces an elderly gentleman and lady to stand in the freezing wind and rain for hours on a boat on the Thames, dressed in nothing more than a shawl and dress uniform!

 

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 Christmas Trees

I see that, despite promises of austerity (and sharing the pain etc), our overlords in HM Treasury are having a little trouble getting into the spirit of "we are all in this together".

George Osborne had made a promise that this Christmas HMT would buy its official Christmas tree from B&Q (estimated price £40), instead of the normal one that costs them £875.

Why does the "normal" tree cost HMT (ie us, the taxpayers) so much?

Well loyal readers our "beloved" ex PM and his administration of cronies managed to sign themselves up with a company (Exchequer Partnerships, a PFI supplier), who apparently live on the planet Zog and are of the view that trees cost £875.

Anyhoo, all was going according to plan (in George's mind) until the Treasury's Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, wrote him a memo informing him that he could not buy a £40 tree.

For why?

It would be a breach of contract, the company would not water it, they probably wouldn't lend a ladder to help decorate it and most likely there would be health and safety issues regarding the decoration of said tree.

Can you see the underlying message here?

Yes, that's right, it's:

"We have no intention of making any changes in the way that this department operates, go fark yourself!".

Now those of us who live in the real world know perfectly well that a tree can be bought for £40, and watered for two weeks or so (even if it isn't, it's only meant to be there for a couple of weeks) etc. However, the brain dead members of our civil service (who are paid remarkably well) cannot and will not see it that way.

The very sad conclusion to be drawn from this instructive Christmas tale is that the government (even if it is sincere) hasn't got a hope in hell of cutting costs in the areas where they can be cut, without affecting front line services; because the people who administer the cuts will do all in their power to block them, and pass them onto front line services.

In short, the civil service needs to be shut down and built up from scratch again.

Don't forget that at the height of our Empire -"E is for Empire, on which the sun never sets!" - (when we ran approximately 25% of the world) we were able to do it with a civil service that was barely 30% of the bloated, pension inflated monstrosity that we have now.

BTW, it seems that the PFI supplier was so humiliated by the publicity concerning this that they eventually "gifted" a tree for £30. They wouldn't lend a ladder though, and the permanent secretary had to stand on a chair to put a star on the top.

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

Cry Freedom

I see that Nick Clegg, Deputy PM, is inviting the public to nominate unnecessary laws that they would like to see repealed.

Nanny has introduced the "Your Freedom" website, which allows people to propose ways to get rid of pointless regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy and reduce state intrusion into everyday life.

This is an initiative that is worth applauding.

However, be aware of the following:

1 It will only work if ministers are sincere in their stated desire to follow what people propose. Clearly proposals to abolish certain laws will receive much opposition from various vested interests (civil servants, certain ministers, single issue groups, knobheads etc). Ministers will need to overcome that opposition.

2 Allowing the "people to voice an opinion" must not be allowed in itself to become a distraction, or a side show to the underlying mission of repealing Nanny's laws.

3 The proposals need to identify the specific law, and reason for its repeal. Simply using the site to "mouth off" will not do anyone any favours (aside from those who want to obstruct the repeal process).

4 Sadly the British public have become so "Nannyfied" that there are proposals on the site (allegedly made by members of the public) for even more laws (eg hang drug dealers, more rules on placement of signs, national service etc). How worrying is that? Coming across as unhinged will merely play into the hands of those who want to obstruct the repeal process.

Please use the site sensibly, coherently and rationally; only then will there be a chance that Nanny's laws will be repealed.

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

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

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

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

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

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

A Big Fat Rasberry To Nanny's Child Catcher Database

How splendidly entertaining and refreshing to see that Nanny has been so very publicly humiliated by her own Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).

The DCSF has had to publicly admit that security flaws in its internet database (ContactPoint), designed to hold the details of 11 million children and teenagers, have forced it to stop work on the project.

Seemingly the "bugs" present serious security concerns over the ability of the system to protect the identity etc of 55,000 vulnerable children on the database.

ContactPoint, given the security flaws it seems to be rather an apt title for such an "open book" listing of children, cost us £224M. It contains the names, addresses, dates of birth and details of schools, GPs, social workers and support services of all 11 million people aged under 18 in England.

Here's the real laugh...it is intended to improve child protection!

How can a database, containing all of the above, improve child protection?

Don't the dimwitted members of Nanny's government and civil service realise that the more data you store in one place, the more vulnerable it is to hacking and theft?

Another farking IT shambles, brought to us by our elected representatives!

This of course is the same government that wants all of our details on id cards and a massive database.

Anyone out there seriously think that this will work?

The bottom line is that governments and politicians are not capable of being trusted with IT projects, they have neither the understanding nor the time horizon (usually 5 years or more) to see the project through.

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

Well Said Dame Stella!

I doff my hat to Dame Stella Rimington, ex head of MI5, who has lambasted Nanny's lackeys in the government for turning this country into a police state and for using fear to kowtow the population.

Here is an article in the Telegraph about what she said:

Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.

“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.

“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.

Dame Stella, 73, added: “The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” She said the British secret services were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.

Dame Stella became the first woman director general of MI5 in 1992 and was head of the security agency until 1996. Since stepping down she has been a fierce critic of some of the Government’s counter-terrorism and security measures, especially those affecting civil liberties.

In 2005, she said the Government’s plans for ID cards were “absolutely useless” and would not make the public any safer. Last year she criticised attempts to extend the period of detention without charge for terrorism suspects to 42 days as excessive, shortly before the plan was rejected by Parliament.

Her latest remarks were made as the Home Office prepares to publish plans for a significant expansion of state surveillance, with powers for the police and security services to monitor every email, as well as telephone and internet activity.

Despite considerable opposition to the plan, the document will say that the fast changing pace of communication technology means the security services will not be able to properly protect the public without the new powers.

Local councils have been criticised for using anti-terrorism laws to snoop on residents suspected of littering and dog fouling offences.

David Davis, the Tory MP and former shadow home secretary, said: “Like so many of those who have had involvement in the battle against terrorism, Stella Rimington cares deeply about our historic rights and rightly raises the alarm about a Government whose first interest appears to be to use the threat of terrorism to frighten people and undermine those rights rather than defend them.”

In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.

The report, by the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The failure of states to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law.”

The report claimed many measures introduced were illegal and counter-productive and that legal systems put in place after the Second World War were well equipped to handle current threats. Arthur Chaskelson, the chairman of the report panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate. The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data.

“This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public as well as ensuring government has the ability to provide effective public services while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework that protects civil liberties.”

In her interview, in La Vanguardia newspaper, Dame Stella also described the shock of her two daughters when they discovered she was a spy and told how she used most “gadgets” when she was in office except for “a gun’’.

Online Surveys & Market Research

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

A Christmas Tale

Tis the season to be jolly etc, and ignore all of Nanny's advice.

In the spirit of the season, a member of the Nanny Knows Best team (ie me) took his dear old (86 years to be precise) uncle out for lunch last Friday.

I highly commend Maggie Jones's, a favourite spot of mine.

Rest assured a good time was had by all, and copious quantities of food and booze were consumed!

Despite consuming and elegant sufficiency I still managed to transport myself back home to Brighton later in the evening, without any of the following:

- falling over
- the use of the emergency services to sober me up, detox me, or arrest me
- vomiting in any public/private place
- being lewd, crude, obnoxious etc
- putting my feet up on the seat of the train
- robbing or assaulting anyone

Now if I can manage to behave in a vaguely civilised manner, despite having consumed a vast quantity of food and drink, how come our youngsters (and those who should know better) who have been Nannyfied since birth cannot?

Season's greetings folks.

Have it large this year!

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

Prats of The Week

Tis a Monday morning, time methinks to award my prestigious and coveted "Prat of The Week" award.

This time it goes to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in Wales.

Seemingly Nanny's chums in the Welsh branch of the CRE have got their knickers in a right old twist, over the speaking of Welsh.

You may recall a wee while ago that Nanny banned her own minions in the civil service from speaking Welsh, because it was a health and safety risk to their vocal boxes.

However, now the boot is on the other foot; isn't it funny with Nanny how she keeps changing the rules, so that whatever we do or think we are always in the wrong?

The CRE says that it will write to Thomas Cook asking the firm to explain why staff have been asked not to speak Welsh.

Staff at the travel agents' Bangor shop in Gwynedd have recently been told all work conversations must be in English.

Thomas Cook told staff they must conduct business conversations in English, as it is the UK's common language.

They have a point do they not?

I mean, English is what we are all meant to speak isn't it???

WRONG!!!

The Welsh Language Board thinks otherwise, and has said it was "disappointed" and it would ask the company to change its position.

Thomas Cook confirmed the policy applied to all non-English languages, not just Welsh.

A company statement said:

"Thomas Cook requests that all staff speak English

when discussing work-related matters in the work place.

This ensures clear communication at all times

and is respectful to team members who do not speak other languages.

Thomas Cook employs staff from many cultural backgrounds,

therefore the company appreciates its staff

may want to talk to colleagues in other languages

for anything that is not business related".

To my simple mind, that seems a pretty fair and sensible policy.

However, Nanny has a different way of looking at things. The good old boys in the CRE in Wales have warned that the policy might be in breach of the Race Relations Act.

Note how they say "might", in the hope of intimidating Thomas Cook. Threats like this are always a nasty way to do things.

Wales Commissioner, the Reverend Aled Edwards, said the promotion of good relations was their "paramount concern".

Quote:

"The Commission for Racial Equality does have

a power to investigate through its legal committee

and also if it sees fit to start a formal investigation

but I think common sense and courtesy would be the best option."

Common sense and courtesy would dictate, from my perspective, that the CRE butt out of this.

Meri Huws, chair of the Welsh Language Board, said:

"a very surprising decision, in the light of the number

of private sector companies, large and small,

that are choosing to use the language

in terms of marketing, in terms of services

to their customers, and generally in

day-to-day work place activity".

The key point here is that it is up to the companies how they work to best serve the market. Thomas Cook have made their decision in good faith, and should be left in peace.

It can be assumed that the person who doubtless complained about this speaks perfectly good English, I wonder what the real motivation for the complaint was?

CRE Wales, well deserved "Prats of The Week".

Drop them an email, to let them know that they have won: InformationWales@cre.gov.uk

I couldn't find "prats" in an on line Welsh dictionary, but here is part of it in Welsh: "Prats am y wythnos".

Nanny's Segregated Swimming Pool

I wonder sometimes if Nanny really understands what she stands for. On the one hand she pushes her pet subjects of "diversity awareness", "tolerance" and "quotas". However, then she comes along and does something like this which flies in the face of tolerance and equality.

Rather "surprisingly" (look closely folks, you will find I am being a tad "ironic" with my use of that word), my own local borough of Croydon (see www.croydoniscrap.com for all about Croydon) have put their two left feet firmly in the sh*t on this one.

It seems that Croydon Council have decided that the local Muslim community are not being treated fairly, when it comes to swimming facilities. As such Nanny's chums on the council have decreed that Thornton Heath (a part of Croydon) swimming pool should hold Muslim only sessions on a Sunday afternoon.

As if that were not bad enough, the sessions are for men only.

A triple whammy!

Racist, religioust and sexist, to boot!

Nice going Nanny.

The men only swimming sessions are held for two hours every week in Thornton Heath swimming pool, in fact they have been doing so for a year now.

I should point out that non Muslim men may swim during this time. However, they must follow a dress code akin to bathing in the Victorian age; swimming shorts must hide the navel and extend below the knee.

Daniel Foley, a regular at Thornton Heath, said:

"I turned up and saw a sign saying it was closing early for Muslim afternoon

I couldn't believe it."

Croydon Mosque says:

"Muslims are not allowed to show intimate parts of their body.

This is non-negotiable.

Muslims have as much right to go swimming as anyone else."

A spokesman for Croydon Council said:

"We are keen to ensure sporting facilities in the borough

are accessible to the whole community.

We appreciate that certain religious groups,

such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation

for activities including sports,

so in response to requests from the local community,

we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre

for the past year,

with a women-only session on Saturday evening and a male-only session on Sunday evening.

These have been successful and well attended.

Croydon is not unique in offering such sessions

to minority communities, many local authorities do the same.

We are not giving preference to any one group

but simply taking practical steps to create access to all."

A few facts here:

• Local authorities collect council taxes from all residents, in order to provide services and facilities for all residents without fear or favour to any one group. The segregation is clearly discriminatory, as it denies many people access to the facility on a Sunday afternoon.



• Many people in South Africa and America fought and died for the right to sit in the front of the bus, to attend the same schools and to swim in the same pools as everyone else. Croydon's policy is segregation, pure and simple; it is a retrograde step which will alienate the Muslim and non Muslim communities.



• It has taken centuries for Britain to develop the freedom and civil liberties, that we should be rightly proud of. We will not throw those centuries of toil and sacrifice away simply to placate those who are intolerant and bigoted.

Those who will not accept mixing with their fellow British citizens in a communal facility (funded by the community), and who seek to commandeer that facility, should consider their future in this country.

Period!

Division and segregation lead to suspicion and intolerance.

Intolerance and bigotry are not welcome.

This is non-negotiable.

Feel free to write to Croydon Council here Croydon Council

Here is a list of councillors, and their email addresses Councillors

Give them my love:)

I would write to them myself, but they have steadfastly ignored very single communication that I have ever sent to them. So much for local democracy!

Whilst you are about it, why not drop Bliary Poppins a note too? He has been banging on about Muslims needing to integrate more, this segregation is surely a contradiction of his stated policy is it not?

Write to the PM here Bliary Poppins.

Lunartic House

Those of you unfamiliar with the joys of Croydon; its fine architecture, beautiful central thoroughfares (such as Dingwall Road) and popular/thriving shopping centres (such as Centrale, which has an occupancy rate of less then 50%) should take a look at my special site dedicated to Croydon www.croydoniscrap.com.

Oddly enough, whenever I write to the council about the decaying infrastructure of Croydon they never answer; even the local "dead cat in tree" rags have stopped mentioning the site.

I wonder why?

Anyhoo, in addition to the joys that I describe in full technicolour detail on that site, Croydon hosts the Home Office's main immigration centre at Lunar House ("affectionately" known as Lunartic House by us locals).

As we all know Nanny takes pride in her work to integrate various religions, races and creeds under one unifying concept of Britishness. Therefore it was with great pride, as a Croydon resident, that I read about Nanny employing a leading member of an extremist Islamic group in Lunartic House.

Abid Javaid is a "senior executive officer" in the IT department at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (in Lunartic House), this processes asylum and visa applications.

In addition to his role in helping people become British, Javaid is also an activist in the fundamentalist Islamic group Hizb-ut Tahrir. This "organ" does not believe in democracy, but instead wants a worldwide Islamic state under Shariah law.

Is it British to be anti democratic?

Blairy Poppins asked for the group, which calls for Jews to be murdered, to be banned last year.

Patrick Mercer, Tory party Homeland Security spokesman, has noted that the position that Javid holds is a tad sensitive.

Quote:

"I am amazed that this man has managed to infiltrate

such a sensitive government department.

I find it deeply worrying.

This is an insidious and dangerous organisation

that is clearly trying to worm its way into as many

government organisations as possible.

In August 2005, the Prime Minister said that these people should be banned.

Now, less than 18 months later, they are,

to all intents and purposes, legal.

This is a clandestine organisation

which seeks to infiltrate wherever it can.

This is further proof, if any were needed,

that both the IND and the Home Office are unfit for purpose."

Lunartic House has in the past offered a premium service to migrants if they agreed to perform sexual favours.

That's the spirit guys!

Hundreds of thousands of claims for visas and asylum are stacked in cardboard boxes, and the IND has been accused of losing track of applicants.

In other words it is a shite organisation, and symbolic of the failure of Nanny and her minions to run anything remotely resembling a piss up in a brewery.

A Home Office spokesman helpfully said:

"Home Office civil servants are expected to abide

by Home Office rules governing their conduct.

They are also subject to the Civil Service code."

Now you know why it is called Lunartic House!

By the way, if there is anyone from the media reading this who wants to help me kick Croydon council up the backside; I would be very grateful if you could do a piece on my Croydon website.

Nanny Bans Loopholes

Nothing annoys Nanny more than when someone uses the law to avoid being punished by Nanny, for some alleged "crime" that Nanny most certainly knows for sure that the person is guilty of.

In Nanny's world, the law is to be used to punish and control people; not to be used for defending the innocent.

Well, you can imagine how cross Nanny is that some people are using the law to defend themselves when they are charged with motoring offences. Nanny's police force just love to catch motorists breaking Nanny's laws.

Why is that then?

Could it be that other crimes such as; muggings, assaults and robberies just require too much work to solve?

Could it be that the police are rewarded for the number of successful convictions they make, irrespective of the severity of the crime?

Could it be that fines from motoring convictions are used to cover the costs of the police?

What do you think folks?

Anyhoo, Nanny's police have decreed that they are fed up with people using legal "loopholes"; ie defending themselves as they are legally entitled to do so, to avoid being convicted of driving offences.

Nanny's police have stated that they are now out to get those people who are declared innocent by the courts; you see folks the police know that these people are as guilty as hell, and don't think that the courts have any business in interfering with their convictions.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) wants police and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to make stronger cases against drivers whose legal teams use loopholes in the law to get them off.

One chief constable is quoted as saying that officers would be "looking for" motorists who had been "unjustly acquitted".

Hah!

Who the hell makes the judgement as to what an "unjust" acquittal is?

Someone needs to remind Nanny's police that the courts and the legal system are to be respected, most certainly by the officers of the law.

Better that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail!

The trouble is the police don't believe that!

Meredydd Hughes, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, has issued an open threat to the public:

"There have been a number of cases where people feel that justice has not been done,

both in the drink-driving world

and in other cases where people have evaded the law

having driven cars recklessly and at very high speeds.

I think my colleagues in the roads policing groups

will share my anger when people are unjustly acquitted

and I'm sure they'll be looking for those drivers.

And if they haven't mended their ways

we have an attitude in the police service that we'll see them again sometime."

Liberty, the civil rights group, has warned that this could see police unlawfully targeting individuals they believe have been unfairly acquitted of motoring offences.

Acpo is also introducing a team made up of a lawyer and a former police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases.

Acpo want motorists to decide against contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4K for the team.

There you have it folks, the police are trying to put the frighteners on you.

Only the rich will be able to take the risk of fighting unjust motoring cases, in Nanny's world the police are used to keep the rest of us in order.

We are becoming a police state.

The Naked Civil Servant

Ever wondered why Nanny needs to employ over 7 million trolls in her public sector empire?

Simple, they're all shagging and fighting each other!

It turns out that Nanny's minions in the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) Newcastle have been caught indulging in rumpy pumpy in toilets, during office hours (who does that remind you of?), and of wandering around naked.

One person has already been sacked, and officials have begun an investigation.

Aside from the obvious, what I find most alarming about this is that these morons allowed themselves to be caught on CCTV. What does this say about the quality of intellect of the people that Nanny hires to work for her (oh sorry I mean us...we do of course pay these people's wages!)?

Seemingly, staff have been caught leaping naked from filing cabinets, having sex in office toilets, holding break-dancing competitions during working hours and fighting in a reception area.

The RPA claim that their mission is to:

"be a customer focused organisation delivering high quality services,

including processing payments and receipts,

conducting inspections and recording animal identification,

to government and the rural community."

Er, quite!

Much like most other people in Nanny's ever growing empire, they don't give a toss for the public (ie the people who pay their wages). This attitude comes from the very top.

Maybe, given the seemingly endemic "take the piss" culture in the public sector, I have been too hard on the Smooth Talking Bar Steward?

Seemingly he was, after all, only following normal custom and practice within the public sector.

Nanny's 30 Year IT Project

Nanny loves IT, she loves to boast that she will make the UK the world's leader in respect of the "wired economy"; she also has a special love for the surveillance opportunities afforded by IT systems and the web.

In Nanny's view, IT will be the bedrock of her "Brave New World".

Unfortunately there is one small fly in Nanny's oinkment, she is crap at IT projects!

Colin Talbot, Professor of Public Policy at Manchester Business School and a leading adviser to the National Audit Office (NAO), has recently gone public with criticisms of Nanny's IT capabilities.

He says that it will take another 30 years before Whitehall can successfully deliver major IT projects, unless fundamental changes are made.

The Professor believes that endemic problems in the civil service mean that IT delivery failures will not be solved, and that Nanny's eGovernment Unit's Transformational Government (TG) strategy is "hype" (that's polite Professor speak for Bollocks!).

Professor Talbot says:

"The strategy reads like technology is a cure-all,

which is massively over-hyped and doesn't square with the record of large-scale government programmes."

He then lambasts Nanny's preference for the "gifted amateur", which in effect means that senior civil servants lack hands-on experience and are unqualified to do the jobs that they were hired for.

Quote:

"We won't get over these problems until there are root and branch changes.

At the current rate it will take another 30 years for there to be any significant impact."

He should not be so pessimistic, as long as Nanny keeps using the services of high quality firms such as Crapita, there is nothing for us to worry about!

Freedom of Speech

My compliments to Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, who has managed to persuade Nanny that his comments on Radio 4; in which he accused gay people of spreading disease, and described civil partnerships as "harmful", were all in the best possible taste and not deserving of prosecution.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie said:

"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society, stability, family relationships

And it is something we would certainly not, in any form, encourage the community to be involved in.

Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful.

I think,

if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there,

surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

These comments drew a protest from some listeners, and the Metropolitan Police launched an inquiry.

However, the police now say that they will not be charging Sir Iqbal.

The Muslim Council of Britain even said that it did not understand why their leader was being investigated.

"To be honest,

we thought it somewhat surprised when we heard that Sir Iqbal was being investigated by the police

for merely articulating the mainstream Islamic viewpoint about homosexuality."

That speaks volumes about their understanding of modern Britain!

As if by coincidence, Sir Ian Blair The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has decided to end costly police inquiries into supposedly politically incorrect views voiced on radio and TV.

Current rules compel police to investigate complaints, but officers are said to be exasperated because they have to treat all of them as potential 'hate' crimes.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said:

"Where complaints are made to police about allegedly discriminatory language,

we have a duty to review what has been said

to ensure that the law has not been broken

and to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision when necessary.

However, in the light of recent complaints generated by comments broadcast in the media,

the Commissioner has asked for a review to examine where the boundary lies between freedom of speech in a democratic society

and the appropriate police response and action to deal with formal complaints alleging the law has been broken.

It will not influence police action in relation to any cases already being looked into. Some cases will always justify investigation by police."

Now the question is, when a gay (or for that matter straight) person makes a public criticism of Islam; will Nanny, the police and the Muslim Council of Britain be so understanding and tolerant?

How To Lie With Statistics

Now we all know that Nanny would never lie to us, don't we children?

After all, she is the paragon of virtue and respectability.

Sometimes though she does allow things to be, how shall I put this?, "misinterpreted".

That at least could be the explanation for the apparent lie that Nanny's chum Bill Rammell, Minister for Higher Education, told last week.

He was happily extolling his view the world that students from state schools were disadvantaged, when it comes to being accepted by universities.

His rationale?

The grade predictions for pupils from state schools are habitually underpredicted by their teachers. This means, according to Rammell, that they are offered less university places than those who come from private education.

Now Rammell was happily using these "facts" to promote Nanny's latest idea of "social engineering"; namely that universities should hold back a proportion of their places, until after the publication of A- level results.

Why do governments think that social engineering is a good thing?

It always fails dismally.

However, there is one fly in Rammell's ointment.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right, he was lying...ooh sorry, "accidentally allowing people to misrepresent the research".

It seems that the A level predictions for pupils from state schools are indeed adjusted by their teachers.

Not downwards though.

UPWARDS!

Yes, much to Nanny's discomfort, it seems that Rammell forgot to mention in his "social engineering" rant last week that teachers from state schools overestimate the grades of their pupils.

The actual results from state schools are in fact worse than predicted.

A DfES-commissioned study shows that poorer teenagers were the most likely to have their predicted results exaggerated by their teachers. Grade predictions on university application forms were most accurate for students from wealthier backgrounds. Teachers at state schools overestimated the true performance of their students far more than those in the independent sector.

The study, carried out by academics at Oxford University, also noted:

"There is no evidence to support the view that those with overpredicted grades received more offers than those who have their performance underpredicted."

Geoff Hayward, who produced the report for the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas), said that he was mystified and annoyed at the way the DfES had presented the research. He said:

"The evidence we produced does not support the strong contention that those from less well-off backgrounds are being disadvantaged by the current system.

It's just not true. They are trying to portray a particular image that poorer students are being disadvantaged by the system, but the report I wrote finds very, very weak, if any, support for that conclusion."

Rammell is now squirming, like a worm on a hook, as he tries to make out that he didn't deliberately lie.

He should have remembered that there is a Civil Service Code that states that civil servants have "the duty to give Parliament or the Assembly and the public as full information as possible about their policies, decisions and actions, and not to deceive or knowingly mislead them".

Still that's never stopped Nanny in the past from lying to us, I doubt that she will change her ways now.

Cherie Rebels Against Blairy

Cherie Blair, wife of Blairy Poppins, shocked and surprised her audience during a speaking visit to Malaysia last week by admitting to the fact that she has rebelled against "her old man".

Quote:

"For years now I have come to enjoy the trappings of office:

Luxury flights and holidays

Private education for my children

Free gifts from foreigners

The use of therapists for my emotional angst

The use of conmen to handle my private financial matters

This situation would have continued unabated for the rest of my life, had I not come across that most excellent website

"Nanny Knows Best"

run by one of Britain's leading intellectuals and political commentators Ken Frost

I am now a regular visitor to the site, and have come to realise the threat to our freedom posed by my husband and his party

To this end I have decided to speak out in the hope that people will wake up to the threat to their civil liberties, before it is too late"

Warming to her theme Cherie went on to say:

"Nothing I say here could possibly be construed as making light of those horrible acts of violence, or of the responsibility imposed on the UK and other governments to keep the public safe,

or of the difficult and dangerous task performed by the police and intelligence services,"

She added:

"at the same time it is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation".

She also highlighted a House of Lords judicial ruling that blocked the holding of foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge.

"What the case makes clear is that the government, even in times when there is a threat to national security, must act strictly in accordance with the law,"

WARNING PARTS OF THE ABOVE REPORT MAY BE BOLLOCKS

Money Well Spent!

The good news is that, ever mindful of the costs of her special projects, Nanny has been keeping costs as low as possible in regard to her planned ID card scheme.

The costs incurred to date have so far amounted to a mere £17M, according to information gleaned under the Freedom of Information Act.

Out of this, "drop in the ocean", £12M was paid directly to PA Consulting.

Astute observers will note that the ID cards bill has not yet reached a third reading in the House of Commons.

Who cares!

Nanny doesn't!

PA estimated the development and procurement phases of the project would cost £18.74m over the length of the two-year deal.

The figures also disclosed that at least 62 consultants are working alongside 43 civil servants and one secondee.

In the FOI statement the Home Office said:

"The PA Consulting contract involves work on the design, feasibility testing, business case and procurement elements of the id cards programme.

The nature of the contract for this service is such that an outturn value is not defined; packages of work are agreed monthly. The Home Office has made no commitment to any contract value.

Although the total value of the contract will not be known until the contract is concluded..

I can tell you that the estimated prices given in the successful tender by the contractor were £9.87m for the development phase of the programme and £8.87m for the subsequent procurement phase."

Roughly translated, that means "we don't know how much it will cost, because it is not our money and we don't care".

The Home Office said the "average daily cost for each consultant working on the programme was £1,093".

Remember folks, it's your money that Nanny is spending.

Thank You

This weekend sees the main national commemorative events marking the end of the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific, 60 years ago.

The Royal British Legion are using this 60th anniversary to say thank you to the men and women of both the armed forces, and civilian services, who lived and fought for our freedom and liberty during that time.

I would like to make my own personal note of thanks to my parents, and grandfather, who were involved with the war effort at that time.

Grandfather, who is now dead, served in the Royal Navy in the First World War and the merchant navy in the Second. My father served in the merchant navy, on the Atlantic convoys during the Second World War; whilst my mother worked in a factory, making electronic equipment.

Whilst that war is now long since over, the threat to liberty remains; as evidenced by the attacks last Thursday on London.

It is an appropriate time to remember that London has been a major city for over 2000 years.

It has survived fire, flood, plague, rioting, the Luftwaffe and the IRA.

Thursday's attack will not destroy it, London will survive long after the intellectually and morally bankrupt theocracy that planned the attack has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Ken

The Sly Old Fox

Those of you reading the British newspapers, and watching the news bulletins, over the last month or so may be forgiven for thinking that Nanny has become obsessed with fox hunting.

She certainly has kicked up quite a fuss over the issue; professing, as she does, to have the best interests of animals at heart.

Oddly enough I see no legislation coming forward to ban shooting or fishing. Doubtless that will come.

In fact Peter Bradley, the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, admitted that Nanny’s friends in Labour don’t “give a stuff” over the fox hunting issue at all:

“We ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom: it was class war…

This was not about the politics of envy but the polities of power. Ultimately it's about who governs Britain..”

Nanny meanwhile has stayed above the fray, in fact she has been almost invisible.

Maybe I am tad cynical, “surely not!” I hear you cry, but maybe Nanny has other fish to fry?

Does it not strike you as a little odd that a government so obsessed with media manipulation and spin has allowed, what in theory is a minority sport, to dominate the domestic agenda and media headlines?

The truth is that Nanny does not give a stuff about foxes, one way or the other. However, she has studied their wily ways, and is a sly old fox herself.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, whilst the media, the public and the “opposition” parties’ attentions have been diverted by the hunting issue; Nanny has quietly introduced, and passed, a most dangerous piece of legislation.

The Civil Contingencies Bill became law last Thursday, oddly enough the same day as the fox hunting ban went through with all that fuss.

The Civil Contingencies Bill allows Nanny, at the drop of a hat, to suspend the constitution and impose whatever restrictions on individual liberties and civil rights that she chooses.

Nanny can invoke her right to suspend liberties whenever there is an emergency.

Now, dear reader, what is an emergency?

Simple, anything Nanny says is an emergency is in fact an emergency.

This includes an event or situation, which threatens serious damage to:

• Human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom



• The environment of a place in the United Kingdom



• The security of the United Kingdom or of a place in the United Kingdom

Damage includes:

• Loss of human life



• Human illness or injury



• Homelessness



• Damage to property



• Disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel



• Disruption of an electronic or other system of communication



• Disruption of facilities for transport



• Disruption of services relating to health

In short, Nanny can now do whatever she likes when she likes.

You should now be afraid, be very afraid!

You may well ask where the media and the “opposition” parties were, when this “rule by dictat” bill was being put through parliament.

Ermm, that’s simple, they were chasing Nanny’s fox.

In truth the media and the "oppositon" parties failed the people of the United Kingdom, I trust that they will hang their heads in shame!

Nanny, I have to hand it to you; you are a sly old fox!