Wankers

I am well pleased to see that Lord Young of Graffham has issued a report (as commissioned by David Cameron) that condemns ambulance chasing lawyers, and calls for curbs on the the aggressive advertising used by these lawyers.

Lord Young is of the view that members of the public are encouraged by unscrupulous lawyers to pursue frivolous personal injury and negligence cases, while "well-meaning" people are deterred from organising voluntary activities.

He notes that the industry has created a "particularly pernicious" climate of fear that puts off well-meaning members of the public from organising voluntary activities in case they are sued if an accident happens.

Lord Young said:

"People who seek to do good in our society should not fear litigation as a result of their actions."

Needless to say, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers doesn't like Lord Young's conclusions.

This organ has released a statement claiming that changes to health and safety legislation will result in a culture of "carelessness and injury".

Wankers!

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

Contemptible and Loathsome

One of the worst aspects of living in the Nanny state is the fact that Nanny's bad habits are adopted by many other people, as they seek to blame others for their own failings or simple bad luck.

Here is, in my view, a text book example of how Nanny is negatively impacting the behaviour of people living in this country.

Mr and Mrs Boardman (in their eighties) who live in Lincolnshire called paramedics last year when Mrs Boardman, who has heart trouble, fell ill.

When one of the ambulance workers (a technician) went to collect a stretcher from the ambulance, he fell over in the Boardmans' driveway.

Can you guess what is happening now?

Yes, that's right, this person (I have thought of using various fine Anglo Saxon words to describe him, but am containing myself) now wants to sue them.

The Boardmans have received a letter from his solicitors saying that he is seeking damages for personal injury.

The East Midlands Ambulance Service appear to be washing their hands of the matter, and claim that he is pursuing the matter in his own right. This implies that his work insurance policy does not cover this claim, which in itself speaks volumes about the credibility of the claim in the first place (ignoring the fact that he is trying to claim off the Boardmans).

Unsurprisingly neither the technician nor his solicitors were available for comment, too shame faced I would imagine.

However, the letter from his solicitor to the Boardmans says that the technician fell when the couple's security light flickered out.

Needless to say this disgraceful and contemptible claim is causing the Boardmans a lot of stress. Jim Boardman said:

"I think it's morally wrong.

There are other side issues to be considered... people could be reluctant to call the public services and it brings into disrepute an organisation which I've got the greatest admiration for."

Now, if you didn't think that this was bad enough, read what Unison (The Public Sector union) has to say on the matter!

Carol Brown from Unison said:

"I can't comment on this specific case because I don't know if this worker is one of our members but if our members are injured during work then of course the union would support them.

I can understand people finding it hard to believe but of course if someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

Read this bit again:

"If someone is injured during work then somebody has got to take liability."

BOLLOCKS!

No they don't!

This is the very essence of Nanny in her worst form.

Accidents happen; sometimes because of negligence, sometimes because of people's own stupidity and sometimes because of sheer bad luck.

Using accidents as an excuse to screw people for money is contemptible.

The union are loathsome scumbags for condoning this kind of morally reprehensible behaviour.

Are we now to assume that all emergency services will first have to conduct a risk assessment of a caller and their home, before they will attend an incident or emergency?

Mark my words, that is where this is leading.

Needless to say, the Boardmans say they are now reluctant to call the emergency services.

Nanny has destroyed our society!

Nanny Bans Donkey Derby

Oh dear, another summer treat for the kids has been kybosched (spelling???) by Nanny.

That ancient seaside/rural summer ritual of the donkey derby has been banned by Nanny's minions in Llandudno.

The donkeys were due to be ridden by around 40 children the other week at a series of races organised by Llandudno Rugby Club, a regular event in Llandudno.

Well, it was regular until Nanny stuck her size tens into the matter. The donkeys were replaced by blow-up sheep and a toy monkey...yes, you did read that correctly!

For why?

Our good old chums related to the health and safety Gestapo felt that the event was just too dangerous.

I would observe that it is the same type of people from the health and safety Gestapo that accredited a certain animal vaccine lab in the South of England with a safety certificate...this would be the same lab that is now suspected of leaking the foot and mouth disease...oh, and it is the same lab that is now being paid by Nanny to produce the vaccine to cure the disease...lucky it has a certificate then, otherwise we would all be in a right old pickle!

Anyhoo, I digress.

The harmless 30 second races, organised by Llandudno Rugby Club, have taken place in North Wales for the last 39 years without nay serious incident. Unfortunately, Nanny's ultra caution now means that the event has to be covered by public liability insurance.

Have you noticed how, when a local authority wants to ban something, it simply trots out the tired old mantra of "public liability insurance"?

This has become the catch all excuse for banning all manner of events and activities.

Funny that isn't it?

Anyone suspect that this excuse is in fact a load of old bollocks, dreamt up by our useless and interfering local councils to stop us living our lives in the way that we want to?

Has anyone actually bothered to take the insurance companies to task, and get them to explain clearly how they come up with their often ludicrous quotes for insurance relating to public events...it usually revolves around the sum of £5M.

The councils, had they a mind too, have the time and the "skills" (I never thought that I would use that word in relation to a council) to do just that. Yet they don't...why is that then?

Robin Holden, the rugby club chairman, said:

"We asked insurers if they could give us cover

for kids racing on donkeys – but they wouldn't touch it."

Tossers!

Seemingly the insurance company excuse is that if a kid falls off the donkey, his/her parents would sue.

Brian Bertola, who helps organise the donkey derby, said:

"The donkeys are used to having children on them,

the speed is negligible,

the kids wear helmets and it's over a short distance.

It's crazy."

We as a society do have ourselves to blame here:

1 We allow insurance companies to screw us royally

2 We sue for the slightest little thing at the drop of a hat

3 We allow local councils to lord it over us.

Although it seems, on the face of it, the local council were not directly involved with this; I can't but help feel had they been a bit more "helpful" (eg ask the insurance companies some pointed questions) a solution could have been found.

Dig For Victory

Britain is a tiny island, with a very large/excessive population (people per square mile) of around 60 million.

Feeding this population requires a well developed set of trade routes with the rest of the world, and the maximisation of agricultural output on British soil.

When crisis hits, such as in the last war (when our population was only 40 million), we have serious trouble feeding ourselves. During these times of crisis every available piece of land is turned over to producing food. Thus it was that allotments, a modest piece of land allocated to local town dwellers for vegetable and flower growing, really came into their own.

Dig For Victory!

Needless to say Nanny, because she is into organic "cafe latte" couscous ethically sourced at twice the price type shit, doesn't give a stuff about the humble allotment with its spuds and caulis.

Therefore local councils, such as the Parish Council of West Monkton Somerset, are free to "bugger up" yet another aspect of British life.

The council has demanded that local allotment holders take out millions of pounds of public liability insurance, thus forcing them to abandon their allotments.

The hapless allotment holders in West Monkton have been told to pay for protection in case someone trips over a turnip, or slips on a slug, and sues for compensation.

West Monkton is not alone in demanding money with menaces, other local authorities have been advised to follow suit.

The cost to local allotment holders, who rent their plots at £10 per annum, is an additional £400 per annum!

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens, thinks that the demand for money with menaces is a load of old bollocks:

"It's ridiculous.

It makes it not worth having an allotment.

The average plot holder can produce about £500 worth of food.

If they have to pay up to £400 in insurance,

plus the £50 cost of seeds and tools on top

there is no point in having an allotment.

A lot of people, particularly the retired

or those on low incomes, could not afford to pay

the extra cost of insurance.

A lot people would just give up.

It could mean the end of the Great British allotment.

We are at a time when demand for allotments is

at its highest since the Second World War."

Britain has an estimated 330,000 allotments which, if each charged £400, would rake in £132M per annum for the money grabbing councils/insurance companies.

As David Hampsey, of the National Vegetable Society, rightly observes:

"It's ridiculous to ask plot holders

to pay up to £400 in insurance.

It's just another way of making money

out of law-abiding citizens."

He has hit the nail on the head, it's another piss take from our ineffective and redundant local councils; who are using it as an excuse to raise more money so that they can afford to pay for their salaries, expense accounts and defined benefit pension funds.

The crisis came to a head the other week when 11 plot holders in West Monkton received letters telling them they must insure themselves against personal injury claims of up to £5M. The parish council clerk, Trish Cavill, said that the town hall was following advice from their insurer Allianz Cornhill.

The letter said each allotment owner must have public liability insurance "with a limited indemnity of no less than five million pounds."

Grower David Almond, allotment holder aged 70, said:

"This is utter nonsense.

The purpose of allotments was to

help poor families grow vegetables.

But it looks like the council wants

to push people out of them."

Needless to say West Monkton Parish Council are quick to blame the compensation culture for the need to insure allotments.

Mrs Cavill said:

"We live in a health and safety conscious age,

and we wanted to clarify the position for allotments.

The parish council's insurance covers the public walkways

and paths on the site but not the allotments themselves.

If someone trips on a bucket on a path,

the council is liable.

But if they trip over a bucket on an allotment,

the allotment holder is liable."

Errmmm...if I have read that correctly she has just said that it is the allotment holder that is liable?

Therefore is it not up to the allotment holder as to whether they take out £5M insurance cover?

Why does the council need to get itself involved in this?

Why does the council seem to think that it is responsible for everything that happens? (answer: because if people stopped to ask what does a local council really need to do, they would see that their council needs to do far less than it claims. We are being conned by our local councils into paying for services we don't want or need).

Reading her response it is clear that this has nothing to do with the council.

Allianz said that the company would advise all councils to urge allotment plot holders to have public liability insurance.

Well of course they would, they stand to earn £132M a year out of it!

Does not anyone in our "respected" local councils ever bother to challenge these money grabbing insurance companies?

Why does the cover need to be £5M? This amount is quoted now for all events and issues connected with local councils.

Why not £1M or £500K?

How accurate are the premiums of £400, taking into account the risks and likelihood of a £5M payout?

An Allianz spokesperson said:

"This type of cover is needed in case

someone gets injured at the allotment

and wants to sue the plot holder."

I refer her to my point above, about it being up to the allotment holder not the council or insurance company to dictate terms.

Seriously, does anyone really trust their council or insurance companies?

It is high time that people stood up to these parasites.

DIG FOR VICTORY!

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Nanny believes in the principle of leadership by example; in other words she seeks to teach her charges, via example, how they should lead their lives.

One of Nanny's chums in the Lords, Baroness Corston, is leading by example. When she was a lowly commoner and MP she twisted her ankle, or something similar, in the Houses of Parliament in 2003. Now she is claiming an enhanced sickness pension worth up to £24K a year.

However, before there is an out pouring of sorrow and grief for this poor lady, let us not forget that weeks after the 2005 election she was given a peerage and last year claimed £26K in attendance allowances and expenses.

One parliamentary source said:

"Several MPs have been given a higher pension

by saying they cannot carry on as MPs,

only to wash up in another job or the Lords."

Baroness Corston, who used to be a barrister (what is it about this current Labour government that attracts lawyers?), was the first female chairman of the backbench Parliamentary Labour Party group, and was the MP for Bristol East from 1992 until the last Election.

She has attended the Lords on 61 days last year and claimed £26,190 in allowances, made up of £16,890 in daily and overnight allowances and £9,300 in travel and office costs.

Value for money indeed!

The next time you lash out at the person in the street who claims compensation from a local council for tripping up, remember they are taking their cue from our "beloved" leaders.