By Gum

I am genused to see that Nanny's chums in Milton Keynes Coucnil have become so enraged with the blight of disgarded chewing gum on the streets of MK that they intend to ban it and fine people £80 for depositing it on the streets akin to the rules in Singapore (although there you can be flogged as well for leaving it on the pavements).

All well and dandy, except that if you read what is being considered it appears to be a tad more heavy handed than simply fining people for littering the streets with gum.

After8, part of Milton Keynes city centre management, is considering banning it and using "gum police" to enforce the ban. As per the Huffington Post:

"This would be bigger because it will be introduced across the whole of Central Milton Keynes over a one to two mile radius. We are still looking into how we would enforce it but we are getting lots of positive feedback on social media. Whether it means there will be gum police, or a different employee taken on to enforce the gum ban, we are looking into it."

A "slight" overreaction wouldn't you say, given that there are already anti littering laws in place?

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

Tasmania To Ban Fag Sales

In a plan that is destined to fail (if it is enacted), and bring about a major increase in revenues for organised crime, Tasmanian Nanny is considering banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2000.

ABC News reports that Legislative Council member Ivan Dean wants to make it illegal for people born after 2000 to buy tobacco once they turn 18 - meaning they would never legally be able to buy cigarettes.

The proposal was passed unanimously by the Upper House on Tuesday night.

Is it not an individual's right to decide what he or she chooses to put into their body?

Why does Nanny insist on trying to legislate about what we are allowed to eat, drink, smoke, snort etc?

Needless to say there are those who will come up with the "passive smoking" argument, yet far more damage is done to us by the passive ingestion of pollution (airborne and waterborne) from cars, lorries, factories etc etc.

I am sure that Nanny states around the world will be watching this with interest, and will be itching to do the same.

It is a bad/dangerous idea, and it is destined to fail. Yet Nanny never learns that banning things makes them ever more attractive.

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 Declares War on Eggs Again!

Loyal readers with eidetic memories may recall that, in February 2009, I wrote the following about eggs:

"It seems that Nanny's anti egg campaigns of the past, in which she warned us of the alleged dangers of the cholesterol content of eggs, were a load of bollocks.

A paper prepared by the British Nutrition Foundation states that the cholesterol in eggs has only a small, and clinically insignificant, effect on blood cholesterol."

One would have thought that this would have finally laid to rest Nanny's misguided obsession about eggs being bad for us!

Sadly "one" would be wrong.

Nanny is an obsessive creature and, if facts stand in her way, she simply finds a way to manufacture "facts" to suit her obsession.

Step forward Dr David Spence Professor of Neurology and Clinical Pharmacology at Robarts Research Institute University of Western Ontario, he is also affiliated with the London Health Sciences Centre’s University Hospital (where he has set up and runs stroke prevention clinics).

According to the Huffington Post Dr Spence claims that the cholesterol found in egg yolks is almost as dangerous as smoking.

Dr. David Spence goes on to say that:

"It's more than the cholesterol in a Hardee's monster thick burger which is two-thirds of a pound of beef, three slices of cheese and four slices of bacon." 

I have never consumed a Hardee's Monster Thick Burger (I am sure they are excellent), but I find that claim to be a tad high on the "Bollocks Scale of Exaggeration".

He then went to to accuse the eggs industry of being like the tobacco industry.

Of course, in order to really damage an industry Nanny just loves to mention smoking!

In view of the research that I reported on in 2009, and the fact that humans have been happily eating eggs for millennia I am inclined to think that eggs are fine.

However, if you need further reassurance I refer you to the "infamous" paper that Dr Spence produced in 2005 on the effectiveness of homeopathy.

According to DC's Improbable Science:

"Dr Spence’s paper was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It is not really research at all. They simply asked 6544 patients who had had homeopathic treatment whether they felt better or not. Half the patients (50.7%) said they were ‘better’ to ‘much better’. A further 20% said they were ‘slightly better’. 

The patients who had homeopathic treatment were not compared with anything whatsoever!

This is reported in a straightforward way. What is quite ludicrous is the stated conclusion of the paper:

“The study results show that homeopathic treatment is a valuable intervention”.

It is obvious that there is not the slightest reason to attribute the answers given by patients to the fact that they had been given homeopathic treatment. That would be the crudest form of post hoc ergo propter hoc error. It does not even show that the homeopathic treatment was producing a placebo effect.

Papers like this do not add to human knowledge, they detract from it. By reverting to pre-enlightment forms of argument, they mislead rather than enlighten. To make matters worse, this work was done at public expense, by the Directorate of Homeopathic Medicine, United Bristol Healthcare, National Health Service Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom."

As said, eggs are perfectly safe; ignore the nonsense spouted by those with unhealthy obsessions!

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

Big Brother - HMRC's New Powers

Be warned about the new powers that will be granted to HMRC, if the Local Government Finance Bill now before Parliament is passed.

The bill, in its current form, permits the routine disclosure of tax records and other personal data held by HMRC to council officers for several council tax-related purposes.

The powers also allow HMRC to disclose such details directly to contractors of the council (eg, perhaps those IT service providers based overseas or in the cloud); this could permit tax details to go to many destinations outside the European Economic Area.

The argument used by the state is that these powers enable councils to get information directly from HMRC to check claims for reduced council tax, as opposed to having to ask for the same information again from the persons seeking the council tax reduction.

All very "helpful" and "considerate" of the state, maybe. However, there is already an exemption from the non-disclosure provisions in section 29 of the Data Protection Act that covers the “assessment or collection of any tax or duty...”; ie this data can be shared already.

The new bill will increase the data share between HMRC and councils and, as indicated above, spread that data to organisations outwith councils and the UK.

There is also one other rather interesting aspect of the proposed bill:

"There is a provision that states: “Regulations under this paragraph must not be made except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs”. This is the first time I have seen that the exercise of Ministerial Powers is to become subject to a veto by someone who is not the minister."

Is this a good idea to grant HMRC these extra powers?

I don't think so!

The state should be afraid of the people, the people should not be afraid of the state!

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

LMU Students Fight Back Against Fuckwittery

On 13th April I wrote the following:

"Congratulations to London Metropolitan University (one of this country's "older" bastions of learning, founded in 2002) for demonstrating some supreme fuckwittery.

Professor Malcolm Gillies, its vice chancellor, has told a conference that the university is considering banning the sale of alcohol from some parts of the campus.

For why?

Seemingly, according to the Prof, a "high percentage" of students consider drinking "immoral".

Really?

Has he actually asked them?

Students find drinking immoral?

Is it compulsory for students to drink?

No, I thought not!

On planet does the Prof live?

Ah, wait a minute, I see.

It seems that 20% of the students are Muslim, and the Prof is using the excuse of "cultural sensitivity" to promote his own personal belief (as stated in his speech) that he " was not a great fan of alcohol on campus".

It seems a pretty lousy tactic to use other people's religious beliefs as an excuse to promote your own prejudices, given that the students attend the university of their own free will and are not forced to drink. "

My compliments to the Muslim students of LMU who are fighting back against this nonsense.

They quite rightly have pointed out that using other people's alleged religious beliefs, as an excuse to ban something, will only stoke up trouble. The students said that the prospective alcohol ban was “ill-advised and misleading”, demonising them and exacerbating “Islamophobia” at the university and in wider society.

As expected, the proposals have created an atmosphere of ill-feeling amongst students.

In an open letter, students have demanded a retraction and an apology for his comments:

“There has never been a demand for an alcohol ban on campus from Muslim or non-Muslim students. 

The Muslim population at London Met stands at approximately 20 per cent, so assuming all Muslims at the campus were in favour of the ban, this could not be imposed as it would go against the fundamental principal of democracy.”

They go on to say:

“We find your argument to ban alcohol on religious grounds baseless, divisive and irresponsible and we are concerned about the welfare of the students. 

Such an unreasonable proposal which clearly many non-Muslims view as an attack by Muslims against their way of life, is absolutely of no benefit to the Muslim students and the wider Muslim community at all. 

In fact it demonises them even more and it will be used as baseless evidence to show how Britain is becoming a ‘shariastate', particularly by far right groups such as the EDL who have already capitalised upon this and added it to their campaign against minority groups."

It is suspected that cultural issues were being used as an excuse to justify a potentially unpopular decision not to renew the bar’s lease.

Unsurprisingly, LMU now appears to be backing down:

"London Met has no plans to implement a ‘blanket ban’ on alcohol across its campuses, rather it is about the very practical realities of a student life that may involve going to class in the morning and needing a place to work later in the day."

The observant will note that the above statement (after the bit about no "blanket ban"), is meaningless nonsense wrt the issue at hand; clearly LMU is very rattled by the furore, and wants to extricate itself from its self imposed mess.

Nanny plays a dangerous game when she tries to use others' alleged beliefs as an excuse for imposing her own prejudices!

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's Dim Scheme

As we all know, the country is facing a long term recession brought about by many factors including; profligacy of government, waste by local councils, appalling financial greed and incompetence by banks, loss of competitiveness with low wage economies, the Euro crisis, general global economic downturn etc.

Therefore it is not unreasonable for people and organisations to be looking for ways to tighten their respective belts.

Our "beloved" local councils (ever keen to preserve their perks) have come up with one way to save money, by turning off approximately 9% of street lights (saving an estimated £21M per annum).

Now, aside from the legitimate arguments put forward that darkened streets (if the dimming policy is not well thought through) are a haven fro criminals and assorted "dodgy characters", there is a small fly in Nanny's money saving oinkment.

It would appear that the capital cost of the dimming technology used to save money exceeds the annual savings. Estimates are that some councils will not see a positive return on their expenditure (note I did not use the word "investment") until eight years from now.

Whilst I fully appreciate that capital expenditure does take some time to recover, before a positive return can be made; eight years is a hell of a long time to wait. A more reasonable period of return for a capital project of this nature (let's face it this isn't at the level of complexity of the Channel Tunnel) should be 2-4 years maximum.

To paraphrase Sir Edward Grey:

"The lamps are going out all over Britain. We shall not see them lit again in our time!"

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

Prat of The Week - Karl Turner MP

Congratulations to Karl Turner MP, for winning this week's "Prat of The Week" Award.

For why has he been thusly honoured?

For his sickbag inducing appearance on Channel 4 News last night, in which he bemoaned Jeremy Clarkson's infamous appearance on "The One Show".

Turner kept repeatedly saying that Clarkson should not only apologise, for saying that public sector strikers should be shot, but that he should apologise to all the children who would have seen the show.

What have children got to do with this?

Turner has been infected with Nanny's "Won't someone think of the children?" virus, and deems that all adult actions/discussions in the world must be adjusted to take into account children's reactions.

This mantra is of course bollocks, as we live in an adult world!

Additionally, his notion that children who may have seen the show went to bed fearful that their parents would be taken out onto the street and shot shows that he has zero understanding of how children think or their grasp of who Clarkson is.

It was a completely absurd argument to make, and nauseatingly repetitive.

Karl Turner, well deserving "Prat 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 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

Booze Matters - Drink Breaks

I see that Nanny, or rather one of Nanny's chums, has got on a high horse again over Nanny's pet subject of how much we drink.

This time The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has muddied Nanny's advice about what constitutes "safe drinking", by saying that the current advice by Nanny (21 units for men and 14 for women) implies that it is safe for people to have alcohol every day of the week.

The Big Society - The Role of Charities

Coalition Nanny's current soundbite of choice is "The Big Society". Apparently this phrase was knocked up by Tory HQ one evening before election and never actually "tested" on focus groups to see if anyone liked it, or actually knew what it was meant to mean.

I dare say it is meant to mean that we are all in this together, and that we should pull together etc.

Very inspiring!

Anyhoo, as a result of the ongoing cuts programme some sections of the "big society" have been starting to feel a little nervous. There has been a rather well co-ordinated media campaign of late by the charity sector, the members of which are worried that the speed and scale of government cuts will disadvantage those most in need and hamper the charities in their work.

I do not deny that the cuts will affect some sections to the "big society" more than others; also it is a reality of life that the poorest members of society are always adversely affected more during an economic downturn, than the richest. However, I would venture to suggest that maybe the charities are overprotesting a little too much:

1 The country is £4.8 Trillion in debt. The current debt reduction measures barely scratch the surface of that debt.

2 There are a vast number of charities in the UK, some of which appear to be targeting exactly the same groups and are quite possibly tripping up over each other and wasting time and resources via this inefficient duplication of effort.

3 Last year charities in the UK raised approximately £53BN, not all of this actually goes to the intended recipients (eg there are admin costs and fundraising costs)

4 Some of the larger, well known charities are sitting on some rather large cash reserves.

How much?

£26BN in 2001.

They argue that these are necessary in order to smooth cash flows during years of plenty and years of lean (much like the argument used by endowment companies wrt "with profit policies"). Given that we are currently experiencing lean times would it not be sensible for the charities with reserves to play their part, and use their savings to make up the shortfall from donations (much like everyone else has to do when they face financial shocks, such as redundancy?)

In short, we are facing a difficult and uncertain economic future for the next few years; if the "big society" really does exist, then should charities not also play their part by using their reserves?

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 Says No!

Back in May I dropped Theresa May a note suggesting that drugs be legalised (referring her to an article I published here).

"Dear Theresa

I refer you to an article that I have written today for my Nanny Knows Best site, on the subject of our failed drugs policy:

http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/2010/05/pussycat-pussycat-v-ding-dong-dell.html

"....I say again, without any lack of clarity or fudging of the issue, drugs should be legalised.

Once legalised, they can be taxed and the public properly educated as to their effects.

The legalisation will bring about the end of the stranglehold that the criminal gangs currently have on many of the run down estates in this country. The ending of their supply of easy money will remove their power, kudos and "bling"; their power over others will end.

That surely is a good thing?

Is it not ironic that those who would most strongly resist the legalisation of drugs are those who currently make money of them?...."

Given that I am a middle aged accountant and company director, hardly a criminal or revolutionary, if I can see that the current situation is a shambles and am explicitly calling for the legalisation of drugs why is it that our elected representatives (some of who have taken/continue to take drugs) continue to pursue the same failed policies?

Kind regards

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"

Here is the reply I received today from Richard Mullins (who recently was in a tiz over legal highs being used at music festivals such as Glastonbury).

As can be seen, Nanny has stated very firmly that she will not legalise drugs; stating in a patronising manner "there is good reason" for her actions. I might almost suggest that there is a tone of "shut and and go away" in the reply:)

Funny that, as a voter I thought that I was allowed to express an opinion and ask a question of my elected representatives?

I would note that whenever a politician says "never" in such "final" manner, and states that they have "no intention", then you know that they know that they are on intellectually, factual and morally very shaky ground.

Anyhoo, Nanny's reasoning is a tad "wobbly", here's a few reasons why:

1 She assumes that drug taking equates to addiction, ignoring the fact that there are thousands who use drugs in clubs every Friday and Saturday who are not addicted, nor will ever become addicted.

2 Nanny also ignores the fact that caffeine, fags and booze are also addictive and potentially dangerous drugs; yet they are legal.

3 Nanny is worried that legalisation would "confuse" her healthy living message.

4 I note with a degree of disbelief, that Nanny feels it may be difficult to tax drugs. Since when has the complexity of tax legislation ever stopped her before from taxing something?

5 There is an undercurrent of wishful thinking in Nanny's note that she would very much like to ban booze and fags as well.

6 Nanny states that legalisation would lead to a substantial increase in use. On what empirical evidence is this assertion based?

7 Nanny is worried that if other countries don't follow suit, in legalising drugs, then this country would become a shopping paradise for drugs dealers. Is that not for the customs officials of other countries to worry about?

Is it not ironic that the leader of the "free world" and, allegedly, the leader and chancellor plus others in another country have used class A drugs yet continue to deny others the right to abuse their bodies in the same way?

Drugs were banned in the early 20th century because the "morality movement" managed to gain the upper hand in the legislative process. Had events continued in their favour booze would have also been banned here, as it was in the USA.

We have this hypocritical duality of legislation (legal drugs vs illegal ones) because a single issue pressure group got their way, and the government has not got the political interest nor guts to reverse the situation (bad laws once enacted are very difficult to overturn).

Be warned, if Nanny had her way she would ban booze and fags as well!

This policy is failing and will continue to fail.

"Mr Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM

Reference: T9577/10 28 June 2010



Dear Mr Frost,

Thank you for your email of 29 May to the Home Secretary about the legalisation of controlled drugs. Your email has been passed to the Drug Strategy Unit and I have been asked to reply.

The Government has no intention of legalising the recreational use of any currently controlled drug. Its view is that the drugs subject to our misuse of drugs legislation are controlled for good reasons. Many – like heroin and crack cocaine – are clearly addictive and harmful to health and there is no prospect of the Government authorising their production, supply and possession for that reason. They are and will remain illegal.

Legalisation of currently illegal drugs would also run counter to the Government’s health and education messages. The Government’s educational message – to young people in particular – is that all illegal drugs are harmful and that no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.

The Government’s objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs substantially. If such drugs were to become legally available they would become easier to access and levels of supply and use, as well as the resultant harms and cost to individuals and society, would expand significantly. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, they do help to limit supply and use and deter experimentation.

Those who advocate legalisation suggest that this would reduce a range of harms associated with the illicit control and supply of drugs. But this view tends to take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation; and only takes account of the acquisitive crime that feeds some drug habits, not the crimes committed under the influence of drugs or the drawbacks to a lawful, regulated market. Also, the legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals. Such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

A regulated market for drugs through controlled outlets (e.g. licensed pharmacies) would certainly provide the opportunity for tax revenue. But establishing the level of taxation would be difficult. Setting the price too high would open the door for the illegal markets, while setting it too low could feed that same market. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs which can be substantial and are usually borne by the taxpayer, who needs to be persuaded that the tax is just. Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

Also, it is not clear how such increased access would reduce the incidence of drug taking, if at all. On the contrary, government backing in the form of making controlled drugs readily available might exacerbate the problems and the temptations rather than reduce them. Meanwhile, unilateral action on this or any other government's part would undoubtedly encourage unwanted drug tourism to the country concerned, not least from drug dealers, in the event that there were no similar move to legalise internationally.

The Government understands the arguments for legalising controlled drugs in a regulated way and considers that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. At a time when it is doing much to try to reduce the use of tobacco and misuse of alcohol due to ever greater concerns about their safety, it would be perverse to take the huge gamble with public health that would be involved in legalising currently illegal drugs.

Whilst there will always be calls to legalise, this will not deflect the Government from continuing to focus on its existing multi-faceted approach to drug control. It is committed to reducing drug use and drug harms through targeted actions which have the most impact. In the Government’s view, prevention, education, early intervention, enforcement, treatment and reintegration achieve the best results in addressing the problems of drug addiction, its causes and its impact on crime.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Mullins

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 Nation of Brain Dead Numpties

As I have often stated on this site, living in the Nanny state (where everything is spoon fed to you, people are obliged to follow petty rules and procedures and we are discouraged from thinking for themselves) rots the brain.

Hey ho...and here we have proof, if it were ever needed, that the Nanny state really does rot the brain.

Jaz Bhogal, 15, found this to his cost the other day when he went to his local 99p store at Wisbech Cambridgeshire to buy some wine gums.

Can you guess what happened next loyal readers?

Yes, that's right, the shop assistant refused to sell them to him because Jaz was under 18.

Factoid: wine gums do not contain alcohol.

A cursory glance at the list of ingredients of said packet could have verified that, not to mention the fact that most people with half a brain know that.

However, living in the Nanny state rots the brain and the fact that the word "wine" was in the label ensured that an automatic "you're underage" mindset kicked in.

Not surprisingly the store owners have realised that they look like numpties and have apologised. Seemingly there was a "glitch" in the electronic till which flagged the product as "booze".

So that's alright then?

No it's not, because commonsense should have told the shop assistant that the till was wrong!

As noted, we have become a nation of brain dead numpties thanks to Nanny.

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

The System

Listening to our "walking dead" Prime Minister the other day, prattling on about how "the system" (wrt MPs' expenses) was at fault for the claims for floating duck islands, fake mortgages, moats etc I was struck by how what the PM said exemplifies the very heart of the problem of the Nanny state.

The PM ignored the fundamental issue, it is not the system that is at fault but the people. It was not compulsory for our MPs to claim for duck islands and moats, they did so voluntarily and with gusto!

The PM and these greedy MPs are using the "procedures" argument as a defence, in exactly the same manner that a doctor, social worker, police officer, teacher, FSA CEO or council officer uses "rules and procedures" to justify what they do and to justify their mistakes.

How many times have we heard the phrase "we followed the procedures"?

That is meaningless if the end result is failure/death, or a cold hearted application of a petty rule.

Nanny's rules and procedures proactively encourage people to stop thinking for themselves and taking personal self responsibility for their own actions/mistakes.

The PM so eloquently highlighted (unintentionally) the very weakness at the heart of the Nanny state; namely, no one needs to ever take personal responsibility anymore, so long as they follow procedures.

Without personal responsibility, individuality, risk taking and thinking outside of the box we are most assuredly set on the path to our own self destruction; as we drown in bureaucracy and petty rules, all of which have been designed to suffocate initiative and growth.

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

Fight Back

Those of you who want to do something useful, and at least gum up the bureaucracy of the state, should pop over to the Forest site and fill in their e response to Nanny's consultation on the future of tobacco control.

You can rest assured that the anti smoking fascists will be doing the same.

The form can be accessed here.

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

Behaviour Management

In Nanny's world she doesn't speak English, she uses a mangled mix of bullshit "management speak" and political/socialist double speak when communicating.

Why?

Simple:

1 She is stupid.

2 She doesn't want people to understand what she is talking about, so she tries to be clever.

3 Her arguments wouldn't stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny if they were presented in English.

Such is the case for her stand wrt "behaviour management".

What pray tell is "behaviour management"?

In English, it is called smacking/chastising children when they behave like little shits.

David and Heather Bowen from Taunton have found to their cost that Nanny does not approve of "behaviour management".

The Bowens are foster parents who have been banned by Nanny from fostering, after they refused to stop smacking their natural child.

Nanny's adoption panel asked the Bowens to reconsider using physical discipline towards their daughter Emma, aged nine.

They refused, and have been blacklisted (that's a non word too these days isn't it?) over their "behaviour management".

Mr Bowen said:

"I am a parent governor at a local school, my wife works for the school parent teacher association, has been a special needs careers advisor and now works in the school. We both assist with children's work at our local church.

Based on the evidence presented to the council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law."

Linda Barnett, head of children's services at Somerset County Council, said:

"In assessing parents' suitability for fostering we take into account a range of factors which we gather from extensive assessment and discussion with the potential carers.

In common with most other local authorities, Somerset has a foster carer's agreement which describes our belief about parenting.

Where carers have a very strong personal belief that differs from the foster carer agreement, it is potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.

Mr and Mrs Bowen have lodged an appeal and we are in discussion with them about the hearing of that appeal."

It's not for the state to dictate to people what beliefs they may hold.

Little wonder that there is a shortage of good foster homes, if Nanny is so fussy about only hiring those with socio political beliefs that match her own.

Little wonder that "yoof" is so disaffected these days, as it needs boundaries. Nanny keeps removing the boundaries, what are kids and parents meant to do?

Could Nanny answer that please?

Prats of The Week - Sunbed Wars

It is a wet and windy Monday morning here in Engerlund, and as such it is time for my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award.

This week my heartfelt congratulations to the passengers of P&O's 77,000-ton Oceana liner who reported Christopher Wells, the skipper, to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

For why?

There has been something of an ongoing spat on board over the use and reservation of sunloungers. A habit that is normally associated with Germans holidaymakers had spread to the passengers of the Oceana (none of whom were German), whereby towels and knickknacks are placed on the sun loungers in order to reserve them for use several hours later.

It is of course a thoroughly selfish habit, as more often than not the lounger remains unoccupied for several hours.

Passengers became increasingly narked over the lack of available sunbeds on the Oceana during their 15 day cruise of the Caribbean last month; all manner of objects used to reserve the sunloungers - towels, books, bags and clothes etc.

It became so bad that Capt Wells imposed a 20-minute limit on sunbeds being left unoccupied, and made several announcements to try to end the so-called "sunbed wars".

Needless to say, the passengers ignored him. There were increasingly heated rows between the passengers over the reservation of the sunloungers.

Eventually Capt Wells (who is married to a German) told the ship's 2,000 passengers:

"We don't want that kind of Germanic behaviour here!"

Clearly the point hit home, ie it was a well judged observation, and some reported him to the watchdog.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an inquiry, and Capt Wells has been forced to apologise for causing offence.

I was brought up by my parents to deal with petty matters myself, and not to report ("tell") on people to others. Nanny teaches people to report to the state, and related bodies; by this means she keeps us under control, as we fear that our neighbours, colleagues and friends may in fact be spying for her.

The passengers who reported him are well deserving of this week's "Prats of The Week" Award.

My advice to them is to grow up and deal with the matter yourselves, don't bring others into your petty and selfish arguments.

Nanny's Secret Child Snatchers

Were I to tell you that there is a country in the world where people can have their children taken away from them by the state, without a public hearing and where the protagonists are instructed by the state not to talk publicly about it to even their MP; what would you think?

You would, I assume, think that I was talking about some far off foreign country.

Unfortunately, if today's piece in The Times is anything to go by, this "foreign country" is in fact Britain.

Here is an extract:

"A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret.

The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates.

A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up."

This is patently wrong, aside from the damage being done to the family and the children, people cannot have confidence in either the state or the law if the state and its lackeys act in secret.

Break a Leg

I am not the only person who believes that the Health and Safety Gestapo have gone too far in their campaign to wrap us in cotton wool, and thus exert control over us.

No less a person than Tom Mullarkey, head of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has said that health and safety "extremists" are preventing children from leading a healthy and robust lifestyle.

Mullarkey waded into the "small-minded bureaucrats" by saying that they were guilty of undermining genuine health and safety work.

Quote:

"But people have this perception of 'elf and safety'

as something that restricts your life,

rather than helping you to live fully and successfully.

Our argument is that a skinned knee or a twisted ankle

in a challenging and exciting play environment

is not just acceptable, it is a positive necessity.

We need to prepare children for a complex,

dangerous world in which healthy, robust activity

is more a national need than ever before.

We think people should climb mountains,

and sail boats - we are trying to help them in a practical way."

Exactly!

Unfortunately the small minded bureaucrats who run the health and safety Gestapo will not listen. They need to be dealt with with a firm hand, once and for all.

What The Fark?

Nanny seems to be losing all sense of proportion these days, when it comes to applying the law in a sensible and proportionate manner.

A 16 year old schoolboy, who was being a tosser/thug and ripped a girl's plastic bag (damage 1p), was hauled through the courts on charges of criminal damage; the cost to the taxpayer being £5K.

The 16 year old pleaded guilty to snatching a carrier bag from a 13 year old girl and breaking its handles.

Magistrates ordered him to complete six hours' community work, after hearing that the incident left the girl too scared to walk to school.

I don't excuse this act of thuggery for one moment, and fully believe that the 16 year old needs to be taught a lesson. However, did that lesson really need to be imparted by police officers, Crown Prosecution Service staff and lawyers, court workers, officials and magistrates over two separate hearings?

This sort of case validates the argument that I have put forward before, namely that we should bring back the stocks and publicly humiliate little shits this.

There is no need for the full apparatus of the state to be employed in a lengthy and expensive criminal prosecution. The teenager admitted that he had done it, and could be placed in the stocks immediately to take his punishment.

Am I right, or am I right?

Nanny Bans Welsh

I couldn't but help snigger when I read about Nanny banning the speaking of Welsh by telephone operators. Given that majority of people who live in Wales can't speak Welsh, it always seems to me an absurd waste of time and money that Nanny insists on dual language road signs and speakers in government offices etc.

Anyhoo, Nanny has decided that the speaking of Welsh could damage the vocal chords. Therefore union officials have succeeded in persuading the Vale of Glamorgan council to ban the traditional greetings "bore da" - meaning "good morning" - and "prynhawn da" - meaning "good afternoon".

The argument runs along the lines that as the workers first language is English, they could harm themselves trying to pronounce the phrases. They added the ban was in keeping with Health and Safety Executive's recommendation that call centre workers limit their phone time to preserve their vocal chords.

What a load of bollocks!

How can anyone take these people seriously if they waste their time and energy on such an absurd issue?

Needless to say, the local Plaid Cymru Councillor Steffan Williams was up in arms.

Quote:

"I can't see how saying 'bore da'

will do people in a call centre any harm."

He then shot his credibility in the gonads by claiming that it was an infringement of human rights...bollocks!

Prat of The Week

There have been such a slurry of "Prats of The Week" that I have got rather behind myself on this award, can I get behind myself???

Anyhoo, this week's prestigious and coveted "Prat of The Week" Award goes to Trevor Phillips the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights.

He recently got rather hot under the collar over the ethnic make up of the workforce of local supermarkets, and has suggested that they should be forced to recruit more ethnic minorities by positive discrimination.

Phillips said that retailers should have new powers making it is easier to attract employees, to reflect the make-up of their local communities.

Phillips wants new powers for his organ (The Commission for Equalities and Human Rights) to permit positive discrimination to prevent jobseekers from migrant communities being disadvantaged.

He claimed that firms, such as Tesco and Sainsbury, wanted greater flexibility to hire staff.

This is of course where it all came unstuck, for you see Tesco immediately said that he was talking bollocks. They noted that his comments were 'unfair and discriminatory'.

Surely, as Chairman of Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, he can't be unfair or discriminatory?????

The British Retail Consortium, which represents thousands of shops, noted the obvious flaw in Phillips' argument:

"Because shop staff tend to work relatively near

where they live they are already likely to reflect

their local communities but retailers will continue

to recruit on ability to do the job not on race.

Trevor Phillips seems to be calling for retailers

to be allowed to discriminate in favour of particular groups.

That means discriminating against others.

We believe retailers will reject this sort of

unfairness and go on recruiting on merit alone."

Exactly, given the low paid nature of supermarket work, the people who work in supermarkets tend to live locally. It would hardly be cost effective for them to commute several hours a day to go to work would it?

Congratulations on your award Trevor!