The Heroism Bill

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, is putting forward a bill before Parliament today entitled "Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill".

Grayling is of the view that that society has become “too inclined to blame someone else”, and wants to (as per the Telegraph) "slay the health and safety culture".

The Bill will protect people from being sued if something goes wrong when they try help in an emergency. It is also intended to give teachers confidence that they will not face legal action if they have taken reasonable safety steps when organising a school trip.

Grayling said:

“This is a Bill that’s out to try and slay the health and safety culture.

It is about trying to restore common sense to the kind of situations which happen all too often and very seldom get to court - where somebody has an accident at work, it’s entirely their own fault, they have got a perfectly responsible employer who has the normal health and safety procedures in place but that person does something dumb, hurts themselves and sues the employer anyway. 

For responsible small businesses it is a real headache and most of the time they just pay up because it is less hassle to do so. This is meant to be a big message to them because if you do the right thing, we are making sure that the balance of the law is in your favour.”

I wish him well, if the Bill  does what he claims it will do. However, it is "ironic" to say the least that legislation has to be used to restore "common sense".

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

Goodness Will Prevail

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 Heroes

In the Nanny state nothing is more threatening to Nanny than independence of thought, action and displays of leadership and courage.

Who better to demonstrate such positive traits than a hero?

As such, it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has banned heroism and heroes.

Paul Waugh, a volunteer coastguard who was nominated for an award for rescuing a schoolgirl from a cliff, found this to his cost recently.

Mr Waugh rescued Faye Harrison, 13, who in January 2007 was hanging on by her fingertips and about to fall 200ft (60m) at Salburn-on-Sea, Teesside. He climbed down and held on to her for 30 minutes, until she could be winched to safety.

Unfortunately, he was not wearing safety equipment as it would have taken time to go back to his vehicle which was some distance away.

Mr Waugh, despite rescuing the girl, was later told by Nanny that he had broken rules.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said it was not looking for dead heroes.

Mr Waugh said:

"I understand I broke a rule,

but I felt it was a matter of having to

because she only had minutes to live.

She said that herself, she was planning her own funeral.

When you see a little frightened face looking up at you,

all you want to do is help.

There's no way I'm going to stand back and watch a

13-year-old girl fall off a cliff."

Faye later nominated him for a life saver award as her "guardian angel".

However, Mr Waugh, who was with the MCA for 13 years, was told that the organisation had carried out an internal investigation into the team's handling of the incident, and the health and safety issues surrounding the rescue.

He has decided to leave the MCA rather than put up with any more health and safety bullshit.

Quote:

"I'm leaving now due to the hassle

I've had over the last nine months.

In fact, I've been depressed over it.

Yes, fair enough, I broke a rule,

but when I started my training a long time ago,

I was told, one time, you'll work outside the box.

And in this case I had to help her, she was ready to fall.

I'm very, very sad. It's a shame I'm having to go."

The MCA said it was very grateful for his past activities and wished him well in the future.

The statement said:

"Our responsibility is to maintain the

health and welfare of those who we sometimes

ask to go out in difficult and challenging

conditions to effect rescues.

As such we ask our volunteers to risk assess

the situations they and the injured or distressed

person find themselves in, and to ensure that

whatever action they take does not put anyone

in further danger.

We are proud of our safety record and we will

seek to maintain the safety of our volunteers,

and minimise risk in what can be inherently

difficult situations."

No, that is wrong, their responsibility is to rescue people!

This is not the first time that Nanny has banned heroism, see here.

In Nanny's world, a dead girl is far better than a living hero.

Scum

The Nanny state has bred a generation of self centered, selfish, moronic scum.

I reproduce this article in full from Help for Heroes:

Swimmers throw abuse at injured servicemen in pool Nov 21 2007 INJURED soldiers were subjected to a humiliating encounter when they were jeered at a public swimming pool.

Servicemen from Headley Court rehabilitation centre near Leatherhead were about to begin their weekly swim at Leatherhead Leisure Centre, which helps with their therapy, when they were verbally abused by a group of regular swimmers.

One woman, believed to be in her 30s, was so incensed that the soldiers - many of them amputees having returned from conflicts in the Middle East and Asia - were using the pool that she told them that they did not deserve to be there.

It is alleged that she told the men that she pays to swim there and they do not. According to witnesses she was so abusive that the soldiers' instructor pulled the groups out of the water to avoid further embarrassment.

Charles Murrin, of Friars Orchard, Fetcham, who witnessed the incident, said: "I was so cross and I could not believe what she was saying.

"The lane was roped off which they do every week and people can swim in there up until 11am and then the soldiers go in.

"She said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays money to come in the pool and they don't." The partially sighted 79-year-old, who was in the Royal Navy man and served in the Korean war, added: "I just cannot believe it happened and that people are like this.I spoke to the instructor in the changing room afterwards and he was livid.

"I know what these people are going through because I talk to them and I have got quite friendly with them."

Linda Sinclair, of Thossnroft Drive, Leatherhead, also witnessed the incident. She said: "I was coming out of the pool as the people started to complain and I was thinking how dreadful it was.

"It was a few people that were complaining and it made me cross and it was not nice for those soldiers."

There were two groups of soldiers waiting to use the pool but following the tirade of abuse their instructor ordered them to leave.

A spokesman for Mole Valley District Council, which owns the facility in Guildford Road, said: "There appears to have been a rare incident where two members of the public queried the provision of lanes of the swimming pool for Headley Court.

"While we wouldn't condone what happened, staff at the leisure centre did their best to accommodate all concerned and acted professionally in dealing with the situation."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We are disappointed that a small number of people objected to the closure of swimming lanes so that patients of Headley Court could use them."

The incident comes just weeks after a national appeal was launched to raise £5 million for Headley Court to build a new full-size rehabilitation pool with equipment in their gym.

The centre treats 180 injured servicemen who have to make the half-hour trip to Leatherhead to use the pool for vital cardiovascular exercise.

Nanny Bans Santa

Nanny, as we all know, hates fat people. In her view they are slow witted, lazy, greedy and cost far too much to keep alive.

Far better that everyone looks like Nanny, a shrivelled bitter excuse for a human being with no "joie de vivre".

Anyhoo, Nanny has realised that people are best manipulated by the use of role models. As such she knows that with the coming season of gorging and drinking soon to be upon us (Christmas), she needs to tackle the hero of indulgence and jollity ie Santa.

When Nanny looks at Santa, she does not see a jolly gentleman in a red suit, she sees a fat person who is far too happy for his own good. Therefore she is putting him on an enforced diet.

Santa has been told to lose weight, or be banned from shopping centres at Christmas. Yes I kid you not, Nanny doesn't want children sitting on the laps of fat red faced men anymore; she wants them sitting on the laps of gaunt pasty faced men.

Nanny's lackeys at the Bluewater shopping centre in Greenhithe, have set up a Santa boot camp; where Santa will work out.

Fiona Campbell-Reilly, spokeswoman at the shopping centre, said:

"Santa has been around for years,

but society has changed and our Santa needs to reflect this.

Bluewater's Santa Boot Camp is getting Santa

in shape and setting a good example

to children who idolise him.

He will still be the same lovable jolly man,

but will be fitter and healthier."

Utter bollocks!

Society has not changed, Nanny is trying to change society; that is not the same thing.

Christmas is for wants, not needs!

No More Heroes

Poor old Prince Charles, not only does Sainsbury's ban his carrots, but Nanny bans his choice of road names for Poundbury.

Poundbury is the Prince's "model village" in Dorset. All Charles wanted to do was to give some recognition to local war heroes, by naming the streets after them. The Prince also hoped to commemorate battles in which the local regiment, known as the Dorsets, took part.

Unfortunately, this being Nanny Britain, nothing is ever as simple as that. Nanny's chums on Dorchester Town Council's planning committee (ah yes, another local council making a thorough nuisance of itself!) rejected the suggestions. Instead they want to have the streets named after farms owned by the Duchy of Cornwall estate.

All very well, but Poundbury is not a "farming village", therefore naming the streets after farms has no special relevance.

Fiona Kent-Ledger, the chairman of the planning committee, said:

"We just suggested to the Duchy that we didn't think

they were suitable names for Poundbury.

The Duchy came to us when the development first started,

asking us about what we thought of street names.

They came up with the idea of using Duchy estates

and farms as names and we thought that was very fitting.

Because of this we didn't think it was suitable

to now put up names associated with the

Devonshire and Dorset Regiment in Poundbury.

It is not for political reasons.

It is just trying to be practical about where

names are used because once they are there,

they are there forever."

She said that no vote had been taken, because it was obvious that everyone was in agreement.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else reading the above "explanation" from the council, but I am none the wiser as to why they have rejected the suggested names. It seems to me that the decision was based on a political motive.

The snub has infuriated local veterans, who say that it is an insult to brave men and women who were prepared to give their lives for their country.

Derek Julian, a former Dorset regiment soldier, who fought in Korea and proposed the names to the Duchy, said:

"This decision has brought shame on Dorchester.

The council has insulted the regiment

and veterans are appalled".

The list of names included Victoria Cross winners and a trooper who survived the Charge of the Light Brigade.

If Dorset won't honour their names, we can at least do so on this site.

The names included Trooper Thomas Warr, who rode with the 600 members of the Light Brigade into the "Valley of Death" at the Battle of Balaclava; Private Samuel Vickery, of the Dorsetshire Regiment, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for the daring rescue of a comrade under fire during an action in India in 1897; and Captain Lionel Queripel, who was seriously wounded at Arnhem in 1944 but stayed behind to help to cover the retreat of his men.

Private Samuel Vickery, of the 1st Battalion Dorsetshire Regiment was awarded the Victoria Cross for the rescue of a comrade under enemy fire in India in 1897

Trooper Thomas Warr, who died in Dorchester in 1916 aged 87, was one of the last survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade when the British cavalry was cut to pieces by Russian guns during the Battle of Balaclava in 1854. Old Tom died penniless in Dorchester in 1916 and was soon forgotten but his grave was refurbished before a special ceremony by his old regiment last year

Seaman Joseph Kellaway, a Dorset-born Royal Navy boatswain, won the Victoria Cross in the Crimea in 1855 after taking on 50 Russians almost single-handed. He landed in a small boat on the shores of the Sea of Azov with orders to burn some haystacks and a farm building. Within minutes Kellaway and four seamen from HMS Wrangler were surrounded by soldiers. Despite a furious onslaught of musket fire Kellaway, 29, went to the aid of two wounded comrades and held off the Russians until his powder ran dry. Kellaway, was presented with the newly instituted Victoria Cross by Queen Victoria at a ceremony in Hyde Park.

Captain Lionel Queripel, of the 10th Parachute Battalion, was wounded in the face and arms by withering German fire during nine hours of fierce fighting at Arnhem in 1944. He was awarded a posthumous VC for fighting on with hand grenades and a revolver to cover the retreat of his men. He was not seen alive again.

Captain Gerald O'Sullivan won the VC for leading an attack on a Turkish trench during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. He was killed two months later.

Sarah Sands was a troop ship which caught fire in the Indian Ocean in 1857. Queen Victoria honoured the Dorsets who helped to fight the blaze.

Funny though, that despite Nanny's distaste for honouring battles and soldiers, she still sends our young men out to die in foreign fields.

Dorchester Council should hang their heads in shame.

Nanny Bans Rescue

The good old boys in Nanny's health and safety Gestapo have been up to their old tricks again.

This time they have decreed that a trained rescue professional (a fireman to be precise) should not have attempted to rescue someone from drowning, because it was too dangerous!!!

Tam Brown, a professional fireman (trained to rescue people), has found himself on the wrong end of Nanny's sticky pole (a lousy metaphor, I know...but it's Monday morning...give me a break!) and is now subject to an internal investigation by Tayside Fire and Rescue because he breached safety rules during the rescue in the River Tay in Perth.

Mr Brown spent eight minutes in the cold water, as he dragged a 20 year old woman to safety. Unfortunately, Nanny believes that he had acted improperly by risking his life.

Mr Brown has 15 years' experience as a fireman, and quite rightly was hailed as a hero by the woman's family. However, Tayside Fire and Rescue said that he had broken the brigade's "standing instructions" on safety procedures.

Kind of odd that isn't it?

I thought that those who joined the fire service did so because they wanted to help save lives.

Mr Brown said:

"I was expected to watch that young girl die in front of me.

As a father and a caring human being,

I couldn't live with myself if I'd had to do that."

He went on to say:

"We had seconds to act. The girl was losing consciousness.

We had one harness, so I put that on and went

down 20ft on a safety line, grabbed her and held

her out of the water. My colleagues tried to pull

us towards steps, but the current was so bad and

the rope was pulled so hard it snapped.

My own life hung in the balance as I swam

for the steps with her in my arms.

But we got there and were pulled out.

I was in the water for eight minutes and it

was heart-stoppingly cold, but we saved her."

Unfortunately the rules say that fire crew should instead have tried to haul the woman out using poles and ropes.

Aha...there is one fly in Nanny's oinkment here.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right, Stephen Hunter, chief fire officer of Tayside Fire and Rescue, admitted that fire engines in Perth were not equipped with the correct poles and ropes!

However, let us not be deterred by facts and reality, Nanny insists that Mr Brown should have used the non existent pole.

Therefore, Mr Brown must be punished for his lamentable action.

As Stephen Hunter so "eloquently" put it:

"Firefighter safety is of paramount importance to us.

Although our duties include rescues from flooding,

there is no statutory obligation to carry out

rescues from moving water.

We know they broke procedure because

we know he went into the water.

We are investigating exactly what happened,

and once that is concluded we will consider

what action is necessary.

That could include disciplinary action."

Steve Hill, chairman of the Perth branch of the Fire Brigades Union, is not too impressed with Nanny:

"Not one senior officer has congratulated Tam

or the other officers who attended that night.

They should be elated they saved a life but are

traumatised that they face disciplinary action instead.

Contradicting an order can lead to dismissal.

If Tam hadn't gone in, the public might have

tried to save her and we could have ended up

with several dead."

Nanny claims that she wishes to minimise (or eliminate) risk, in reality all she cares about is having her petty and odious rules followed.

Nanny Bans Muslim

Dear oh dear!

Nanny really does get her knickers in a twist when it comes to religion, one might almost think that she was a bit religious herself. That of course would be unthinkable, as we all know that religion and politics should not mix!

Anyhoo, this time Nanny has decided to try to be fair; she knows that a lot of you have been worried about her alleged anti Christian bias. You know the sort of thing; the word Christmas banned, crosses removed from registry offices etc.

This time dear old Nanny has decided to ban the word Muslim.

Her lackeys on London's Underworld railway have decided that a poster for the new TV thriller about a Muslim spy is just way toooooo offensive. Therefore they have banned it.

The poster advertises the American series Sleeper Cell, and shows a man on a mobile phone with the tagline "America's latest hero is a Muslim straight out of jail".

Nanny's toads in the London Underworld railway decided that the words were offensive, and have refused to have it on platform walls unless the word " Muslim" is removed.

A spokesman for London Underworld said:

"The text on this poster is clearly intended to be sensationalist and could give offence.

Following consultation with Viacom, which manages advertising on the Tube, it was decided to ask for the words 'is a Muslim' to be removed.

This decision was taken in line with our standard policies which seek to avoid gratuitously insulting large groups of Londoners."

Is the same Underworld system that gratuitously features posters of scantily dressed women, thus potentially offending 50% of the population of London?

Sleeper Cell is about an undercover FBI Agent called Darwyn Al Sayeed, who infiltrates a terrorist cell.

Now the subtle point here is that the Muslim is shown to be a "good guy", unlike so many films which portray Muslims as crazed loons intent on world destruction; the hero is trying to save lives.

You would have thought that had Nanny used her limited brains, she would have noted that this film kind of tries to redress the balance a bit.

A spokesman for FX, the channel which airs the series, said the channel was "shocked" by the decision.

"The line 'America's latest hero is a Muslim straight out of prison' is meant to sum up the basis of the show's plot.

The show's hero is put in prison in order to gain access to the cell he aims to investigate and eventually expose.

It is in no way intended to cause offence or upset to Muslims."

It is the first American TV drama to feature a Muslim as the lead heroic character, and I would suggest a much needed and late attempt to redress the appalling media bias.

Needless to say, in Nanny's world details and facts are for the small people (ie us), she only deals with the "broader picture".

Nanny Bans Nelson

Nanny is up to her old tricks again.

This time one of our greatest Naval heroes, Admiral Lord Nelson, has caught her gimlet eye.

Admiral Nelson, as you will recall gave the French a right old drubbing at the Battle of Trafalgar 200 years ago this October.

To mark the 200th anniversary there will be a re-enactment next month at Southsea.

However, Nanny's chums from the political correctness brigade have put their oars into the event (a nice little naval pun, don't you think folks?).

Nanny has decided that she does not want to offend the French, and so the re-enactment will be between a red fleet and blue fleet; not the French and British.

So much for Nanny's ambition to educate people with facts.

Nanny has also meddled with the official literature. It describes the re-enactment not as the battle of Trafalgar but simply as "an early 19th-century sea battle".

What utter codswhallop!

In the 1805 sea battle off the coast of Spain, Nelson's 27 ships destroyed a combined French and Spanish fleet of 33 ships. The British lost no ships but sank or captured 22 of their opponents' vessels.

Although Nelson died in the battle, his victory paved the way for Britain's naval supremacy, which lasted a century.

Nanny is a fool.

The French are, as we can see from Sunday's EU vote, perfectly capable embarrassing themselves; we don't have any desire, or need, to do that.

Nanny Bans Saint George

Those of you who bedeck your houses with the Cross of St George on St George's Day, April 23rd, may well be advised to avoid the People's Republic of Hounslow this year.

Seemingly Nanny's friends in the council there have decided that St George, Patron Saint of England, is socially divisive.

They are so worried about causing a "divisive rift" in their electorate, that they will not be flying the Cross of St George over the civic centre.

Now, at first sight, this may just about be palatable; if all others were treated equally, we all know how Nanny believes in treating people equally!

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, this is not the case. You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, in Nanny's Britain some are more equal than others.

In particular the following organisations/groups are considered by Hounslow to be more equal than the English:

-The Palestinians
-The International Co-operators (can someone tell me who the hell these people are?)
-The Welsh

All of the above had their flags flown, above the civic centre, on their "special days".

One brave soul, Labour no less, tried to get the council to fly the flag. Cllr Peta Vaught, (Lab, Heston Central) put a motion to the ruling Labour Group's last meeting; to raise the flag over the civic centre on St George's Day, along with articles in the council's HM magazine and events for local schools.

However, her fellow councillors defeated the motion - with only one other Cllr Gopal Dhillon, also Heston Central voting for it.

Cllr John Connelly, a former Labour group leader turned Independent, put the matter rather succinctly:

"It is a decision of donkeys. Given that the council celebrates Diwali with fireworks and other ethnic minority festivals, I suspect many residents will be highly offended by what appears to be a snub to the indigenous community...Even a Scot like myself, who regarded Beckham as the hero of the European Championships in Portugal following his penalty miss, could not fail to notice that the community at large embraced the flag in the support of England."

He added:

"Indeed in Hounslow I suspect I saw as many residents of Asian origin displaying the flag on their cars as I saw in cars driven by white drivers...I imagine Tony Blair and his associates will be deeply embarrassed by this decision...".

I have said this before, and I will keep saying it until people wake up and take notice, we are becoming foreigners in our own country.