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
"Hundreds of protesters attacked a cereal cafe in east London on Saturday night, daubing the word “scum” on the shop window and setting fire to an effigy of a police officer.
Riot police were called in to defend the Cereal Killer Cafe in
Shoreditch after it was targeted by a large crowd of anti-gentrification
activists carrying pigs’ heads and torches.
The owners of the cafe, which has been seen by some as a symbol of
inequality in east London, said on Sunday that the attack left customers
including children “terrified for their lives”. Gary Keery, 33, who founded the cafe with his twin brother, Alan,
said: “It’s senseless violence, isn’t it? We’ve had some letters through
the letterbox saying ‘die hipsters’ and stuff but nothing to this
extreme. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Footage of the attack filmed from
inside the shop and obtained by the Guardian
shows masked protesters shouting outside the shopfront. One man daubs
graffiti on the window while another is seen holding a burning stick."
How exactly trying to burn down a cafe resolves the housing crisis is beyond my limited intelligence.
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
My thanks to a loyal Canadian reader, who alerted me to the recent piece of Canadian Nannyism relating to doorknobs.
Vancouver city council
has decided to ban doorknobs in new builds, and only allow levers.
John Ford, then acting regional director of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, was quoted by the National Post:
“We’re not too proud of that, but we’re working on it.
A doorknob can create havoc for a person with
limited use of their hands.”
Now whilst I can see the good intentions in all of this, is it not up to individuals to determine what best suits their needs and aesthetic desires (knobs vs levers)?
The council admits that they have had responses from some, saying that levers are no more helpful than knobs.
Is this Nannyism, or simply practical commonsense?
Can people not replace knobs with whatever they wish, as and when they move in?
Does the state need to make the decision for them?
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
Oh dear I see Nanny's pet hate has vomited itself into our lives again.....I refer of course to the dangers of doormats!
Lubin Reyes, like many householders, has placed a doormat outside of his home of ten years. Sadly for him he resides in a block of flats in Bedford that are under the jackboot of Nanny.
His mat has offended Nanny (Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association) and was therefore covered in warning tape together with a sign reading "move it or lose it".
For why?
The housing association said it was a health and safety hazard.
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
My thanks to a loyal reader who sent me a very rare, but very welcome, positive story about an organisation displaying commonsense; despite the privations of having to operate in the Nanny state, where commonsense is forbidden.
Kudos and respect to Richmond Housing Partnership, the 'arm's-length' organisation that looks after the former Richmond Upon Thames council homes.
I understand that behind one of the blocks of flats which they are responsible for is a courtyard around some trees. Over the last few years residents in the flats have been planting flowers and little shrubs, and making the area look quite nice and colourful. They really seemed to be looking after the place, planting new flowers in the spring, etc.
Now at this point you would normally expect me to say that the housing trust came along, dug up all the flowers and threatened the residents with prosecution if they dared to carry on planting unauthorised flowers, and the usual health'n'safety guff.
I am well pleased to say that this has not happened at all here. In fact the Trust is going to install a tap in the courtyard, so that people can water the plants, and is even giving them a voucher to buy a hosepipe and some gardening bits and pieces.
Now I know that this may not seem like much. However, consider the bureaucratic and insidious climate in which organisations now have to operate.
I think that Richmond Housing Partnership is to be congratulated for its practical and common-sense solution.
How often do we hear words such as "practical" and "commonsense", in a positive context, these days?
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
I am not in the slightest way religious, I do not believe in god etc. However, so long as people do not try to force their beliefs down my throat, it is an individual's right to follow whatever religion he/she wishes.
Therefore I question the reaction of Wakefiled and District Housing (WDH) to Colin Atkinson's 8 inch cross, that he has displayed on the dashboard of his company vehicle for the last 15 years.
WDH received a complaint from a tenant, who demanded that he remove it for fear it could offend people or suggest that the company favoured Christians.
WDH asked Mr Atkinson to remove it, then called him to a disciplinary hearing after he refused to remove it.
It should be noted that it is not WDH policy to ban religious/political iconography; employees of other faiths are permitted to wear headdresses and turbans, and Mr Atkinson's manager has a poster of Che Guevara on his office wall.
However, following representations from various religious groups (including Muslims, Sikh, Christian, Hindu etc) WDH has decided that commonsense is better than "procedural correctness" and has allowed Mr Atkinson to continue to display his cross.
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
It presented a concise history of the council house from its beginnings in Shoreditch to the present day, and sought to understand why council housing has now become a byword for deprivation and social breakdown.
In a nut shell, the demise of council estates from homes that people were proud of and which they aspired to live in can be attributed to the following factors:
1 People are now better off, and take for granted TV's, indoor toilets, bathroom, washing machines etc. There is no folk memory of how bad things were before council houses.
2 The original council estates were highly selective wrt who was allowed to live there. Councils insisted that residents were employed, and that they maintained their property (wrt cleaning, grass cutting etc) according to a detailed rule book. The rule book has been all but abandoned.
3 The rule books used by the councils formed a contract between the tenants and the council. The tenants undertook to keep their homes in a decent condition, in return for which the council ensured that the environment surrounding the homes was properly looked after. Council tenants could pass on their homes to their children, thus giving them a stake in the community and a sense of belonging.
4 In the 1970s Labour changed the rules and allowed anyone deemed to be "deserving" to have a council house. The result being that local people were pushed aside in favour of people whom the councils deemed were "more deserving" (often based on a political agenda), ie the heart of local communities were ripped out and no one had a sense of belonging or responsibility towards the homes that the councils provided.
5 The quality of the council flats built in the 1960's and 70's were dreadful, they turned into the slums that they were meant to replace.
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
I while ago I read a headline that said that Britain would experience a bumper crop of apples this year. I recall thinking at the time that, somehow or other, Nanny would find a health and safety issue with this.
As sure as eggs are eggs, I was right!
Yorkshire Coast Homes (YCH) is a charity that runs a housing association for elderly people in Scarborough. YCH recently became worried over the crab apples falling onto the street where their houses were located, seemingly YCH were of the view that these represented a "trip hazard".
Their solution?
They complained to the council, who sent some men with choppers along, who chopped down 6 trees.
The local residents were not best pleased as, not unreasonably, they found the trees to be an attractive part of the local environment and had not been consulted.
Factoid: the trees had been there for 35 years, without there being mass carnage on the streets caused by people falling over dropped crab apples.
A bit of an "overreaction" by YCH and the council wouldn't you say?
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
I was watching Sarah Beeny last night on "Help My House Is Falling Down", in which each week she comes to offer advice to people who (for reasons that escape me) have bought houses without conducting a full structural survey only to find that they are falling apart.
Anyhoo, last night featured a house with numerous problems; amongst which was a bowed wooden floor. The floor was duly ripped up and it could be seen that the joists, at some stage in the past, had been hacked at thus weakening their structure and causing the floor to bow and become unsafe.
Now, the logical solution would be to remove the weak joists and replace them.
Yes?
You would think that wouldn't you?
Well loyal readers I should point out that last night's house was of course Georgian, and therefore counted as a "listed" building, thus it came under the "protection" of one of Nanny's conservation officers.
Sarah informed the viewers that the officer had ruled that the joists must not be removed, but that extra joists could be put in.
Therefore, at extra expense, steel joists were inserted.
Please can someone tell me how leaving unsafe wooden joists, which will never be seen under a floor, and adding steel joists actually "preserves" our "cultural heritage"?
A house is meant to be a home, ie a "living" embodiment of the people who own it. Putting everything in aspic, merely because it is old, and refusing to allow sensible safety upgrades (when they don't affect the appearance of the house) is absurd.
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
Congratulations to Homes in Havering, which manages the flats for Havering council, who have come up with a remarkably daft policy.
They have banned children from playing in paddling pools in their flats.
For why?
Drowning risk?
No!
Fire risk!
Yes, that's right, fire risk!
The housing association said the pools might get in the way of fire engines arriving to tackle a blaze.
Errmm...it's a paddling pool..ie a flimsy, plastic, inflatable object that a several tonne truck could drive around, or indeed drive over!
Oh, hang on a minute, wouldn't it also contain some water?
Isn't water used to put out fires?
For good measure, the kids who live there are not allowed to skate, or play ball games either.
One wonders why so many kids hang around the streets looking bored out of their brains!
Graham Hart, a senior officer at nearby Hornchurch fire station, was not that impressed with the ban. Fire engines are rarely driven onto grassy areas, and he noted that the pools with water could "come in handy".
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
I see that Nanny, despite claiming that she wishes to simplify taxes (wrt her Orifice For Tax Simplification), is planning to increase stamp duty on homes that she deems to be energy inefficient.
Snort!
In the old days people were taxed on the number of windows they had, as glass was considered a luxury.
The solution?
They bricked them up.
Now it is the reverse, a tax on "poverty".
I understand that, at one stage, the Nanny had considered banning the sale of energy inefficient homes.
Even she realised that this would be a tad too stupid!
The new tax, which will most assuredly negatively impact the housing market, will theoretically come into force in 2012.
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
Just to let you know that there will be some disruptions to service during the coming fortnight, as the KenFrost.com empire is moving house.
There's brave for you!
We are contra cyclical and believe that, despite the best efforts of Paulson, Brown, Bush and Congress to destroy the world economy (something that a terrorist or "evil" state could only dream of doing), now is an excellent time to move.
We are of course the last people in Britain selling/buying a house!
We will do our best to maintain a regular service during the coming fortnight.
One small piece of advice to Congress and those worried about "moral hazard".
Voting down the bailout caused real damage to the real economy, like it or not the man in the street is affected by a collapse in world stock markets and failing banks.
The essential truth that those who cite "moral hazard" fail to grasp, or choose for political reasons to ignore, is this.
If your neighbour's house is burning down, even if he started the fire himself, you do not stand idly by watching it burn; you try to put it out.
Once the fire is out, you can punish him afterwards.
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
Nanny loves to spend money on her pet projects and ill thought out schemes, especially when its our money.
The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a damning report on Nanny's pathfinder housing market renewal programme, launched in 2002 by our old friend the Smooth Talking Bar Steward.
The "plan" was designed to revive nine areas in the Midlands and the North of England, which had suffered long-standing deprivation.
Unfortunately, as with so many of Nanny's "plans", it was utter bollocks.
The NAO found that despite £2.2BN of OUR money being committed to the scheme, it could find no "causal" link between pathfinder activity and improvements in housing markets.
That's accountant/audit speak for saying that it didn't work.
Although conditions had improved in some neighbourhoods, in others it had led to increased stress in the short term.
Under the programme, 40,000 homes have been refurbished and 1,100 new homes built. About 10,200 properties have also been demolished. In a number of areas there has been opposition to demolition projects and the original plans to demolish 90,000 properties have been reduced to 57,100.
Sir John Bourn departing head of the NAO (who managed to spend a large sum of our money on his and his wife's personal "business" expenses...that's another story folks, which I will cover at a later date) said:
"Housing market renewal is a radical programme
but it is a high-risk approach.
While there have been physical improvements
in some neighbourhoods, it is unclear whether
intervention itself has led to improvement
in the problems of low demand.
And in some cases intervention has
exacerbated problems in the short-term."
Nanny doesn't get it:
You cannot create demand, where there is none to be created.
You cannot buck the market.
You cannot force people to live in areas that they don't want to live in, unless of course you are a dictatorship.
Throwing money at a problem does not work.
However, it's not Nanny's money and she doesn't give a fark!
