Too "Fat" To Love

Nanny's hatred of "fat" people knows no bounds. Aside from castigating them via official government channels, organs of the state and encouraging the media to hound them; Nanny is forbidding "fat" (a definition that is somewhat nebulous) people from adopting children.

Damien and Charlotte Hall from Leeds have been told by their local "respected" council that Mr Hall is too fat to adopt.

Despite not looking grossly overweight (compared to many in the Western world) Mr Hall's body mass index (Nanny's pseudo and flawed eugenics measure of fatness - remember how the chicken farmers who ran Nazi Germany measured people's noses to id racial origin?) is above the council's magic number of 40.

Leeds council forbid people who have a BMI above 40 from adopting children.

The council would rather the children rot in a state run home, than be adopted by real people who would genuinely care for them and love them.

Watch the video of the couple talking about their experience here.

As I said, in another country in another era the government of the day measured people's noses; that is where we have come to!

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

Bin Brother - Branch Detectives

Oh dear Nanny really is a confused old witch, on the one hand she keeps pumping up our council taxes (on the pretext of providing us with services) yet on the other she refuses to provide these services if we "infringe" the very smallest of her rules and diktats.

This was the case for Jack Hebblethwaite, 70, from Leeds who recently tried to dispose of a small branch in his garden waste bin (specially designated for the disposal of garden waste).

The council Gestapo ruled that, because it was a staggering 5mm too thick, it was forbidden refuse.

The council then proposed to order a multi-tonne bulk waste carrier to dispose of the 35mm branch.

There's value for money for you!

Local councils really do have our interests at heart, don't they?

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

Only Following Orders

How appropriate that on Remembrance Day, Nanny's minions fall back on a variation of that well worn phrase "I was merely following orders".

In Nanny's world the concept of there being a reasonable excuse for breaking her rules, and applying a little bit of common sense does not apply. So it was for the car owners, who temporarily parked their cars in Dispensary Walk Halifax this Sunday.

Nanny's ever so keen tax collectors, sorry I mean traffic wardens, were on patrol that morning and took no prisoners.

Drivers said that cars parked in Dispensary Walk were being issued with tickets during a two-minute silence to remember war dead at 1100 GMT on Sunday.

Malcolm Walker told BBC Radio Leeds he challenged a warden about the fines.

Quote:

"I said, do you not realise why

these cars are actually parked here?

They've come to remember the fallen.

I said, could you not just go round

the corner for five minutes and cut them some slack?

And the woman just actually said,

'A, I'm doing my job, and B,

I didn't even know there was a parade on'.

And I said 'could you not hear the bugles playing

and the band marching?'

And she just looked at me totally blank."

A spokesman for Calderdale Council ignored the point about it being a special event.

Quote:

"Residents living there are frequently

unable to park close to their own home

because of other motorists parking illegally

in their residents' parking area,

and this causes them a great deal of difficulty,

particularly if, for example,

they need to load or unload from their cars.

This is a regular ongoing problem for these residents,

not only a once a year event."

Rules are there to be enforced, no matter what the circumstances!

The Health and Safety Gestapo

Nanny's Health and Safety Gestapo are up to their old tricks again, by using "risk assessments" in order to try to control people's freedom.

The good people of Otley are up in arms about plans by Leeds council, to fence off a river in Wharfemeadows Park. In fact the residents are so "peeved" (can I use a word containing "pee"?) that they have set up the Wharfemeadows Action Group(WAG).

The cost to the taxpayer of this fence, by the way, will be £165K.

WAG are claiming that Leeds Council has grossly over-estimated the risks posed by the river, and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA), which has advised the council, has got the law wrong.

WAG have at least managed to delay Nanny, Leeds council has recently promised a consultation period and a public meeting ahead of any final decision.

WAG persuaded the council to delay, by presenting them with a document outlining 10 reasons why it believes the council has got it wrong.

WAG describe the RoSPA report, on which the council's plan is based was, as:

"seriously flawed and ignored several important

legal precedents and Law Lords' judgments."

WAG member Linda Lukats said:

"In view of the overwhelming opposition from

the people of Otley to RoSPA's misguided and

excessive recommendations, we were not surprised

to hear that the council are now considering alternative proposals.

Unfortunately nobody has yet had the courtesy

or good sense to provide the people of Otley

with the details of these revised plans

and so we are not in a position to comment on them.

The campaign continues."

Seemingly one of Nanny's real concerns is the danger of someone falling into the water, or rather the danger of the council being sued by someone who falls into the water.

So they don't give a stuff about the person, just their bank balance!

WAG say:

"The council has misled itself into thinking

that it would be legally liable for any injury

from entering the water unless it took the utmost pains

to make it physically difficult to get into the water.

This is incorrect."

RoSPA's head of leisure safety, Peter Cornall, is unconvinced by WAG. He is most worried about the weir.

Quote:

"There is a significant hazard in the

middle of the site (the weir) that would

need some kind of edge protection."

ROSPA say that coping stones only 6in high were all that prevented people going into the weir waters, and these stones were a trip hazard.

Aha...the old "trip hazard"!

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition against the fence plans.

WAG will present the petition at a meeting of the council on April 18.

Nanny needs to understand that she cannot zeroise risk.

People will always do stupid things, and no matter what barriers Nanny erects; stupid people will try to circumvent them.

How many times do we hear of thick as shit teenagers running along railway lines, or climbing pylons?

A full an enjoyable life can only be had where you manage risk, not zeroise it.

The trouble with Nanny and her minions in her local councils is that they don't use commonsense, and that they don't give a damn about the quality of their "charges'" lives.

Nanny Speak

Freedom, it seems, is a troublesome concept for Nanny to understand.

Lat year Universities UK issued a guide on dealing with hate crimes and intolerance on campus. It advised vice-chancellors of the following:

"Proportionate interference with the lecturer's right to freedom of expression is permissible where necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others".

In other words, if Nanny doesn't like what you say she will stop you saying it!

That is wrong!

Nanny's minions in the University of Leeds are currently using this rule to silence one of their lecturers, who has set the cat amongst the pigeons with his views on race and gender.

Today it is a controversial lecturer that they silence, tomorrow it might be you!

Nanny's Futile Rebranding Exercise

Nanny, unlike her "charges" who have continued to get on with their lives, seems to have got quite a fright from the recent London bombings.

Every day Nanny's news networks broadcast dire warnings about the "threat from within", and about unrest among various sections of the ethnic community.

Anyone would think that we have become so obsessed with the Middle East, and with Islam, that nothing else in life now matters.

Anyhoo, Nanny is so very alarmed about this "threat", that she has put one of her best colleagues on the job. Well actually, since everyone is on holiday, she has given the shitty end of the stick to dear of Hazel "I'm in charge" Blears.

You will recall that Blears performed something of a volte face recently, over the police stop and search techniques for looking for bombers (see "Blears Blunders").

Having tried to distance herself from that little cock up, Blears has come up with a spiffing new "initiative", guaranteed to face down the terrorist threat.

ETHNIC REBRANDING!

What!!!???

I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate on a public blog?), Ethnic Rebranding?

What's that then Ken?

Well Ms Blears wants to adopt the US approach (how in awe of the US this government is!), and rebrand ethnic minority in a futile attempt to strengthen and highlight their British roots.

Blears proposes to rename minorities for example "Asian-British" rather than simply as "Asian".

Spiffing!

How much are they paying this woman to come up with a lame scheme like this?

Blears deludes herself that the new branding will somehow or other give minorities pride in their background, and their Britishness.

What utter bollocks!

In case Ms Blears has not been awake for the past few months, it has now been widely accepted that multiculturism in Britain has been a disastrous mistake; I could have told them that years ago.

People do not need to be sub categorised, and have their perceived "differences" highlighted and emphasised, they need to be assimilated (much like the Borg).

By highlighting "differences" you further alienate minorities, and make them feel less part of the cultural identity of the country.

The plan is both fatuous and retrograde.

Notwithstanding the obvious stupidity of this idea, Nanny is pressing ahead with it and will be putting her "grand idea" to Muslim leaders in the next few weeks.

What about the Irish, Scots and Welsh then?

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament, has warned that by identifying people by their ethnic background Nanny will in fact create racial ghettos.

He said:

"Nobody cares for labels".

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, also said the plan was bollocks; he dismissed the idea as a retrograde step, that looked at people in terms of colour.

"What of the second generations?

Why should they be defined as other than 'British'?

These forms of identity based on ethnic background have been tried in the past and have failed."

Nazi Germany had their own concept of racial "branding", and look where that went!

Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West said:

"It's not remotely helpful

I think it's another gimmick. I'm afraid we need some rather more intelligent and far-reaching solutions."

The majority of the second and third generation "minorities" living in Britain quite correctly regard themselves as British, and do not want daft labels telling people that they are a subcategory.

Mutliculturism is dead, let us bury it and move on.

Nanny's Satellite

Nanny gets a little jumpy these days if she can't see what you're up to.

To some extent she has already addressed this problem; by her extensive use of CCTV, speed cameras and her proposed ID card scheme which will contain all manner of data including your medical history.

However, Nanny doesn't feel that this is quite enough.

Therefore she is planning a new innovation, a satellite spy in the sky which will monitor motorists speed.

That doesn't sound too bad does it?

A satellite that monitors speed cannot really do any harm, can it?

After all, what is the harm of merely watching?

The attention seeking morons who submit themselves to Big Brother don't seem to be harmed by it, do they?

However, watching becomes dangerous when an element of control is added.

Nanny plans to add that control factor, by fitting cars with a speed limiting device that will be controlled by her satellite. When Nanny's satellite decides that you are speeding, it will automatically apply the brakes.

How reassuring!

Drivers in London could be among the first to have the devices fitted. They would be bribed to attach these devices, by being offered a discount on the congestion charge.

Nanny's plan follows a six-month trial in Leeds which used 20 modified Skoda Fabias. Academics at Leeds University, who ran the trial on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), say that lives could be saved.

The test forms part of a two-year research project into "intelligent speed adaptation" (ISA), which the department is funding at a cost of £2M. Results of the initial trial will be presented to ministers this week.

Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, said limiters might make motorists less alert:

"If you take too much control away the driver could switch on to autopilot."

Unfortunately that is exactly what Nanny wants, a nation of dumb arsed morons who do not think for themselves; ie Big Brother contestants.