Health and Safety At Carshalton Ponds

I was hugely gemused to read about a wee touch of Nannyism at Carshalton Ponds last week. When I used to live in Croydon I would occasionally pop down there to "water myself" in one of the many fine pubs near the ponds, therefore I have a fond recollection of the place.

Anyhoo, it seems that there was something of a kerfuffle at the Ponds last week involving 25 firefighters.

What happened?

Did someone fall in the Ponds?

No.

Was a car on fire?

No.

It seems that a seagull had become stranded (thanks to a discarded plastic bag) in the Ponds!

Factoid: Carshalton Ponds are no more than 3 feet deep!

Despite having 25 firefighters on hand (5 crews no less!), they could not venture in to save the bird because of health and safety regulations.

Fortunately, for the seagull, help was on hand. Braving "certain death" (or more realistically, wet trousers) a member of staff from a nearby wildlife centre put on some waders, walked out to the stricken Herring Gull, and freed its foot from a plastic bag.

The 25 firefighters looked on, helplessly.

So why were the firefighters there then?

To rescue anyone who may have got into trouble rescuing the bird...ermm, wouldn't the risk of that happening have been reduced if the firefighters themselves had rescued the bird in the first place??

Pass the sickbag someone!
 
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.

Nanny Bans Ladders

Oh dear, it seems that the health and safety Gestapo have struck again. This time they have forbidden firemen in the Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service to climb ladders.

Now I know and you know, and indeed the firemen know, that they are trained to climb ladders. However, the health and safety Gestapo have ruled that whilst it is an acceptable risk for them to climb ladders when dealing with a dangerous fire; they are not allowed to climb ladders to help clear Ampthill's bunting from a Gala day in July, or indeed help put up the Christmas lights.

In earlier years the local fire brigade has helped with the removal of the bunting. However, following one of Nanny's very "helpful" risk assessments (pass the sick bag someone) the health and safety Gestapo have said no to Gala bunting removal and Christmas lights erection.

The deputy chief fire officer, Graeme Smith, admitted it looked as if the world had "gone mad".

He said:

"One is a 999 job,

where in order to save lives

we will take calculated risks.

The other is a property maintenance job,

which is covered by standard health

and safety rules, which we would have to abide by."

Funny, I would have thought that is was far more risky to climb a ladder into a burning building than to climb a ladder to remove bunting.

I dare say that Nanny will soon ban firemen from rescuing people from fires, as the risk will be deemed to be to great!

Is anyone in this country ever going to stand up to the health and safety Gestapo and tell them to fark off?

Oh, and if you really have nothing better to do, here is a complete episode of Trumpton:

Drowning

Those of you who, having gone for a swim or who have fallen into water, find themselves in difficulties in water may find themselves in an even worse predicament in the future.

Nanny has decided that a policy of "you're on your own chum" is now to be implemented for water based "risk situations".

As such, Nanny's chums in the Devon and Cornwall Police have decreed that police officers in the region must not to hold out a hand to drowning swimmers in case they are pulled into the water themselves.

Errmmm...isn't that down to the individual police officer to make that judgement call, according to the circumstances and his/her capabilities in the water?

Clearly not!

The decree, quite unsurprisingly, comes in a health and safety policy document which says officers should also think twice before throwing a lifebelt.

You will recall that this policy of "you're on your own chum" has been tested in Greater Manchester, where two police community support officers did not enter a lake to try to save Jordon Lyon a ten-year-old boy from drowning. They were told their training had not equipped them with the skills to go in the water.

The document, Health And Safety - Water Safety - states:

"Devon and Cornwall Constabulary does not

expect or require any member of staff

to enter water in a rescue attempt of any

person or animal under any circumstances.

The task of rescuing members of the public

or animals from water lies primarily with

other emergency services that are equipped

and trained to undertake such tasks."

As if to add insult to injury, the health and safety Gestapo also decree that staff should not throw a lifebelt into the water, until they have completed a "dynamic risk assessment".

What utter BOLLOCKS!

But Graeme Hicks, a member of Devon and Cornwall Police Authority, thinks it's bollocks as well:

"It's quite unbelievable that a police officer

could walk past an incident like that and ignore it.

If a child drowned in Cornwall

in those circumstances

we would come under criticism and it

concerns me that there are

policies like this in place."

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said:

"No organisation can expect staff to risk their lives."

What planet does this guy live on?

Firemen, the armed forces, police officers, traffic wardens, the waiter who served me a tough steak the other week etc etc all risk their lives on a daily basis...that's what these jobs are about!

Madness

We have come to a pretty poor state of affairs when Nanny starts using the mental health laws to arrest people for doing things she doesn't approve of.

Isn't that what they used to do in Soviet Russia?

Think I am exaggerating?

Well, the other day Mark Davies was taking a casual swim in the river Severn, near Sabrina Bridge Worcester, as one does! Then, before you can say:

"Right mate you're farking nicked!"

Errrr...he was!

Seemingly some passers by assumed he was in difficulties, and they alerted the rescue services.

A total of 25 firefighters, three fire engines and two rescue boats were involved in trying to rescue him, while about 200 people watched.

He eventually came out of the water at Cathedral Steps, and was propmtly arrested under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act.

Quote:

"I was examined by a doctor

who said there was nothing wrong with me

and I was let out after two hours at the police station.

There is no law that says you cannot swim in the river.

The river Severn is a lovely river.

I generally have a little dip around the

Cathedral and Diglis.

For me a swim down the river is not a problem.

I have swum in rivers across Europe."

Whilist it may have been more sensible for Mr D to warn the authorities that he was going to take a dip, and whilst swimming in the Severn may not be advisable for all and sundry.

Why did Nanny use the mental health act to arrest him?

Why not simply arrest him, if that was her desire, for wasting police time?

I cannot say that using mental health laws to arrest people for doing "eccentric" things, that Nanny disapproves of, exactly fills me with confidence.

Suffice to say, Mr D will be telling the "authorities" before he takes his next dip!

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.

The Trouble With Chairs

Those of you with long memories may recall that I wrote about Greater Manchester fire service's rather strange chair edict last year.

You don't?

Oh well, let me refresh your memory.

Lats year Nanny's chums in the Greater Manchester Fire Service drew up a four-page safety manual, to instruct crews on how to sit in a reclining chair.

The story, as the old saying goes, doesn't end there...dear me no!

On the normal 15-hour night shift, firemen are allotted time to rest between emergencies and running through their training drills.

They are allowed to have a rest for up to three hours, but they are not allowed to go to sleep...errrr work that one out?

Those who work for the Greater Manchester fire service have been instructed that they can only rest in prescribed reclining chairs, only after they have been trained to use them of course.

It doesn't stop there.

It would seem that 3 "very naughty", but highly experienced firemen, are facing disciplinary action.

What was their crime?

Being drunk on duty?

No!

Being unfit to perform their duties?

No!

Being bolshy?

No!

Their crime was...wait for it...wait for it..."involvement in the use of unauthorised rest facilities".

The "naughty three" found it to be more to sleep on the hard station floor, than on one of Nanny's £400 reclining chairs.

Nanny's fire chiefs are looking into claims that the "naughty three" defied orders to rest only on the £400 reclining chairs, which were installed as a replacements for beds in Greater Manchester's 41 fire stations last year.

They are accused of breaking regulations, by deciding it was more comfortable to use their own sleeping bags and bed down on the floor.

Not unsurprisingly the unions have described the policy as ridiculous, saying their members are being treated like children.

When the chairs were installed the firemen were also told that they could only use specially issued blankets, not their own bedding.

The "naughty three", including a watch commander, were found to have breached the reclining chair orders after a locker inspection found sleeping bags stashed away.

Director of human resources, Anita Wainwright, said...seemingly with a straight face:

"Risk-assessed facilities have been provided

for rest only, not sleep.

However, if a firefighter were to doze off on the

rest facilities provided, a common sense approach is adopted."

"Risk assessed facilities"????

Whenever I hear the "risk assessment" phrase, I instinctively reach for my sick bag.

Why can't Nanny call a spade a spade?

Patronising Bullshit!

The firemen note that the chairs are not comfortable for a proper rest.

One is quoted as saying:

"This is bureaucracy gone barmy

We cannot use pillows on the chairs

and we cannot use our own blankets.

Airline blankets have been issued instead.

We do not mind being assessed on performance,

but being spied on like this leaves a nasty taste."

One day, Nanny's own house might burn down...who will rush to rescue her then?

Madness

Nanny is worried about our mental health, maybe it's the stress of living in an all seeing all pervasive and interfering Nanny state that is having a negative effect on our mental well being?

Anyhoo, Nanny is so worried that she has decided to start checking up on our mental well being.

Nanny intends to start at the very beginning, and intends to target children.

Children as young as four will be expected to get in touch with their feelings, by filling in questionnaires; which ask if they are "optimistic about the future" and "dealing with problems well".

Nanny's old chums in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), who I have featured a few times on this site (see tag at the end of this article), have drawn up the guidelines for this load of tosh.

Primary schools in England will have a duty to improve children's emotional and psychological well-being.

Schools will be expected to combat factors that are "likely to lead to poor mental health or mental disorders"; by introducing programmes to help children make the transition to secondary school, teaching "emotional literacy" and providing specialist counselling services and family therapy.

NICE says that a school's success in making its pupils happy will be measured by indicators, developed by Warwick and Edinburgh universities. These "indicators" monitor positive attributes, such as confidence, resilience, attentiveness and the ability to form good relationships.

Nanny's "well-being scale" involves putting 14 statements to individuals about their thoughts and feelings and asking them whether they feel like that often, rarely, some of the time, all the time, or never.

They are based, so it would seem, on those most "excellent and scientific" self-help quizzes in women's magazines.

So that's alright then!

Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to give the kids an edition of Cosmo or something?

Now, aside form this being a colossal waste of time and energy (in terms of actually doing the children any good), there is in fact another hidden motive for Nanny's attempt to "help" with children's' mental health.

Can you guess what that is?

Yes, that's right...

Nanny intends to collect the data from thousands of pupils, from the age of four to 11.

She doesn't say what she intends to do with that data though.

A cynic might argue that Nanny will use the raw data to build a series of government communication "initiatives" targeted at the young, that ensure they tune in exactly with the mind set of those under 11. The result being a nation brainwashed for subservience to Nanny.

Needless to say, those with some knowledge of education etc think that this "initiative" is a load of old bollocks.

Kathryn Ecclestone, a professor of education at Oxford Brookes University, said:

"There is no robust, independent evidence

that making children and young people talk

about their feelings in formal rituals at

schools will develop lifelong emotional literacy and well-being.

Inserting a vocabulary of emotional vulnerability,

where children are encouraged to feel different

or told they have low self-esteem,

is likely to encourage the very feelings of

depression and hopelessness it is supposed

to eradicate. Although ideas about well-being

seem benign, they are based on judgemental

assumptions about 'appropriate'

feelings and how to deal with them.

But if you try to challenge this educational

bandwagon, you are accused of

being in 'emotional denial'."

Nanny wants the children to feel vulnerable and depressed, so that she can "rescue" them and be seen to be their saviour. Happy well adjusted children would reject Nanny and her ideas, and are therefore a threat to Nanny.

As ever we see another great "initiative" from Nanny based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

We pay these morons in NICE to come up with this load of old tosh, are we in fact mad?

The end result will be a nation of self centred, spoilt emotional cripples; a nation of skint Paris Hiltons.

Makes you want to scream, doesn't it?

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 Ponies

Nanny is a fearful old lady, she is easily scared by even the merest mention of risk. That is all well and good, live and let live that's what I always say. Unfortunately, Nanny decides to transfer her fears to the rest of us.

The latest things to scare her are Shetland ponies.

Yes, that's right, Shetland ponies!

Nanny's gimlet eye has fallen upon a herd of 20-year-old Shetland ponies, who reside in the Sussex Horse Rescue animal sanctuary. These ponies have no history of violence or of attacking members of the public. However, Nanny's chums in Horsham District Council have told the sanctuary that it cannot take the ponies to greet children in the street because they are too dangerous.

The council have decreed that Sussex Horse Rescue need an insurance policy of £5M, before the ponies are allowed to mix with human beings on the street.

Horsham District Council are of the belief that a child may be maimed by one of the ponies. Has anyone ever heard of a pony maiming a child???

The charity cannot afford the higher premiums, and will therefore abandon its "meet and greet" scheme which of course used to be one of its best money earners.

Pauline Grant, of Sussex Horse Rescue, said:

"We just can't believe it.

It is going to make a lot of difference to us.

We do it not only to make the money,

we also attract people to our sanctuary.

We have been doing this for 20 years and

we've never had an accident.

We have got two Shetland ponies we use, Sparky and Sinbad,

they are both in their 20s, and two donkeys, Cocoa and Ann.

They are very good-natured."

Nigel Haverson, head of public health and licensing at Horsham District Council, said:

"We have looked at other licensing authorities

and we take advice from insurance and risk people.

Five million pounds is the lowest we can ask for.

When you look at claims settled, they are regularly

four or five million pounds by the time

you take all the costs into account."

A council spokesman added:

"The council is responsible for licensing activities

in Horsham town centre, including charity collections and events.

Licences are required to protect the public in

terms of health and safety and from unfair trade.

A great many such activities take place in Horsham

throughout the year and normally everyone understands

why they need to be fully licensed."

I suspect the "understanding" of which they speak, is in fact a resigned shrug of the shoulders and a "realisation" that the council has them by the gonads.

The council base their demand for insurance cover on the fear that if someone is maimed by a pony, that person will sue the council.

Tell me, why would the council be sued in this case and not the owner of the donkey instead? Is not the council assuming too many responsibilities here?

Why does the insurance premium rank so highly for such a placid creature, and such an unlikely incidence of maiming?

Has a real "risk assessment" by the insurance company really been done; or are the insurance companies merely ripping off the hapless insurees?

Does anyone in our "beloved" and "respected" local councils ever think to ask these questions?

Are members of our local councils simply brain dead automatons?

Hugh, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub

Ah the good old days, when Trumpton had a fire service that the world looked up to. No problem was too big or small for the lad's from the fire service to attend to.

Sadly, that was but a fantasy!

Nanny's health and safety Gestapo in Humberside has stuck its interfering nose into the work of the real fire service, and is considering the banning of ladders.

Yes, you did read that correctly...ladders!

Funny that, I thought that it was kind of an occupational hazard for firemen to shin up and down ladders.

Not in Nanny's' world!

You see folks, one of the services that firemen perform is that of installing smoke alarms in people's houses.

I did not know that before this...even I learn new things each day...and I'm a genius (so my Mum says!).

Anyhoo, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo are worried that the firemen might fall off the step ladder when they are installing the fire alarm. Therefore they wish a moveable platform to be used instead.

Now the Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is having to review its policy on step ladders, after Nanny's chums from the Fire Brigades Union pointed out that a 6ft stepladder may contravene the Health and Safety Executive Work at Height Regulations 2005.

Needless to say, the health and safety Gestapo are only too willing to validate their existence, and have agreed to review this.

As one fireman said:

"Where will this end?

Will we still be able to carry a rescued person down a ladder,

or enter a burning building, without the HSA on our back?"

Don't worry, it would be a breach of the health and safety regulations for you to carry the HSE on your back!

Sheepish

Nanny knows no bounds when it comes to ensuring that the health and safety of her subjects are protected, even when they are sheep.

As such it should come as no surprise to learn that when a sheep became trapped, and needed rescue, Nanny dispatched 40 of her finest firefighters to help the animal.

Emergency services received a 999 call when the animal got trapped on a ledge above a flooded quarry in Bacup, Lancashire.

Seven fire crews duly turned up and took part in a 2 hour operation, involving a team using wetsuits and an inflatable boat.

A fire service spokesman said:

"Incidents near water have health and safety issues.

The numbers sent weren't there to ensure the sheep was rescued

but that no firefighters were injured."

Don't you think that Nanny should be feeling a little sheepish by now?

Hah! Hah!

Nanny Is Mother, Nanny Is Father

The key to any "successful" authoritarian dictatorship is to ensure that the state is involved in every aspect of people's lives.

Sometimes the state will legislate, by force, its involvement; eg banning smoking, health and safety reviews and ethnic quotas etc.

In other areas the state will try to "ingratiate" itself, by first of all undermining people's self confidence and dignity. Once the fundamental bedrock of people's independence has been undermined, Nanny can push her way in and start to lecture us about how we should be living our lives. This makes us reliant on her, and as such gives her the whip hand over us.

One of Nanny's experts in the Machiavellian art of confidence erosion is Nanny's best chum Caroline Flint, so called Minister for Fitness. Ms Flint has issued an edict saying that overweight people should be given lessons in how to eat fruit and vegetables.

Call me old fashioned...

"Ken you're old fashioned!"

...but I thought the principle of eating fruit and veg was easy; you open your mouth, put the fruit/vegetable in your mouth and start to chew.

You know how to chew, don't you?

Anyhoo, in Ms Flint's world, too many Britons are refusing to eat fresh produce because they see it as "scary food."

The reason that some people find it "scary" is that when they were children, they were not forced to eat what was put in front of them; ie they were spoiled and indulged by lazy parents.

Ms Flint wants supermarkets to provide instore demonstrations on how "healthier" food, eg apples and bananas, should be prepared and eaten.

Ms Flint, referred to a seminar where a parent apparently referred to some food as being scary:

"What she was talking about was vegetables she had never seen in her life before.

Here's a fruit you have never seen before.

What do you do with it?

Do you peel it?

Do you boil it?

Do you chop it?".

Ms Flint said the solution was to provide cookery lessons in major stores.

She added:

"If people are calling some of the healthier foods 'scary food'

because they are not sure how to prepare or cook them

it doesn't matter how many times I bang out a leaflet

saying eat this - it is not going to happen."

Three points to the above:

1 It's not the state's role to tell people what to eat.

2 People resent being told by the state what to eat, and will rebel.

3 It is the role of parents to educate their children as to what to eat.

Let the responsibility and consequences of lazy parenting rest with the parents, not with the state. The more that state interferes, the more lazy parents will become and as a result the more reliant society becomes on the state.

Ms Flint also admitted that another problem that Nanny faces is that some people simply don't consider themselves to be obese...well that's their right isn't it?

That observation is as facile as if she were to say that some people don't consider themselves to be ugly, when in fact they are (to some others)...totally subjective.

Quote:

"We have to do it in a way not to stigmatise people.

One of the things you have to think about is sometimes

overweight parents do not recognise their children as being overweight.

If they compare themselves with people who are considerably larger than themselves

they think, 'That's not me I don't have a problem'."

In other words, Nanny will now be upping the volume on her "you are a fat bastard" campaign.

Once everyone feels inadequate, and has had their self confidence undermined, Nanny will "come to the rescue" and make us all dependent on her.

Nanny Bans Poles

As you are well aware there is something of an hysterical media campaign going on at the moment concerning the 1 billion immigrants that have entered the UK since the beginning of the year, mainly from East Europe.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny has banned poles.

Aha, not that sort of pole though!

Nanny has in fact banned firemens' poles, seemingly they are a health and safety hazard.

Nanny's architectural chums who designed and built a £2.4M new fire station in Greenbank, Plymouth, have excluded the pole; they say that they are following safety guidelines.

Needless to say, the firecrews are a tad pissed off; they now have to run down the stairs instead.

However, Nanny is of the opinion that firefighters could suffer repetitive stress injuries, bad backs, sprained ankles and even chaffing to their hands and thighs if the pole (used to enable a quick response) is used.

Designers of the building in Greenbank, Plymouth, say they are following safety guidelines. But crews are furious.

Station officer Ken Mulville said:

"In 30 years in the brigade, I've seen one or two accidents on poles

compared to tens of accidents with people on stairs.

It takes about a second and a half to slide down a pole

as opposed to 15 or 20 seconds to run down two flights of stairs.

Seconds could be critical when responding to a 999 call."

One firefighter at Greenbank said:

"It's crazy they pay you to plunge into burning buildings but won't risk you on a pole."

Bernard Hughes, chairman of Devon Fire and Rescue Authority, is having none of it:

"There have been a number of injuries to firefighters on poles.

A risk assessment was taken and the decision has been made not to put poles in."

Utter Bollocks!

True British Spunk

I received this letter (see below) today from a regular visitor, who was enraged by the daft decision of Nanny to fine Daniel Roy for trying to save his friend from drowning.

If I may say so the author, by sticking two fingers up at Nanny and by swimming in the Mersey, displays true British spunk!

Can I say spunk on the net?

My thanks to the author for writing to me.

Here is the letter:

Hi Ken,

Re the above, I just sent the following to Weymouth's Tourism department:

"£68 fine, 1 year's conditional discharge, and if I remember correctly, £460 pounds costs. All inflicted on a young man for diving into the local harbour to save someone from drowning. You even have the brass neck to prosecute the rescuee. As a keen swimmer you can be sure that I've struck you off my list of places to visit, and I'll persuade as many others as I can to follow suit. I'm not interested in "Health and Safety" nonsense. I swim in one of the busiest rivers in Europe, Liverpool's R. Mersey, just hundreds of yards from container ships and other large vessels. Perfectly safely, from a designated bathing beach."

Yes, the rescuee WAS also prosecuted.

I wouldn't take a boat there either. If I fell in no-one would rescue me, and if I survived I'd end up before the beak having to sell my boat to pay the fine.

Yes, I do swim in the now clean, but muddy Mersey perfectly safely and legally from New Brighton's EU approved bathing beaches. Just hundreds of yards from rapidly moving supertankers etc. and in full view of Liverpool's famous waterfront. And I should be taking part in a charity swim the 1.5m across the river in August

What could be so hazardous about Weymouth's little harbour to justify their stance?

NB I'll forward a copy of their reply - that is if I get one!

The Dangers of Swimming

Do you recall those marvellous public information films in the sixties and seventies, which on the one hand warned of the dangers of playing near canals and ponds (lest you fall in and drown) and on the other encouraged you to learn to swim so that you could save yourself, or someone else, if you did end up in the water?

Well, Nanny has decided that the safest thing to do is to ensure that we don't swim at all.

Nanny's trolls in a Weymouth magistrates court earlier this month decided to ensure that Nanny's no swimming message was heard loud and clear, much to the chagrin of Daniel Roy from Portland Dorset.

You see Mr Roy was caught in Weymouth Harbour, which has a strict no "enter the water" policy. The magistrates fined Mr Roy £68 for breaking the law.

However, I should at this stage point out that Mr Roy was not in the water for some self centred personal amusement; he was in fact trying to rescue his best friend from drowning!

Maybe he shouldn't have bothered?

Welcome to Lah Lah Land!

Nanny's Religious Hatred

As you are no doubt all aware, Nanny has rather a busy legislative programme ahead of her over the coming few months.

Not only has she to get her much vaunted ID card bill through parliament, ban smoking and end world poverty; but she also has to impose her religious hatred bill on her long suffering "charges".

Many argue that the religious hatred bill is yet another attempt by Nanny to stifle free speech and debate.

However, I read yesterday about this disgusting incident which may make a case for the religious hatred bill.

A Sikh couple were trying to hold their wedding at the Baylis House Hotel in Slough this weekend.

The guests had turned up, for what was meant to be a happy day for the couple; yet the day quickly descended into chaos, as a group of 40 youths arrived in a bus and deliberately disrupted the wedding and celebrations.

The priest was attacked and the holy book, which was to be used by the priest to perform the wedding, was stolen.

Needless to say, Nanny's police managed to arrive too late to do anything; doubtless they were too busy chasing speeding motorists and enforcing smoking bans.

The police found a scene of chaos when they arrived, the priest lying in the car park and the couple clearly shocked and upset at the disaster that had befallen them.

The police then stood guard whilst the wedding was bravely re planned with hotel management.

How in Britain could such an attack take place, or indeed be allowed to take place?

The above is clearly a prime example of what Nanny's religious hatred bill is trying to stamp out.

People should be allowed to practice their religions without fear of persecution.

Oh, by the way, I think I forgot to mention one small thing.

The 40 thugs who attacked the wedding were in fact Sikhs themselves. This group, calling themselves "Respect for Guru Granth Sahib Ji Campaign", have been recently disrupting Sikh weddings for religious reasons.

Their prime objection is the fact that the Sikh book of scriptures should not be in a place where alcohol, meat and cigarettes are available.

Seemingly this band of "religious enforcers" scour the net for weddings and other gatherings where the book may be present, and then rush to the scene to rescue the book.

Now this case presents something of a problem for Nanny. In the event that her religious hatred bill was actually up and running, who should be prosecuting whom?

Should the gang of 40 thugs prosecute the couple for bespoiling their sacred book?

Should the couple be prosecuting the gang for disrupting their wedding, on the grounds of religious intolerance?

Should interfering busybodies be prosecuting both parties for bringing the Sikh religion into disrepute?

Those of you who manage to come up with an answer, that can satisfy all, should please forward it to Fungus Clarke. Doubtless he is desperately trying to find some shred of logic, with which to cover the glaring intellectual and moral inadequacies of Nanny's religious hatred bill.

The lesson from this sorry tale is really rather simple. Despite what the politicians claim is the intention of their legislation, and despite teams of lawyers working all hours to take into account all possible scenarios, life is never what you expect.

The more legislation there is, that attempts to control how we live our lives, the greater the opportunity for those with an agenda to use it for their own ends.

To my view, if Nanny is sincere in her claim that she wishes to create an equal and tolerant society; where people of all faiths can practice their religions without fear, less is more.

In other words, remove the blasphemy law from the statute books. This will place all religions on the same level.

Healthy religions, that are comfortable with engaging in open and rigorous debate as to the meaning of life and other issues, will flourish. Those religions that attempt to stifle debate will die.

The trouble is Nanny introduced the religious hatred bill to buy off the Muslim vote, not to protect religious freedom, or am I being just a little too cynical?

Nanny and Clyde

Nanny, for reasons best know to herself, seems to have a thing about sea and river rescue.

You will recall that, a while ago, I wrote that Nanny's Lottery fund had refused to give the RNLI a grant; because they did not follow an "affirmative" discrimination policy in respect of their rescues. See "Those in Peril On The Sea".

Now Nanny has decided that the river rescue service operated on the Clyde, by George Parsonage, is just too dangerous.

For him, and those that he rescues!

George has been operating the rescue service for many years now, having taken it over from his father, and has saved an estimated 1500 people.

In fact so successful is the service, that he was awarded a special life time achievement award yesterday by the Royal Humane Society in London.

However, on the same day that he received the award, Strathclyde Police have stated that they will no longer call upon his help.

The force claims that because Mr Parsonage, who runs the Glasgow Humane Society, is now working alone (his assistant left for Ireland) he poses a health and safety risk.

Presumably, if he were to attempt to rescue someone the police would arrest him?

I guess then Nanny could serve him with an ASBO?

The Value of Cake Decoration

Nanny has always told us that she believes in the value of education; she tirelessly strives, so she says, to improve educational standards throughout the country.

One area that has been of particular concern to her, is the fact that those of her "charges" who seek to acquire the age old skill of cake decoration are being discriminated against.

In particular she is concerned that there is a certain "educational snobbery" being applied against those with cake decorating skills, in favour of those with qualifications in lesser subjects such as Physics.

To this end, Nanny has decreed that a distinction in cake decorating is worth more than an A grade in GCSE Physics.

There are those of you who may feel that this system is "bollocks". However, our old friend Stephen Twiglet (Nanny's School Standard Minister) has come to Nanny's rescue. He accuses detractors of:

"Old fashioned educational snobbery..."

Adding:

"The world has moved on....This is a significant step forward in recognising the achievements of all pupils and of the importance of the flexible and vocational routes of learning..".

You will recall, as reported on this site (see "Nanny's Twiglet"), that Mr Twiglet has himself a little trouble with some of the more old fashioned educational skills; ie basic grammar.

Maybe he should have gone into cake decorating instead?

Croydon's Crappy Christmas

Nanny’s trolls and sprites in Croydon Council have been very busy of late, bringing the Borough to the edge of bankruptcy.

However, their prime goal, that of pleasing Nanny always takes priority. In the past they have ruminated over the meaning of Christmas, and decided that Croydon should not be overtly supportive of this Christian festival; lest it offend others.

Therefore, in 2002, they decided to remove the illuminated display shown each December of a Christmas tree and a cross on each side of Taberner House (the town hall). These symbols were formed by leaving selected room lights on until midnight.

Now, moving on a couple of years, Nanny’s friends in the council have decided that they will not be footing the £1500 bill for the erection (can I say erection on a public blog?) of a Christmas tree in the town centre.

The good burghers of Croydon cite the fact that costs, and health and safety issues, make this erection impossible.

Now before you all despair at the thought of my beloved Borough (yes I live in Croydon) being without a Christmas tree, don’t.

Nanny’s sworn enemy Ronald McDonald, purveyor of proscribed foods, has come to the rescue.

His company, McDonalds, will pay for an erection in Croydon.

We will have a tree!!

However, the council never ones to take a slap in the face lightly have responded. They will be doing their best to keep the lighting ceremony low key, ie they don’t want one.

Tony Hart, the town centre manager, said the cost of organising a formal event for the turning-on of the lights had rocketed over the past few years; due to health and safety regulations, and it would therefore be a low-key and understated affair.

In a further slap in the face to the citizens of Croydon, Mr Hart said that there would be no other Christmas decorations in the town centre; unless enough money could be raised from local businesses.

It looks like that we will be having a truly crappy Christmas in Croydon this year, thanks to Nanny’s friends in the council.

Those of you wishing to read more about how badly Croydon is run, please visit www.croydoniscrap.com