Street Lights Don't Cause Cancer Nor Induce Nosebleeds

Sadly Nanny has created such a nation of morons and simpletons, that Gateshead council has had to issue a public notice stating that street lights don't cause cancer.

I dare say this notice will immediately be used by the conspiracy theorists as further proof of the "conspiracy".

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Nanny's Dim Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

To paraphrase Sir Edward Grey:

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

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

The Lights Are Going Out All Over Britain

Nanny's chums, in her "beloved" local councils, are forever looking for ways to save money.

Nothing wrong with that, except that:

1 Our council tax bills just keep rising, irrespective of "savings"

2 One major cost, defined benefit pensions for all council staff, is never touched

Anyhoo, Nanny's local councils have come up with a jolly wheeze to save some money; they are going to start turning off street lamps.

Needless to say, Nanny is also keen to emphasise the "green" "benefits" of this "initiative".

How funny that "green" is the new mantra of our lords and masters in the councils. Do not fall for that, it is merely a good excuse for them to brow beat us and impose more rules, regulations and taxes.

Councils in certain parts of the country are experimenting with turning off some street lights, the trials are ad hoc - each is doing it differently.

• Buckinghamshire has selected sites that are "low-risk" and has added solar road studs, extra signs and road markings.



• Gloucestershire County Council will be turning off 36% of its lighting part-time, but not on main traffic routes or areas of high crime.



• Essex is carrying out "part-night lighting" trials in Maldon District and in Uttlesford.

Nanny may need to be reminded of a little piece of history; gas street lights were first introduced to the UK in 1807, in response to people's fears about safety and the need to actually see where they were going.

When the blackouts were in place (1914/18 and 1939/45) the level of crime (robberies, rapes, assaults etc) and accidents skyrocketed.

Would Nanny and her chums in the councils care to tell us why, in 2008, things are going to be different if we are put back to blackout conditions?

The Police Superintendents' Association thinks that the idea is bollocks, and says that good street lighting deters crime and reduces accidents.

To paraphrase Sir Edward Gray, on the eve of the First World War:

"The lights are going out all over Britain, they may not be lit again in my lifetime."

Look what happened to the country as a result of that disaster!

The Health and Safety Gestapo Strike Again

Oh dear, Nanny's dreaded health and safety Gestapo have struck again. This time they have chosen to put their unwanted and unwelcome noses and boots into the good people of Liverpool's attempt to have a bit of a street party.

The furore surrounds The Mathew Street Festival organised on a regular basis by the Beatles old haunt, the Cavern.

Note, someone seems to have pulled the plug on the main part of the site?

The Mathew Street Festival, by last year, had become "Europe's biggest street party"; and was attracting 100,000 people, with big name acts on outdoor stages.

Needless to say such activities are frowned upon by Nanny's chums in the council, the police and the health and safety Gestapo.

-Crowds
-Live music
-Fresh air etc

are all an anathema to Nanny and her trolls.

Therefore it should some as no surprise to learn that Nanny banned the event, at the eleventh hour, citing that hoary (can I say hoary?) old chestnut "health and safety".

Liverpool City Council are claiming that the decision to pull the plug follows independent advice from health and safety consultants, Capita Symonds, employed by the Liverpool Culture Co.

Seemingly the scale of the current redevelopment work in Liverpool, poses a threat to people's safety at such an event.

Building work, in Liverpool?

Have they never had construction work there before?

Needless to say, Nanny's finest in the shape of Merseyside Police are also in favour of banning it. They claim that the reduction in capacity, huge crowds in an open, licensed environment, means there is a significant safety risk to the public.

It would seem that, according to Nanny, the planning for the event, and discussions between the city council, police and safety officials, cannot fully eliminate the risk.

Errmmmm...can we get this point clear?

You can never eliminate risk, you can only manage/reduce it.

It is time that these prats stopped fantasising about eliminating risk, and got themselves a heavy does of reality.

The council said:

"Staff worked right to the 11th hour to try

and produce a workable plan which could

accommodate the festival in the city centre."

Given that the festival was scheduled for the 26th and 27th of this month, a cynic might ask why the hell have they only just come up with the banning order?

It's not as though the redevelopment work was not known about earlier!

Indeed, it seems that only yesterday a tender document went out for pa and lighting companies to tender for the festival.

It seems to me that the council and police were looking around for an excuse to ban the festival and knew that if they left it ot the last minute, the furore could be "managed away" and would not have a chance to build up.

A spokesman from Liverpool City Council was on the BBC this morning, bleating away that there would be an "internal" inquiry into why the decision to ban it was so late in the day.

The only trouble is, that the internal inquiry will be conducted by the self same council that took the lame decision in the first place.

Any bets as to the value of the findings?

How stupid do they really think people are?

Another fine example of local councils getting above themselves and inflicting their unwanted views and rules on the people that, in theory, they work for.

Abolish local councils, they add no value whatsoever!

Here are a few useful emails addresses, urls etc

-Liverpool City Council
-LCC statement
-Contact Capita Symonds

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 Dangers of Light Bulbs

I have written on several occasions about the similarity between Nanny and dear old Auntie (the BBC), they both have this tendency to think that they know better than the ordinary man/woman in the street as to how lives should be led.

Anyhoo good old Auntie has managed yet again to come up with an extravagant way to waste the licence fee, on a particularly daft health and safety "initiative".

Seemingly, in Auntie's world, it is highly dangerous to change a light bulb. Therefore she has banned her precious staff from performing this highly skilled and dangerous task. In future Auntie will be paying an electrician to do this.

The cost?

A mere £10 a bulb...bargain!

Louise Wordsworth, a learning project manager with the BBC, came across the problem first hand.

Quote:

"I called up to ask for a new light bulb

for my desk lamp and was told that this would cost £10.

On telling them I'd buy and replace the bulb myself

(bought for the bargain price of £1 for two bulbs)

I was told that it was against health and safety regulations.

So guess how many BBC colleagues it finally took

to change a light bulb (risking life and limb to do so)?"

They could of course revert to using candles I suppose?

This anti risk attitude by Auntie is kind of surprising given its past record of putting some people (the viewers) in danger, eg do I not recall many years ago a guest on Noel Edmond's show died in some bizarrely daft stunt?

Also, so reports would have you believe, one of the contestants in that fake "reality" show "The Apprentice" has had a history of serious mental problems; is she really suitable for such an intense and demanding show?

But hey, they are only the licence fee payers!

If anyone can give me a reasonably accurate estimate as to the number of light bulbs that are in Auntie's buildings across the UK, I will gladly send them a "Nanny Knows Best" T shirt.

Money Well Spent

Nanny loves to spend money, or rather she loves to spend our money.

In Nanny's world what's ours is hers, and what's hers is hers!

Congratulations are due to Birmingham City Council for finding new ways of wasting the taxpayers' money. It was reported earlier this money that Ian Smith, one of its workers, is being paid an annual wage of £91,000 despite having been off sick for a year.

Mr Smith is employed by the council's Street Lighting Direct Labour Organisation as a "signals operative", and receives a basic salary of £71,000 and bonuses totalling £21,000 from Birmingham City Council.

Quite a decent wage for a "signal operative", whatever that is?

What's even more impressive is that he has been off sick for a year.

Ah, but you see he is also the department's full-time representative for the Amicus union. The leaders of "the Brothers" must be looked after mustn't they?

Seemingly Mr Smith also received an annual "standby bonus" - paid to lighting engineers to be on call to repair lights at anti-social hours - of £16,000, even though he no longer repairs lights.

A spokesman for Birmingham City Council said that parts of their pay structure were based on outdated employment practice, and were "clearly not fit for purpose".

No shit?

In other words they know that they are wasting your money, but can't be arsed to do anything about it.

In addition to spending vast sums on one man's lighting skills, Birmingham City Council also pay roadworkers up to £53,000 a year for painting lines and cleaning bollards.

Great!

Where do I sign on?

I fancy a spot of therapeutic painting.

Councillor Alan Rudge, the cabinet member for equalities and human resources (another daft council title), said:

"The Council is dealing with the issue through the recognised trade unions.

It is currently in discussions with these groups

and with other organisations who are representing employees.

The Council is carrying out a pay review

in accordance with a national agreement

between councils and trade unions.

The City Council has an implementation date for this

review of 1st April 2007.

The review will deal with, among other things,

the equality and fairness of pay across the workforce.

We cannot continue with pay and grading structures

that are in some areas outdated, unfair and inflexible,

no matter how difficult the change may be."

Call me a cynic...you're a cynic Ken!

However, doesn't that sound to you like they are only dealing with this now because they have been caught out by the media?

I guess the Brothers in the unions could threaten to go on strike, but would anyone really notice if they did?

As I keep repeating, what is the farking point of our local councils?

All they do is waste money, and impose useless and unwanted petty rules on the rest of us.

Abolish them!

Vent your spleen on Birmingham City Council via this link: Twats

In other news, it seems that John Prescott is costing £18M to run, even though he now has no role in government or society.

Nanny, spending our money on her behalf!

Racist Rev

Let me ease you into your Monday's with this absurd piece of Nanny nonsense.

It seems that Nanny is getting a bit flumoxed about race relations, and has got herself into such a state over them that she seems to be having some form of mental breakdown.

Aside from the usual crimes of race hate, Nanny has decided to add one more to the books; namely revving your engine in a racist manner.

I kid you not!

Ronnie Hutton recently spent two nights in jail, after being accused of "revving his car in a racist manner".

Hutton recently attended Stirling Sheriff Court on the above charges, after being hauled in for revving his Lotus engine at a Libyan couple one night last September 2005.

Witnesses claimed that he had been trying to intimidate a Libyan couple on the pavement. Hutton claimed that he was only revving the V8 engine to avoid another £15,000 repair bill.

However, off-duty Chief Inspector Eoin Jenkins thought he was targeting Muslim Isam Maigel and his wife Hana Saad.

When Jenkins, now retired, confronted Ronnie he was told to "fuck off".

Nanny decided to abandon the racist part of the charge, but still convicted Hutton of breach of the peace and fined him £150.

Hutton said:

"To be convicted for revving my car in a busy street is hard to take.

Does this mean anyone driving a noisy car in Scotland is now a criminal?"

It seems that the racist element of charges were only added some months after Hutton had been in the cell, and AFTER he had complained to the Procurator Fiscal about the incident.

Funny that!

Mr Maigel claimed in court that Hutton had degraded them "maybe because we are Muslim".

Hutton claimed:

"I've had problems with the Lotus since I bought it.

I paid £15,000 for a new engine in 2003.

As soon as I started the car the oil pressure light wouldn't go out.

I accept I revved the engine

it's a V8 twin turbo and is noisy and frightening.

I would openly apologise to this couple.

I am not a racist."

Be careful with your V8's folks!

Put That Light Out!

Nanny said "Let there be darkness",

And lo there was darkness,

And Nanny looked around and saw what she had done, and was mighty pleased with her work...

Here endeth today's lesson.

Does that sound a little far fetched?

I am afraid not.

For you see ladies and gentlemen, Nanny is very upset about the amount of light pollution that is being emitted these days.

You know the sort of thing, street lamps, car headlights and lightbulbs in houses. All of these add to the general brightness of our surroundings, and enable us to function when the sun sets.

Unfortunately, Nanny is a creature of the night and prefers the embrace of the shadows. To this end her chums in the Campaign for Dark Skies, they fear that the amount of light prevents people from seeing the stars, have scored something of a victory.

As from April 6th light pollution will become a statutory nuisance, and refusal to obey an order from Nanny..."put that light out!"... to dim an offending illumination will be a criminal offence. Nanny will fine you up to £50,000.

The trouble is that it is Nanny, and her ministerial offices in London and the local councils, that are more often than not polluting the night skies.

Anyhoo, that small point is being swiftly swept under the carpet by Nanny. Her chums in the much respected and efficient local councils will police the new regulations.

Complainants will be asked to record the problem with a detailed note of times and dates of nuisance, and take some photographs for evidence.

The light owner will then be spoken to, to see if a compromise can be reached. If this fails, the environmental health officers will then take a decision as to whether the lighting is in fact a nuisance and request that it is abated. If the order is ignored, the local authority may begin legal action.

Pound to a penny that this law will be used in private vendettas between feuding neighbours, and by those who are insane who have nothing better to do than to poke their noses into other people's business.

By the way the following are exempt from Nanny's new law; airports, bus stations, road, rail transport facilities and lighthouses.

It is reported that the first target for the busybodies are the floodlamps used to illuminate Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square.

As Sir Edward Grey once said:

"The lights are going out, never to be relit in our lifetime".

We Are Not Amused

I have said it before, and I will say it again, Nanny doesn't seem to have a sense of humour at all.

Nanny and her best friend Auntie, have got themselves into quite a strop over comments made by one of Auntie's presenters, John Humphrys of the Today programme.

Humphrys seemingly has committed the ultimate crime, he has made disparaging comments about Nanny and her ministers. Humphrys maintains that his comments had been part of a "good humoured, light-hearted speech" and "meant with great affection".

Humphrys was filmed making his remarks to the Communication Directors' Forum on June 8. During the Forum, Humphrys said that only politicians who lied could make it into government.

What is wrong with that?

In his speech, Humphrys said that Andrew Gilligan's report on Today alleging that Downing Street had deliberately inserted false information to "sex up" intelligence on Iraq, was true. He went on to say that:

"If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government, there would be no point in the BBC existing that is ultimately what the BBC is for."

Humphrys claimed that "those who do not lie at all ever. . do not get into government" because the whips "won't go near you with a barge pole".

On relations with the Prime Minister:

"We have not been the closest of friends over the last four or five years indeed scarcely spoken to each other."

On Peter Mandelson:

"Now there is a man they, I think probably all, detest.

I said to somebody once, 'Why do you all take an instant dislike to Mandelson?' and he said, 'It saves time'."

On Gordon Brown:

"I do get to interview Gordon Brown a lot, oh joy. He is quite easily the most boring political interviewee I have ever had in my whole bloody life."

On John Prescott

"All you've got to do is say John Prescott and people laugh, it's not fair is it?

I'm sure he makes a great deal of sense but it's just that you can't understand a bloody word he says."

Nanny and Auntie are reportedly incensed about the speech, so much so that the Director General of Auntie has been asked, by Michael Grade, to prepare a full report as soon as possible.

Auntie's chums in the Labour Party also wasted no time in trying to put the boot in.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the former Labour chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee, said:

"I think it would be useful if Michael Grade [the BBC Chairman] and Mark Thompson [the Director-General] had a discussion with John Humphrys

and explain to him, very carefully, just what is the purpose of the BBC.

He clearly does not understand that it is to provide as objective a news service as is possible."

Tim Allan, a former aide to Mr Blair who now runs his own public relations agency, said:

"John Humphrys's peculiar brand of folksy nihilism is designed to spread cynicism about politics.

The BBC now has to decide whether it is acceptable for their main radio presenter to use his licence fee-created celebrity to earn thousands of pounds telling audiences that all ministers are liars."

Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, said:

"The BBC itself is responsible for ensuring that its codes of conduct for journalists are adhered to."

Dictators throughout time have shown themselves to be lacking a sense of humour, we see no exception to the rule here.

Those of you who wish to listen to an extract of the speech should click this link John Humphrys speaks.

Size Matters

Nanny is always telling us that the new laws that she keeps passing are designed for our own safety and protection.

She is confident that we will eventually become used to the idea of animals receiving ASBO's, and uniformed civilians telling us what to do.

I don't know, you see the problem with this hypothesis is that it relies on the laws being sensible; and the officers of law enforcement applying them in a sensible manner.

Therefore, when you read a story like the one that I am going to relate to you, the hairs on the back of your neck begin to stand up.

I take you now on a journey to a communal garden centre, in a town far far away.

Er, Yarmouth actually!

There, brothers Stephen and Andy McSweeney (10 and 11 years old) were indulging in a spot of Star Wars with their light sabres.

This caused great alarm to the neighbours who, fearing an attack of the clones, decided to call 999.

The police duly turned up, flashing lights ablaze, and gave the youngsters a good talking to; they then issued them with "stop-and-account" notices.

Yes, that's right, a 10 and 11 year old were issued with "stop-and-account" notices for playing with light sabres.

Now this didn't go down too well with the boys' mother, Karen McSweeney, who feels that the police were a tad heavy-handed.

Mrs McSweeney said she thinks police may have been called to deal with older youths fighting in the street, which is plagued with rowdy teenage behaviour.

She believes the youths may have ridden off on mopeds before police arrived, and that officers only thought it was her sons because there was no one else about.

Police yesterday defended their action, stating that under legislation brought in this April they now have to issue stop-and-account notices each time they investigate criminal damage.

Now, you may well think that the police were justified in doing what they did; light sabres can be pretty fearsome weapons.

Maybe, you cry, Ken your over reacting!

I have of course left out one small piece of information about this little incident.

Namely, the size and condition of the light sabres.

They came from a box of Coco Pops, were made of flimsy plastic, and were no more than 6 inches in length.

You see, in this particular case, size really does matter!

The law can only work if people respect it.

Nanny is doing her level best to undermine people's respect for the law, and for those that have to enforce it.

The Dangers Posed To Aircraft By Pubs

Nanny has some very strange notions at times; however, this particular notion of her's counts as her daftest.

Seemingly Nanny has got it into her warped and twisted old head that pubs constitute a threat to the safety of aircraft.

What???

Are you drunk Ken?

No, sadly I am not.

I will elaborate.

Nanny, you will recall, has decided to allow pubs and clubs to apply for licensees to extend their 11pm closing.

As with anything that Nanny does, she cannot resist placing a whopping great caveat on her seemingly "open minded and kind hearted" gesture.

Pubs and clubs that wish to apply for an extension in their opening hours, have to complete a particularly long winded and bureaucratic form. In fact, they have to submit over 200 papers.

Within this pile of paperwork the hapless licensee has to provide a number of details, that to any normal person would seem irrelevant and daft. However, as we all know, Nanny reserves the right to obtain details on the very minutiae of our lives; that is the way that she maintains her control over us.

Anyhoo, in this particular case she has stipulated that the following "issues" need to be complied with; before she will even accept an application for an extension:

• Pubs and clubs must submit a risk assessment of the lighting in their premises, to ensure that it does not threaten aircraft. You will of course be aware that many pubs in Britain have been around for well over 100 years, I do not recall many aircraft nosediving into any in that time.



• Publicans must provide an analysis of the houses and premises that their customers pass, when they make their way home.



• Publicans have been told that if a customer becomes drunk and disorderly, they cannot throw him/her out onto the street as is now the case. Presumably Nanny feels that confining an unruly customer, in a confined and crowed pub, is safer than allowing him/her to get outside and get some air?



• Landlords must submit a plan of their premises, even though they will have already submitted such a plan before.



• Eleven copies of the application must be made.

These daft rules demonstrate Nanny's mindset, she is a dangerous control freak who has no intention of relinquishing power.