Nanny Scares Children - Post Script

Following on from this morning's post about the BHF scaring children, by showing them photos of gristle and other bits that go into burgers and hot dogs.

Were their dubious reasoning followed, with regard to the "evil" of these animal parts, then the following foods should also be blacklisted by Nanny:

- Haggis
- Black pudding
- Pig's trotters
- Oxtails
- Faggots
- Devilled kidneys
- Sweatbreads
- Stuffed hearts
- Braised lambs testicles
- Spotted dick (need I say more?) etc

I have eaten all of these foods (plus a few bucket loads of KFC etc) over the past 40 years or more, and am perfectly healthy.

Nanny should keep her nose out of our food.

Nanny Bans Charity

In keeping with its austere image, Nanny's Inland Revenue have banned staff from being involved this Christmas with Samaritan's Purse; the controversial Christian charity whose founder, Billy Graham, in response to 9/11 described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion".

An internal memo tells staff that they cannot continue to be associated with the charity; because its operations do not conform to diversity policies, and might bring the Revenue into disrepute.

However, very generously, the Revenue do allow their staff to donate to the charity in their own time!

The Revenue's 100,000 employees have supported Operation Christmas Child, run by Samaritan's Purse, since the late 1990s.

Christmas Child sends over a million shoe boxes from Britain to children in countries including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Romania, Serbia, Sudan and Mozambique.

Donors are asked to pack boxes with gifts.

No Christian literature is included in the boxes. However, the charity does separately distribute Christmas stories from the Bible and encourages Bible study in areas where it gives toys out.

A spokesman for the Inland Revenue said:

"We have very clear workplace policies regarding the importance of valuing difference.

When an organisation demonstrates evidence of being at odds with those core values we cannot make special provision for that organisation to be supported on our premises.

To do so would be hypocritical and at odds with our diversity commitments."

The Church of England noted that:

"It does seem a strange way of promoting diversity.

If this charity was aiming to do a heavy conversion job on vulnerable children, that could be criticised. But the shoe box operation is another thing entirely."

Steve Whaley, of Samaritan's Purse, said donors to the shoe box scheme were warned that boxes must not include "anything of a political, racial or religious nature".

As ever, in order to promote her narrow view of "correctness", Nanny ensures that others suffer.

Nanny Bans Dwarfs

The run up to Christmas is now in full swing.

One major part of the traditional British Christmas is the pantomime; where men dress as women, women dress as men and the "principle boy" and leading lady are both played by women who get to kiss on stage in front of children.

No wonder the Brits have a few sexual hang ups!

None of this is at all out of place in the traditional British Christmas. However, there is one aspect of the pantomime that Nanny is very cross about.

That of Snow White's seven dwarfs.

Nanny, for some odd reason, does not like dwarfs.

As such the Coxheath Players (can I say Cox on the net?), a Kent based drama group, have had to replace their seven dwarfs with seven gnomes.

The script was delivered to them (the Coxheath Players) without any reference to dwarfs, instead the word gnome has been substituted.

A spokesman for the Northampton-based publishers said that the change had come from a wish not to offend - gnomes being fictitious.

The script, which the publishers Jasper Publishing said was a popular version performed by about 10 theatre companies a year, also sees some of the traditional dwarf names changed.

Seemingly a gnome, which is a fictional character like a giant or an ogre, it is not offensive.

Karen Birkbeck, who will direct the show for the Coxheath Players, said:

"We have to go by the script and the script says gnomes, so they have to be gnomes, I'm afraid.

We've got a Bossy and a Basher instead of a Bashful and a Doc, but we've still got a Dopey - a very dopey Dopey."

Jim Sperinck, a director of Jasper, said:

"If you were 3ft 6in would you prefer to be called a dwarf in a pantomime or a gnome?"

Missing the point old boy, aren't you?

If you were unhappy with the idea, you would not have auditioned for it in the first place surely?

Additionally, using Nanny's logic, as I am 5 foot 10 inches I am effectively excluded from being able to apply for the part of a gnome/dwarf; doesn't that breach my human rights or something?

Incidentally, whilst we are on the subject, what about the Humpalumpas in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory?

There's a whole host of issues in that............

Nanny Bans Christmas

I seem to recall writing about Nanny banning Christmas last year, how time flies!

Anyhoo, Nanny's chums in Lambeth council have got rather nervous about the forthcoming Christmas celebrations, and the implications for harmony within the borough.

As such they have decided to call their Christmas lights "Winter Lights".

Advertisements for the switch-on of the lights in multi-cultural Lambeth have renamed them, apparently for fear of offending other faiths.

A spokesman tried to weasel out of it, by saying that it was an error by a junior official and not council policy.

In three of Lambeth's main town centres, the lights were referred to as "Winter Lights", while in a fourth they were called "Celebrity Lights".

The council spokeswoman said an official was concerned about people from other religions.

She said:

"It was a junior-level decision and it happened to go into print which was an error basically.

I think it was certainly not a council policy that we should call the lights winter lights."

Needless to say Nanny is trying to pretend that it is all just a mistake.

However, Lambeth were unable to give an assurance that some of its lights would contain Christian connotations.

Leaders from non Christian faiths have said that the ban is ridiculous.

Nanny fails all of her "charges", whatever their faith.

The Cost of Nanny

Those of you who doubt that Nanny's rules affect ordinary everyday activities, should read the following and weep.

Nanny's chums in the EU have issued a "Working at Heights Directive", which affects us here in the UK.

Father Anthony Sutch, of St Benet's Church in Beccles, had to call in electricians the other week to change light bulbs that are 40 feet above the congregation.

However, safety regulations deemed the church ceiling too high for a ladder; therefore scaffolding had to be erected, for a lengthy and costly replacement operation.

The cost?

Yours for £1300!

Another "Bright" Idea From Nanny's Bar Steward

Those of you who are worried about the stability of the housing market, may need to turn away from your screens now.

Nanny has decided that she wants to add to the regulatory burden of selling a house, and has selected one of the finest minds in her cabinet to tackle this tricky subject.

Can you guess who that is?

Yes, that's right, none other than Nanny's smooth talking bar steward John Despot.

The very mention of his name in association with the housing market, something that underpins the British economy, should send shivers down everyone's spines.

Anyhoo, dear old John has come up with a real humdinger of a plan.

The benefits or rationale of his scheme, to either seller or buyer, remain unclear; nonetheless that has never stopped him in the past from doing something, and that most certainly won't stop him now.

He wants to introduce home information packs during 2007, which he says will reduce the cost of buying a home.

Really?

The packs would be prepared by the seller, at an estimated cost of up to £1000; theoretically they would provide the buyer with all the information that he/she would need, eg ownership evidence and a property "health report".

However, as with all of Nanny's ideas, this idea has not been thought through.

• Pre implementation there will be a rush of property sales, to avoid the £1000 cost and huge administrative burden; this will undoubtedly destabilise and inflate the already highly sensitive housing market.



• The regulations will spawn a whole new class of "property cowboy", people and firms who will charge exorbitant fees for preparing these packs; needless to say they will operate without any form of regulation.



• The fact that a seller prepares one of these packs, will be in no way a guarantee of the condition of the property; buyers will still have to pay for a survey. So how exactly does this reduce the cost of buying a property John?

The Bar Steward of course doesn't care about any of these problems, as he already has use of several homes (one for each of his Jaguars).



Buy a selection of "Bollocks To The Bar Steward" T shirts and thongs here.