Nanny Bans Mums

Nanny knows no bounds when imposing her "zero tolerance" approach on her charges.

Ever conscious that we are not all the same, Nanny seeks to ensure that those who are in her view the most "disadvantaged" have the rules bent in their favour.

Instead of seeking to help people strive to improve themselves, or face reality, Nanny seeks to wrap everyone in cotton wool.

This of course does them immense harm in the long run, as people become dependent on the state and incapable of facing life's shitty realities.

One recent example of this absurd approach to life comes in the form of Nanny's ban on Mother's Day cards.

Helen Starkey, headmistress of Primary School in Carmarthen West Wales, has banned the making of Mother's Day cards because she doesn't want to upset children without a mother.

Quote:

"More than five per cent of children here

are separated from their birth mother

and have either no contact or no regular contact with their mother.

This decision was not taken because of any philosophical attitude

towards the celebration of Mothering Sunday,

but to protect a significant number of children in our school.

In all our dealings with these children

we have to exercise great sensitivity.

I am not against Mother's Day

but no time will be devoted to making cards in lessons."

What about the 95% of children who do have mothers?

Why can't the 5% without mothers make a card for the person who is acting as mother?

A ridiculous move, guaranteed to make the 5% feel more self conscious and less able to face life's harsh realities.

Isn't that child abuse of sorts?

Educashun

Nanny announced her much vaunted shake up in educashun yesterday; aside from a rather "eclectic" mix of new subjects such as, global warming and Urdu, the new curriculum also includes a few other "ideas".

Structured timetables are to be abandoned, and pupils will be given the chance to mark their friends' work as well as their own.

Oh yes, that's a corker of an idea!

Pupils will also have to complete 12 key 'life skills', this includes making a 50 mile unaccompanied journey by bus or train.

Erm...isn't learning how to use the train or bus something that parents are meant to teach their children?

Well, I think the most appropriate phrase that can describe this new curriculum is:

"Bollocks"

Big Brother

Those of you who enjoy interacting with the taxman, may be pleased to hear that you may have even more opportunities to "interact" with him in the future.

Seemingly taxpayers may have their phones tapped and their homes bugged in the future, if new surveillance powers are granted to HM Revenue & Customs tax inspectors.

Nanny's chums in HMRC claim that inspectors need such powers to tackle the growing threat from organised and white-collar crime.

Needless to say not everyone is convinced, lawyers and accountants argue that these powers could breach human rights rules.

Harry Travers, a solicitor who specialises in defending clients targeted by HMRC, says that the new powers were a possible breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Quote:

"A number of Customs and Excise prosecutions have spectacularly collapsed

in recent years due to the abuse by officers of their powers,

not because their powers were inadequate."

Nanny's chums in the HMRC are nonplussed by the objections. A spokesman for HMRC claims that the new powers for bugging are a rational move, after the merger of Customs and the Inland Revenue in 2005.

Oh joy!

Unfarkingbelieveable!

My article yesterday about Law and Order certainly seems to have "hit a chord" with many of you. Indeed one story, submitted by Grumpy, is quite shocking and deserves a more visible position on this site.

Therefore here is Grumpy's post in full, and unedited:

"A few years ago - but still in the Golden Age of Blair - I went to the aid of a policeman who was having the shit kicked out of him by several yobs (can I still say that?). The main assailant was a very big, very drunk and VERY aggressive young chap(can I still say that?). As I was reluctant to get my own head kicked in, I used a degree of force to persuade the young fellow(?) in question to desist. When, some minutes later the police and ambulance arrived, I was thanked for my public-spiritedness, the damaged policeman was taken to hospital and the yob carted off to the police station.

Some weeks later, another bobby came to see me; thanked me on behalf of his mate and then cautioned me before telling me that I was going to be charged with assaulting the bastard who was trying to kill his mate.

The charge against me was later dropped because the yob's brief had arranged a deal with prosecuting counsel; he would agree to drop the charge against me if the police dropped the charge of GBH and replaced it with one of 'Public Disorder'
Needless to say, I now look the other way if ANYTHING happens on the street."

Thanks Grumpy, pretty sickening state of affairs isn't it?

Somewhat ironic that Bliar and his chums are all lawyers/second rate lawyers, isn't it?

Does anyone actually have any faith in law and order in this country anymore?

Law and Order

When ordinary, decent, hardworking citizens lose their faith in the legal system and are no longer protected from persuing their legitimate activities and lives by those that they elected to orifice, then the country is finished.

Anarchy will take the place of order, and law will be the perk of a few well connected persons.

I am saddened and disgusted to see that this situation appears to be the norm in Britain these days. In the last few days we have seen a serving Prime Minister interviewed by the police again, and several of his his henchmen/women arrested by the police.

Precisely how can the people of Britain be expected to have faith in the law, if their elected leaders do not set an example?

We are without a doubt currently being governed by one of the most corrupt, and odious, governments it has been our displeasure to endure in the last couple of centuries or so.

Maybe some of you feel that the fact the Bliar and his henchmen/woman get away with what they do is of no consequence, and that if they are regularly being interviewed/arrested by the police it doesn't matter.

Think again, the system is breaking down.

Take for example the case reported yesterday of chip shop owner Nicholas Tyers and his son Lee (20). He ran the Queensgate Fisheries in Bridlington, East Yorkshire.

Some months ago they saw a 12 year old thug (a nasty piece of work by all accounts, prone to trouble making) who had spat at a customer and smashed his window the day before.

The two men did their bit for society, and law and order, made a citizen's arrest.

They put the thug in the family car, and drove him back to the shop to call the police.

Can you guess what happened next?

Was the thug arrested?

Were the Tyers commended?

No!

Mr Tyers and his son were charged with kidnapping, and went to trial at Hull Crown Court for an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life in jail.

Finally, some six months later, the judge halted the trial and ordered the jury to clear them.

Judge John Dowse said the men had acted "reasonably", and gave the Crown Prosecution Service legal bollocking for being total wankers for taking them to court.

Quote:

"I began this case asking whether it was in the public interest,

whether it should have been pressed

and the result is

it has not been in the public interest.

I raise the question of whether or not

there are far more serious cases to bring?"

The thug was only held for between two and six minutes and the evidence to support a case of kidnap was "not strong", said the judge.

Needless to say, no legal action has been taken against the thug, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in connection with the shop incident.

The cost to the taxpayers was £60K

The cost to the Tyers, incalculable

The cost to society...our liberties and freedom.

Mr Tyers has now sold the chip shop, that he ran for 10 years, and is looking for a job.

He said:

"I have faced six months of hell waiting to prove my innocence.

I have lost my faith in the judicial process.

The case should never have been brought.

When you are the victim of crime and you see the culprit

your immediate reaction is to take him to the police.

I can see why people turn a blind eye to crime

and don't bother reporting it."

Mr Tyers had been having trouble with scum bag yobs for a while, particularly this one, stealing drinks and breaking a window, which caused around £400 damage.

He added:

"This lad spat at a customer and smashed the window to smithereens.

We had a look around for him that night, but he ran away.

I didn't see him again until the next day."

He went on:

"We went back to the house rather than the police station

to call the police from there.

Nine times out of ten Bridlington Police Station is unmanned

and you have to speak to someone on the telephone.

We thought it best to call the police from home.

When we got to the shop a police car was passing

so we flagged him down and told them we had got the lad."

The Tyers found that they were now the criminals, because the scum bag complained he had not been taken straight to the police station.

Mr Tyers said:

"We were going down the police station

on the understanding we were going to make a statement as victims.

The police turned the tables on us.

I was finger printed and had my picture taken and treated like a criminal.

I felt as if I was doing my public duty.

The case has been a complete waste of time and money.

I have made four separate appearances at court and gone on trial."

Mr Tyers said the "final straw" came when his windows were broken again and he sold the business.

"All the police say when you call them is here is your crime number,

claim off the insurance."

Can anyone tell me what is now the point of our legal system and our police force?

All I can see is that it is there to protect the interests of the failed lawyer Blair and his chums in Nu Labour, such Falconer (another lawyer) etc, who use the system for their own ends.

Until Britain is rid of Nu Labour we will see the continuing decay of law and order, as the system is abused for the privileged few.

Nu Labour need to be cut out of the political body, as one would cut out a cancer.

Plod

There are times when, even though I have been publishing stories on this site for over two years now, even I am flabbergasted (can I say flabbergasted on a public site?) at the boneheadeness of the Nanny state.

Well over a year ago, Jane Furnival was involved in a minor road accident in Hackney. Using her common sense, in order to ensure that the insurance companies etc were happy, she took some photos of the accident.

Unfortunately for her, the other driver and his girlfriend appear to have been off their heads. Ms Furnival claims that the driver's girlfriend violently attacked her.

Needless to say, Ms Furnival reported the incident to plod and provided some photos of the alleged assailant.

As Steve McGarret used to say:

"Book 'em Danno"

Unfortunately not, for you see dear reader this is Nanny Britain. Ms Furnival was told by a police officer:

"You brought this on yourself

people round here don't like being photographed."

Now correct me if I am wrong, but is Britain not infested with CCTV?

Do we not have the largest number of cameras, following our every move, per head of the population?

Does not an audience of dimwits sit down on a daily basis, to watch a bunch of sad losers sit in house being filmed 24 hours a day?

Do not youths with mobiles take pictures of attacks and other moronic actions for their amusement, and the amusement of their moronic friends?

Therefore how can plod say that "You brought this on yourself"?

We, as a nation, are perpetually on film and being watched!

Anyhoo, bringing the story up to the present time period, plod has not interviewed, arrested or charged anybody...btw Ms Furnival also produced the car's registration number.

Fear not, justice of a sort will be done, the other driver has now lodged a counter claim against Ms Furnival's insurance company. These details could be used by plod to aid their "investigation".

Oh sorry, my mistake, plod has said that the matter has been closed because there is a six-month statutory limit on investigations into common assault, and they 'ran out of time'.

Ms Furnival's account of the incident should have, I would have thought, caused plod to do some form of police work...any ideas why not?

Quote:

"The driver, a man of Asian appearance, went mad,

crouching on the road and screaming, 'No photos, no photos.'

His girlfriend punched me twice on the face.

I suffered severe bruising.

I was stunned and I pleaded with passers-by to be witnesses,

but nobody would agree.

Both the driver and his girlfriend were racially abusing me,

calling me 'white trash' and 'a fat bitch'.

It was like something from a Quentin Tarantino movie.

I called the police.

When I gave a statement at Stoke Newington police station

the officer told me, 'You were foolish to take pictures.

That's why you got hit.

Nobody round here likes having their photos taken.

You brought it on yourself'" .

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police in Hackney said:

"Both offences were thoroughly investigated.

Officers were able to trace the registered vehicle,

identify the driver and pass all relevant details

to the victim to ensure she could pursue the matter

through the relevant insurance channels.

In relation to the assault, officers identified an address

for the driver and visited it to arrest him.

But he no longer resided at that address

and there was no forwarding address."

Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust hits the nail on the head:

"It is bizarre that the insurance company

can liaise with this man but the police have seemed unable to do so."

Sounds to me as though the police did not want to pursue this.

Can anyone tell me exactly what the point of the law is now anymore?

Once people lose faith in the rule of law, the country is finished.