Prats Of The Week II - Update - From Pam Gillard

Re today's earlier article.

Thank you for your comments. Please see attached the statement to the press hopefully giving a more balanced view.

"After recent ramraids we keep a watchful eye on anyone photographing the front of our jewellers which Mr Sparshott, on the 17th November, was doing. When Mr Sparshott made his visit he admits himself he was swearing loudly at my officer when asked politely what he was doing. Despite what has been said we gave no life ban from the Centre, did not take his camera, did not call him a terrorist, and we did not see grandchildren with him which would have made it more understandable. I have already apologised to Mr Sparshott if either the contract security officer (who has now left) or duty manager didn't explain this clearly."

Prats of The Week

Tis the start of the week, and indeed the start of the year (one week in), time for a Prats of The Week Award.

As if by magic, Nanny's chums in the Fareham Shopping Centre proudly present themselves for the award.

It seems that the jobsworths who are in charge of security of the centre are so worried about the threat of terrorism that they have banned photographs being taken, even when the photographs are being taken by grandparents of their grandchildren.

Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ordered to stop taking photos of their grandchildren, because they were causing a security threat. Then, for good measure, they were banned from the shopping centre for life!

They were thrown out of the centre, after they tried to photograph the look of surprise on their grandchildrens' faces when they turned up unexpectedly.

The Sparshotts were taking a break from their home in Spain, and wanted to surprise their family by arriving at the centre, in Fareham, Hants, while they were shopping.

Mrs Sparshottis quoted:

"I couldn't believe it. I was so shocked.

He said we had committed an act of terrorism."

Errmmmm...wouldn't an act of terrorism actually be a bombing or attempted bombing of said centre?

I suppose they should feel lucky that the guard didn't also try to accuse them of being paedophiles, which is the normal response from Nanny when a parent/grandparent/adult tries to photograph a child these days.

Jobsworth actions like this merely aid the terrorists.

Fareham Shopping Centre, well deserving Prats of The Week.

Feel free to drop them a note here manager@farehamshopping.com

The Dangers of Snow

OK folks, where the fark has all this snow that we were promised in London by Nanny's chums in the media gone then?

Not one flake has fallen in Croydon.

Yet the media were working themselves up into a veritable wank fest over this a couple of days ago. I even saw some hapless reporter from Auntie (the BBC) reporting live from Crystal Palace, saying that the first flakes were falling there; he was almost jumping up and down with excitement.

What a load of hysterical nonsense.

My useless council even had their gritters out (WARNING - do not attempt to take your gritters out in public, unless you have written permission from a doctor).

Nanny really has turned us into a nation of scared pussies.

Nanny Bans Motherhood

It seems that the Health and Safety Gestapo have over reached themselves this time. Not content with banning all sorts of normal, everyday activities on the grounds of the "risk" that they pose to health and safety, Nanny has decided that motherhood is itself a risk and banned it.

That is what Liz Cooper, and five month old Dominca Jimenez, found out recently when they were at an evening group study session in St Mary's College (Blackburn) library and IT room.

Security staff asked her to leave.

For why?

Seemingly on health and safety grounds because of dust, temperature and hard-edged surfaces!

Ms Cooper has been been told that she can only have Dominica with her in the breast-feeding room, or the baby-changing facilities.

Ironically Ms Cooper is in fact studying for a degree in early years health, and one would have thought that she had some idea about the health and well being of her daughter.

Sarah Flanagan, spokeswoman for the college, said the decision was made on health and safety grounds.

As Ms Cooper said:

"The breast-feeding facilities are

all well and good, but if I can't take

her onto the rest of the site,

what is the point?

I'm not going to take her to

college just to feed her.

It's not as if I was in a lecture

at the time, it was a small study group.

The college accommodates people will all

sorts of disabilities and other learning

needs, so why not mums?

The college is saying that the problem

is health and safety, because of dust,

temperature and hard-edged surfaces,

but that's exactly the same as you would

find in a supermarket at home or anywhere else,

so I don't see the problem.

She was asleep and quiet and I was carrying

her in a sling so she wasn't disturbing anyone.

If she had woken up and cried

I would have immediately left the room.

I was very embarrassed and upset -

they called me away from my group and

asked me to leave. It was absolute madness

and I was made to feel like a criminal.

I was working in a group of four people and

there were only another four people there

they weren't being disturbed either.

It seems like I have to be either a student

or a mum and I can't be both."

Ms Cooper has not yet learned the rules of the Nanny state:

1 Parenthood is a disability and a disease

2 Nanny can't have children herself, and hates those who can

3 Parents wasting their time looking after their own children are not working to provide Nanny with the tax revenue she craves

4 Parents are not best suited to bring up children, it is the role of the state

Nanny is very annoyed that people have not yet learned these rules, and will be spanking your bottoms soon if you don't learn them.

A Nice Little Earner

Congratulations to my beloved Croydon Council who have almost come up with a nice way to make even more money out of the hapless citizens of and visitors to Croydon.

They had constructed a parking deal with European parking firm APCOA, which was supposed to come into force in November 2007. APCOA was then supposed to take over complete control of Croydon's parking services.

APCOA were pushing the council to agree to a clause which would allow them to issue an extra 20,000 tickets each year.

This would bring the total up to 300 Penalty Charge Notices issued in Croydon on a daily basis, generating a revenue of £15K a day for the company with doubtless benefits for our beloved council.

The deal collapsed in December, and the council admitted it "inadvertently" disclosed sensitive information due to an administrative error.

This sorry tale does of course not end there. APCOA are now threatening to sue the council for the collapse of the deal, and the disclosure of confidential information.

Guess who will get stuck with the legal bill?

Yes, that's right, the hapless taxpayers of Croydon.

All because the council tried to screw more money out of the residents and visitors to this blighted borough.

The question is, why on earth did they choose APCOA to work with?

See what the BBC has to say about this firm here APCOA.

Local councils, what the fark are they here for?

Nanny Bans Fat People, Smokers, Humans etc

Our beloved unelected Prime Minister, Gordon "Smiler" Brown, the high priest of Nannyism has decreed that we really are rather too unhealthy to be treated by the NHS.

Brown only wants healthy people to show up at doctors surgeries and hospitals. You have to admit that this is a brilliant way to save money!

Under Brown's new Nanny constitution, patients face having to meet conditions to qualify for free healthcare.

Smokers, fat people and others of whom Nanny disapproves will have to agree to end their "nasty" lifestyles if they wish to be treated.

Nanny's spokesman from Downing Street, needless to say, played down the prospect of sanctions if people refused to comply. Seemingly, it is "too early" to discuss details.

How often politicians use that weasel phrase to avoid the annoyance of discussing "details".

However, a source in Nanny's Department of Health was quoted in the media as saying:

"If you are smoking too much

should you be entitled to an operation?

Should we say you can have an operation

if you give up smoking and change

your pattern of behaviour?"

So there you have it folks, the NHS will be used as a tool by the state to change our patterns of behaviour.

Are you happy with that?

Here's why the plan is bollocks:

1 Will fat, substance abusing, MP's be refused treatment?

2 Will fat, substance abusing, MP's in fact bother using the NHS?

3 Doctors, by their Hippocratic oath, are honour bound to treat all people irrespective of their personal views about lifestyle, morals etc. The plan contradicts the Hippocratic oath.

4 Having got rid of the fat people and the smokers; next will be the old, the meat eaters, the drinkers and finally the human beings.

5 Given that the NHS will have the option of not treating certain types of patient, will we have the option of not paying for the NHS?

A pile of bollocks from start to finish, and highly indicative of Brown's views on the freedom of the individual and the role of the state.