Nanny Speaks!

Dear Chums

I am testing out a new toy on this site that, if it works, I will roll out across the other sites in the www.kenfrost.com network.

Introducing audio posts!

Those of you who are too lazy, pissed, or stupid to read the text can sit back and listen to it being read for you. All you have to do is click the "listen now" link, at the top left hand corner of each post.

You can even subscribe to feed the post into iTunes or other media, by clicking the link at the bottom.

The only downside is that the voice is not mine and that it is American (no offence to my American friends, but this site should be read in a British accent).

Anyhoo, let's take it for a spin. Here are a few words that feature regularly on this site:

-Knobhead
-Twat
-Council
-Prat
-Utter Bollocks
-Jobsworth
-Fark
-Nanny

Enjoy!

Ken

Nanny Bans Nanny

Well, there's a title that I never thought that I would write.

It seems that Nanny has got her knickers in a twist over Nannyism, and is rather upset by the fact that we are all upset by her, as such she has come to the conclusion that she has been far too strict with us.

Her solution?

Simple, she has set up a new government body to...errmm...look into cases of "excessive" Nannyism (eg anything mentioned on this site) and issue edicts and advice against them.

So, just in case you haven't quite grasped that, Nanny is going to set up another Nanny organisation to lecture herself and us about the danger of Nanny.

That helps us how?

Wouldn't it be better to scale back on the bureaucracy, reduce the number of 'elf and safety jobsworths, cut back on 'elf and safety rules and abolish local councils?

Well, of course it would!

However, Nanny doesn't work like that.

The new body is called the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council (a warm, cuddly name if ever I heard one...not expensive to run I assume?), it has a nice little website (interim website) which starts off:

"On taking office as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown committed to taking the Better Regulation agenda to a new level by focusing upstream at where policy-making engages with risk. This is the critical starting-point of the regulatory process. It is here that culture and process must achieve a better understanding of public risk:

The Government believes that policy-making would benefit considerably from a fuller and more rounded consideration of public risk. I have asked the Better Regulation Commission, building on its report 'Risk, Responsibility and Regulation', to devise a structure and approach that ensures that this ambition is embedded in real policy action, even when facing pressures to react to events."

Pass the sick bag someone!

Any organisation that kicks off by using phrases such as "upstream" and "policy-making engages with risk" clearly has no concept of the real world, and no intention of simplifying Nanny's edicts.

These people are up their own backsides (so to speak). In fact, if you look at the website you will see that RRAC appears to have been tagged onto a body that has been in existence for some years now, The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory reform (BERR contains numerous committees) that itself recommended the creation of RRAC.

As per the website:

"The RRAC will initially consist of seven people, including the Chair, Rick Haythornthwaite, drawn from the pool of strategic regulatory experience in the Better Regulation Commission."

It is basically a version of BERR, and will grow like crazy "initially consist of..."

I would venture to suggest that if BERR had being doing its job properly, it would not have needed to create another quango to mull over the creation of even more regulations.

FYI, the chairman of RRAC is Rick Haythornthwaite. He used to be chairman of the Better Regulation Commission (BRC), which is meant to provide independent advice to government, from business and other external stakeholders, about new regulatory proposals and about the Government's overall regulatory performance.

Has that body cut down on government regultions and bureacracy, since it was formed in 2005?

Errmmm...no it hasn't.

Seems like a case of jobs for the boys to me.

I think it fair to say that this is Smiler Brown's attempt at catching the wave of public repulsion and opinion re Nanny; he has absolutely no intention of lightening Nanny's grip on us, as he is a control freak.

BTW, RRAC will be starting a campaign soon whereby Nanny will tell us how important it is to be self reliant...that will be a laugh, rich pickings for this site I shouldn't wonder!

I wonder how much this little "initiative" from Nanny will cost us?

Quite how you contact these people directly is a little unclear (policy being made up on the hoof as it were?).

However, here is a link to BERR enquiries@berr.gsi.gov.uk.

I suggest to point them to this site, which has been doing their job for them since 2004.

To repeat myself again:

Wouldn't it be better to scale back on the bureaucracy, reduce the number of 'elf and safety jobsworths, cut back on 'elf and safety rules and abolish local councils?

A Nice Little Earner II

Nanny is forever labouring away looking for ways to increase her tax take, necessary to fun her ever burgeoning bureaucracy that she uses to dictate to and bully us how we should live our lives.

Recently she came up with a real corker, using her old favourite, parking charges.

Owners of many ordinary cars (including the Ford Focus, Renault Scenic and Vauxhall Vectra) will face an increase in the price of their annual parking permits, almost double in fact.

For why?

Simple, Nanny will be taxing people on the length of their conveyance.

Yes folks, size really does matter!

The fact that Nanny taxes motorists already via; petrol, congestion charges and road duties is neither here nor there.

Nanny's chums in Labour controlled Norwich Council will be the first authority to bring in the new "length tax", which will fill their coffers with millions more readies.

The Local Government Association said many other town halls were watching the experiment "with great interest".

I bet they are!

The Norwich scheme charges according to the car's dimensions, with vehicles divided into three bands.

Any car longer than 14ft 7in will be in the highest category, with the cost of an annual on-street parking permit rising from the current flat-fee of £16 to £30 (an inflation busting 90% rise).

The middle band of cars over 12ft 10in, fees will rise to £22; while all smaller cars will enjoy a price freeze.

The trouble is "large" cars are not always "gas guzzlers", many ordinary family cars will be placed in the same bracket as Nanny's hated 4x4.

Labour councillor Brian Morrey admitted that the move would lead to a rise in revenue...no kidding?

He then went on to insist that raising revenue was "not the point" of the plan, and the money would be ring-fenced for transport improvements.

That is utter bollocks!

The same lying shit has been used by government over the years re car tax and national insurance.

Nanny puts all the money she collects into a large pot, then divis it up between her acolytes.

It's a simple as that.

Coming soon, the sex tax!

Nanny's Body Snatchers

Oh dear, this story has raised its head again.

Sometime ago I wrote about Nanny's plans to harvest the organs from dead people without their explicit consent.

I see that our beloved, unelected Prime Minister has waded into this "debate" and come out in favour of automatic harvesting of organs unless there is an explicit written opt out from the corpse or the corpses' family.

Here's why Nanny is wrong on this:

1 The state does not own our bodies, we do. It is up to us to decide what we do with our bodies.

2 The butcher's profession will be sorely tempted to call death early, if it sees a chance to harvest fresh organs

3 I don't believe in God, but some do; their religious views, as to what happens to their corpse, need to be taken into account in a civilised tolerant society.

4 Any attempt by the state, or butchers' profession, to take organs without prior express consent is theft.

The state does not own our bodies, we do!

Right of Entry

Guess which organ of the state has backed down over its plans to try to enter your homes without a warrant?

Read more: "Here's Johnny".

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.