Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Happy New Year

Fez Off!
Hello Folks,

I see Nanny has left me off the New Year's Honours list again.


Anyone would think that she doesn't like me!

Anyhoo, there is always 2007; please feel free to annoy Nanny, and nominate me for an honour. Scroll down the menu bar on the right to find the relevant link.

In the meantime, please continue to overindulge this Christmas; but spare thought for our homeless Prime Minister, who is having to sleep on his Bee Gee mate's couch.

Happy New Year!


Thursday, December 28, 2006

Who Ate All The Pies?

Who Ate All The Pies?Hello folks, I have dragged myself away from the mince pies and assorted Christmas goodies to bring you this sorry tale of Nannyism that landed on my desk a wee while ago.

Nanny has stuck her interfering nose into the noble art of pie eating. The organisers of Wigan's prestigious pie eating contest have been seduced by Nanny's dark side, and changed the rules.

First prize has always gone to the contestant who could eat the most meat and potato pies in three minutes.

However, the title of World Pie Eating Champion will now be awarded to the person who can eat a single pie in the shortest time.


I spit upon such nonsense.

This debasement of the noble art of pie eating is in response to Nanny's incessant whining about the number of calories that we all consume.

As if this were not enough, to add insult to injury, vegetarians will be allowed to eat non meat pies.

What is the world coming to?

Dave Smyth, who won the first contest in 1992 when he ate four pies in three minutes, thinks that this is bollocks.


"This contest has always been about savouring as many pies as possible

over a three minute period,

not sprinting through a few mouthfuls of a single pie.

They've taken things too far this year.

Pies are supposed to be meat and potato

and anything else just isn't normal.

I intend to lobby the organising committee

and I'm not going to rest until I've got answers

Each pie weighs 12oz and contains about 400 calories.

Organiser Tony Callaghan said:

"I realise it may be controversial,

but this is the way forward for pie-eating at this level.

It will make for an exciting sporting spectacle,

whilst also doffing its cap to Government guidelines on obesity.

We have also bowed to relentless pressure from the Vegetarian Society

and agreed to introduce a vegetarian option,

although vegetarian pie-eaters in the competition

will be allowed to eat a slightly smaller version

because of its rather more glutinous content

FYI, Hitler was a vegetarian.

In honour of this noble art I am off to consume another mince pie!

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The Dangers of Mince Pies

The Dangers of Mince PiesIt seems that in some parts of the country people celebrate Christmas in rather unusual ways.

In the Paisley Centre shopping mall, Scotland, the resident Santa Claus has been forced by his employers to wear a hard hat for health and safety reasons.


Youths pelted him with mince pies from the upper level of the shopping centre, as he was handing out treats to customers.

Santa now has to wear a hard hat, decorated with antlers, to protect him.

Santa was not injured by the flying pies.

It's a funny old world!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Friday, December 22, 2006

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

Calling Croydon Chartered Accountants

I would be very grateful if any chartered accountants living in Croydon could get in touch with me privately, it is regarding the ICAEW Council elections in January 2007.

My contact details are in the menu bar on the right hand side.



Thursday, December 21, 2006

Hoodies Are Scary

Hoodies Are ScaryIn the fifties it was the Teddy Boys, in the sixties it was mods and rockers, the seventies saw punk and the eighties had new romantics. Now, in the noughties, we have hoodies.

As ever with teenage "fashion", Nanny is scared sh****ss.

Nanny ignores that fact that as with all teenage "fashion" it will pass, and that it is worn merely a sign of fear of not belonging to a group rather than as a sign of criminal intent.

Anyhoo, notwithstanding that, Nanny recently decided that Jack Johnson was inappropriately dressed when he went to his local shopping centre in Eastleigh.

His crime?

He was wearing the dreaded hoodie.

The reaction from Nanny?

Nanny's security guard banned him from wearing the hoodie, or leave, in case people were scared.

The problem?

Jack is only six years old, and the hood was part of an attachment to his school coat.

What about duffel coats?

They have hoods too.

Jack's mum, Tracey, said:

"I couldn't believe it.

It wasn't even a hooded top but his school-issue coat."

This man was going to kick us out unless Jack took his hood off.

Just how scary does a six-year-old look in his school coat

Jack said:

"I thought it was silly and I was sad and upset."

Nanny is silly, and very upsetting to many people.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Nanny Bans Christmas Decorations

Nanny's Specially Approved Decorations'Tis the season to be jolly, tra lah lah lah lah tra lah lah lah...etc.

In keeping with the season Nanny has decided to play Scrooge this year, and recently banned Christmas decorations in a South London Job Centre.

In Nanny's view Christmas decorations are offensive to the unemployed!

Where on earth does Nanny get these strange ideas from?

Chris Nicol, the area manager of South London, is of the belief that benefit claimants who can't afford tinsel may be upset by the sight of decorations; therefore he has banned them.

A somewhat prissy overreaction wouldn't you say?

Given that the British winter is miserable enough already, and Job Centres aren't exactly brimming with comfort and joy even in mid summer, a few cheerful decorations might at least provide a nano second or two of cheer to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Evidently the staff of the South London Job Centre are none too happy either.

One worker said:

"All the shops and offices around us are happily putting up their Christmas decorations but ours are in the cupboard.

Most people have complained about the lack of decorations.

The twinkling lights and tinsel always seemed to lift people's spirits.

Now we are all glumly sitting in the dark in case someone takes offence

Mr Nicol doggegdly stuck to his role as Scrooge, saying:

"It's about considering the feelings of people

who might not to be able to afford Christmas.

Because of their circumstances they might not have decorations at home.

I don't think they should have their noses rubbed in it

by walking into a Job Centre.

I haven't heard that staff are unhappy

but it is impossible to please everyone

Unless the those on benefit shut their eyes whenever they go to the Job Centre, it is highly likely that they will see Christmas decorations elsewhere; in shops, houses, offices etc.

Does Mr Nicol keep his eyes shut when he goes to work?

Does Mr Nicol in fact never leave the Job Centre?

Does it not occur to Mr Nicol that by not decorating the Job Centre, he makes claimants feel more miserable than they already are for walking in there?

Nanny does seem a tad anally retentive doesn't she?

Is it one "l" or two "l's" in "anally" (my spell check doesn't seem to cover that word)?

Maybe a good strong enema will sort Nanny out in time for Christmas.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Nanny Bans Wireless

Nanny Bans WirelessThe truly remarkable thing about Nanny and her followers is that they are happy to make decisions, and act, on "faith based analysis" totally devoid of any scientific study or verifiable evidence.

That's the beauty of knowing that you are right, you never have to check the validity of your decision making. At this stage I could make a snide comment about President Bush's and Prime Minister Blair's Iraq "policy", but that would be a tad off topic.

Anyhoo, it seems that Nanny's followers are getting themselves into a right "two and eight" (rhyming slang for "state") over wireless networks.

It seems that some parents and teachers (remember Nanny comes in many forms; "Nanny is a Nanny does") are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks.


Well these people, despite having no hard scientific evidence, are of the belief that wireless networks pose a danger to their precious childrens' health.

The fear is that the low levels of microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters could be harmful, causing loss of concentration, headaches, fatigue, memory and behavioural problems and possibly cancer in the long term.

Nanny's followers lobbied hard at Prebendal School, in Chichester West Sussex, and have persuaded the headteacher, Tim Cannell, to remove the wireless network in October.

Mr Cannell said:

"We listened to the parents' views

and they were obviously very concerned.

We also did a lot of research.

The authorities say it's safe,

but there have been no long-term studies to prove this

The key part being that there is no evidence to say that it is dangerous, yet they remove it anyway; a decision based purely on ignorance and fear.

Vivienne Baron, who is bringing up Sebastian, her 10 year old grandson, said:

"I did not want Sebastian exposed to a wireless computer network at school.

No real evidence has been produced

to prove that this new technology is safe in the long term.

Until it is, I think we should take a precautionary approach and use cabled systems

How does she know that cable technology is safe?

How does she know that pc's are safe in the long term?

They have only been with us for 20 years or so, damage caused by serious long term exposure to pc's might not be evident for another 20 years or more.

You see folks, what we think of as safe is based more often than not on our prejudices and fears, rather than hard reliable scientific fact.

At Ysgol Pantycelyn, a comprehensive in Carmarthenshire, parents put paid to the wireless network there too.

I would make the following observations; based on my own prejudices, fears and ignorance:
  • Were we to have had this fuss when fire was invented, we would still be eating raw meat and huddled together in animal skins. Fire is dangerous, it has a habit of burning things and killing people. Yet we have used it for thousands of years.

  • I wonder if Sebastian's granny, or the parents of all the other "Sebastians" allow their sprogs to use mobile phones?

    I bet many of them do.

    Aren't these meant to be slightly dubious as well? Don't these emit low level microwave radiation?

    Do I smell the faint whiff of hypocrisy here?

  • Do these same parents of "Sebastians" have pc's, wireless networks, tv's etc at home?

    I bet many do?

    Again, there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.
I wonder what the next panic will be about?

What do you think is dangerous and should be banned?

Remember folks, don't worry about using facts to justify your campaign or arguments; blind prejudice and ignorance is all we need in Nanny's Britain!

Monday, December 18, 2006

Nanny's Media Studies

Nanny's Media StudiesNanny believes that children and teenagers should try to make the best of themselves.

A laudable, and worthy, view.

Unfortunately, Nanny has taken her views to the extreme. Something that she is prone to do all rather too often.

Nanny is now offering teenage criminals media training, at around £40 per hour, in a police campaign to improve the public's perception of young people.

Approximately 25 serial and former offenders, between the ages of 13 to 17, sit with law abiding teenagers on the 100 strong Essex police youth forum. The forum advises officers on how to tackle youth offending.

The forum itself is not very expensive to run, around £5K per annum, and can be seen as a logical means to try to address "youth crime". However, offering media training to criminals does not seem the most logical use of time and money.

Sergeant Ian Carter, programme manager of the Proactive Essex Police Youth Strategy (Pepys)- which is a 3 year £1.3M project - said that the media training would help to tackle "misperceptions" among adults about young people and anti-social behaviour.

Not everyone is impressed with this idea. James Frayne, campaign director of the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group, thinks that it is a load of bollocks.


"This is a perfect example of how modern policing in Britain

has completely lost its way

Charles Clark, Deputy Chief Constable of Essex and the spokesman on youth issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:

"We are not rewarding young people for being good or bad,

we are trying to engage with them

Nanny misses the point, it is not the state's role to "engage" with teenagers it is the role of the parents. That role of course is "hindered" by the fact that Nanny does her best to "rubbish" parents, and to take away their responsibilites for bringing up their own children.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Nanny's Ministry of Fat

Nanny's Ministry of FatAs we approach the season of overindulgence and excess, Nanny is making sure that we will all suffer in the New Year for our over exuberance.

A team of Nanny's chums, a group of public health professionals, have put together a fat report published in the British Medical Journal that recommends, amongst other things, that clothes made in larger sizes should carry warning signs and a tag with an obesity helpline number.

What utter misguided prats!

The report was put together by a group of well intentioned but misguided "space cadets", masquerading as professionals and human beings, who clearly have not visited the planet earth for some years now. The eminent list of authors includes; Laurence Gruer, director of public health science at NHS Health Scotland, Sir George Alberti, Nanny's national director for emergency care, Glasgow University professors Naveed Sattar and Mike Lean (a somewhat ironic name, given the subject matter, don't you think?).

The report goes on to say that sweets and snacks should not be allowed near checkouts, new roads should not be built unless they include cycle lanes and fat food likely to make people fat should be taxed.

The message is simple, quote:

"pull yourself together, eat less and exercise more."

That is perfectly sensible advice. Unfortunately, the learned doctors et al haven't grasped the fundamental human condition that human beings don't like being treated like children.

They claim that fat people need help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food. I would suggest that not all fat people (what is fat by the way?) are addicted to food. Some people eat more than others because they actually do enjoy food, rather than because they are in some way "addicted" to it.

By the way folks, despite the incessant nagging of Nanny, we all need to eat in order to live!

Food is not evil!

The report identifies an action list of things that Nanny should do, these include:
  • All clothes sold with a waist of more than 40in for men and 37in for boys, women's garments with a waist of more than 35in or size 16 or above, and more than 31in for girls will have an obesity helpline number printed on them.

    Farking hell!

    Why don't they just ban clothes over these sizes, and force "fat" people to fit into smaller sizes?

  • Banning sweets and fatty snacks at or near shop tills and at children's eye level.

  • Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat.

  • Establishing a dedicated central agency responsible for all aspects of obesity. Which eminent minister would you put in charge of the Ministry of Fat then?
Their intentions may be good, but their suggestions have ensured that they will be ridiculed (as I have just done). That's the trouble with Nanny, she loves to tell us how to live our lives yet she is totally disconnected from the real world and is incapable of "communing" with it on a sensible level.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Nanny Bans Dragons

Nanny Bans DragonsPity the poor old dragon, a relatively harmless beast (when not provoked) yet all but hunted to extinction except in the nether regions of Wales.

Now it seems that Nanny is about to terminate the remains of this noble species, by banning it altogether.

In November Nanny informed the makers of Welsh Dragon Sausages that they could face legal action, if they did not specify which meat they were using.

Nanny has it in her head that some people are so stupid that if they buy a Welsh Dragon sausage, they might think that they are eating dragon meat. The fact that the ingredients (pork etc) are listed on the packet seems to cut no ice with Nanny.

You see folks, in her eyes, we are as thick as sh*t. For sure that may be the case if we allow her to keep Nannying us in this manner. Once you become dependent on someone/something, you decline both mentally and physically.

Jon Carthew, of the Black Mountains Smokery at Crickhowell, thinks the idea is bollocks.


"I don't think any of our customers actually believe that we use dragon meat.

We use the word dragon because it is synonymous with Wales

and because of the heat with the chilli.

To add the word pork means it loses its marketing appeal.

It is bureaucracy gone mad.

It states quite clearly on the label that pork is among the ingredients

but they want pork to feature in the actual name of the product

Nanny's chums on Powys council said:

"The product Welsh Dragon Sausage was not sufficiently precise

to inform a purchaser of the true nature of the food.

I don't think anyone would imagine that dragon meat was being used

but we would not want vegetarians to buy the sausages

believing they were meat-free

Why not?

Are vegetarians incapable of reading labels listing ingredients?

Does that mean that Richmond Thick Irish Sausages will have to change their name?

Does that mean that when I drink a can of Red Stripe, I should sue the brewer because there is no red stripe in my lager?

What about Brussels sprouts? They are not necessarily sourced from Brussels.

Indeed, what about John Prescott; some would have you believe that he is Deputy Prime Minister, a breach of the trades description act if ever there was one!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Nanny's Segregated Swimming Pool III

Nanny's Segregated Swimming PoolWell lookey here folks, Croydon Council actually sent me their official press response to the media stories about their segregated swimming pool.

Rather a surprise, considering that they never respond to the issues that I raise in Then again, the swimming pool story was featured by several large media organs (can I say organ?), so they were rather forced to say something about it.

Anyhoo, at the end of this article you can read the full text of their press release. The Croydon Council spin doctors have made a good effort to spin the story around, and to try to present it as a storm in a tea cup. Rather a nice touch to use the title "Single Gender Swimming Lessons".

See, it's nothing to do with religion; it's a sex issue!

So that's alright then isn't? it's not.

The trouble is, if you read it carefully, it doesn't quite stack up:
  • Is not the provision of single sex sessions, in a public facility (as opposed to a private members only club), discriminatory?

  • Why do women or men need to swim separately?

  • The title and tone of the media release would have you believe that this was merely a gender issue. However, if this is only a "gender thing", why do the sessions require a greater level of covering-up than would be the case during public opening hours?

  • Why, if this is only a "gender thing", are the "Single Gender Sessions" run in conjunction with Norbury Islamic Academy? (Scroll down to the bottom of this page from the pool's website).

  • Croydon Council would have you believe that the sessions (which have been going on for a year) are outside of the normal opening hours of the pool, and as such no member of the public is being inconvenienced by this. However, it seems that they are being a tad disingenuous when they say that it is outside of normal hours. It may now be outside of normal hours, but the opening hours of the pool have been shortened (see the pool's website updated December 2006).

    Sarah Fellows, a pool regular is quoted as saying:

    "I take my kids all the time

    but I did notice they had introduced the men-only Muslim afternoon

    a while back though they've now changed the times as well

    In fact, if you go to an old version of the pool's website, you can see that the swimming pool was open on Sunday May 2006 up to 17:45, which was later than it is now. However, the male only sessions now start at 16:45. The pool opening times on Sunday have been shortened, thus it is perfectly "correct" for the council to say that the sessions are now outwith the normal hours.

  • Why, if this is a "gender only thing", do people need to adhere to a dress code.
Why does the council need to try to spin the story in this manner? The council, if it really believes in its policy of providing Muslims with separate sessions, should have the balls to say so. At least people would respect them for saying, and doing, what they believe.

This policy, and the spin reaction, helps no one. Contact details for Croydon Council are in the original article on this site.

Full Text of Press Release

Single Gender Swimming sessions at Thornton Heath pool

Croydon Council is monitoring attendances at its weekly, single gender swimming sessions that have been held at Thornton Heath pool throughout the last year. Attendances have averaged 250 each weekend. The sessions have been organised to help ensure that as many local people as possible are able to make use of the facilities. Those attending have also been able to use the fitness suite and sports hall.

Contrary to national press reports over the weekend, sessions are open to all faiths. The sessions for women are held on Saturday afternoon (6.45pm - 8.45pm) and the sessions for men are held on Sunday afternoons (4.45pm - 6.45pm). The dress code during these sessions requires a greater level of covering-up than would be the case during public opening hours.

Provision of the sessions is in line with the council's policy of ensuring leisure facilities in the borough are accessible to the whole community. They are particularly appreciated by members of the Muslim community as well as other local people who feel more comfortable attending single gender sessions.

Croydon is in no way unique in offering such sessions to minority communities outside public opening hours and they have operated with the consent and understanding of all pool users since their introduction in November 2005.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Nanny Bans Candles

Nanny Bans CandlesMankind has been creating, and living with, fire for thousands of years. How foolish of us to mess around with such a dangerous creation. However, we are very fortunate to be living in the age of Nanny.

Nanny has recognised that fire is bad, and that it should be extinguished at all times.

Hence, Nanny has decided that the candles are a dangerous product. In view of the danger represented by candles, Nanny has decreed that the candles used in the Christingle service at Chelmsford Cathedral (first begun in 1747) should be banned.

Her fear?

The children carrying the candles at the Christingle service may set fire to their hair.

The fact that there have never been any incidents of children running screaming from the cathedral with their hair ablaze does not concern Nanny.

She is adamant that the candles must be banned. However, fear not, Nanny has thought up an ideal alternative solution to real fire.

She will replace the candles with fluorescent glow sticks, set in oranges!

How very "Nu Labour"!

Eric Pickles, MP for Brentwood and Ongar, thinks that the idea is bollocks.


"Eventually, they will work out a way to take all the fun out of Christmas.

Health and safety will ban everything.

I would be kind of interested to hear when the last time an orange

and a candle set fire to a child's hair

Richard Spilsbury, one of the organisers, said some parents had raised concerns about their children's hair catching fire.

Parents who deny their children any form of responsibility for their own safety are denying them the right to grow, develop and learn; in effect they are stunting their growth.

Isn't that a form of abuse?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Nanny's Segregated Swimming Pool II

Nanny's Segregated Swimming PoolFurther to the article published on Saturday, about Segregation in Croydon, I emailed both Croydon Council and No 10 asking them for comment.

Both No 10 and Croydon Council have acknowledged receipt of my emails, and have advised me that my enquiry will be passed on to the relevant people.

Now, why may this be significant?

Simple, on the rare occasions that I have emailed either Croydon Council or No 10 before, they have never even acknowledged receipt.

I will advise you if I receive anything of relevance from either organ.

Remember, the article contains links to both No 10 and Croydon Council; feel free to write to them as well.


Monday, December 11, 2006

Plodding Along

Plodding AlongIn case you are wondering why you never see a policeman when you need one, it's because the poor chap/chapess is processing Nanny's paperwork.

The average time taken by police to process a single arrest is now a stonking 10 hours and six minutes.

It seems that officers are now spending more than their standard eight hour shift filling out forms and waiting for lawyers to arrive.

These figures were released mid November, in a written answer to a question to the Metropolitan Police Service by Labour London Assembly member Joanne McCartney, and are based on a survey taken by Scotland Yard in January 2006.

Other studies indicate that up to 33 forms need to be completed to process a single mugging suspect.

Nobody knows the true number of forms in circulation, as each force produces its own paperwork.

That's clever eh?

Nanny's Home Office claims it has made 7,700 forms across the 43 police forces obsolete over the past two years.

This begs the question, as to how many other forms there are still out there?

In the good old days a suspect would simply trip up on the police station steps, and sustain a mild concussion and a broken nose.

No need for paperwork then.

Ah, the good old days!:)

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Nanny's Segregated Swimming Pool

Nanny's Segregated Swimming PoolI wonder sometimes if Nanny really understands what she stands for. On the one hand she pushes her pet subjects of "diversity awareness", "tolerance" and "quotas". However, then she comes along and does something like this which flies in the face of tolerance and equality.

Rather "surprisingly" (look closely folks, you will find I am being a tad "ironic" with my use of that word), my own local borough of Croydon (see for all about Croydon) have put their two left feet firmly in the sh*t on this one.

It seems that Croydon Council have decided that the local Muslim community are not being treated fairly, when it comes to swimming facilities. As such Nanny's chums on the council have decreed that Thornton Heath (a part of Croydon) swimming pool should hold Muslim only sessions on a Sunday afternoon.

As if that were not bad enough, the sessions are for men only.

A triple whammy!

Racist, religioust and sexist, to boot!

Nice going Nanny.

The men only swimming sessions are held for two hours every week in Thornton Heath swimming pool, in fact they have been doing so for a year now.

I should point out that non Muslim men may swim during this time. However, they must follow a dress code akin to bathing in the Victorian age; swimming shorts must hide the navel and extend below the knee.

Daniel Foley, a regular at Thornton Heath, said:

"I turned up and saw a sign saying it was closing early for Muslim afternoon

I couldn't believe it

Croydon Mosque says:

"Muslims are not allowed to show intimate parts of their body.

This is non-negotiable.

Muslims have as much right to go swimming as anyone else

A spokesman for Croydon Council said:

"We are keen to ensure sporting facilities in the borough

are accessible to the whole community.

We appreciate that certain religious groups,

such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation

for activities including sports,

so in response to requests from the local community,

we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre

for the past year,

with a women-only session on Saturday evening and a male-only session on Sunday evening.

These have been successful and well attended.

Croydon is not unique in offering such sessions

to minority communities, many local authorities do the same.

We are not giving preference to any one group

but simply taking practical steps to create access to all

A few facts here:
  • Local authorities collect council taxes from all residents, in order to provide services and facilities for all residents without fear or favour to any one group. The segregation is clearly discriminatory, as it denies many people access to the facility on a Sunday afternoon.

  • Many people in South Africa and America fought and died for the right to sit in the front of the bus, to attend the same schools and to swim in the same pools as everyone else. Croydon's policy is segregation, pure and simple; it is a retrograde step which will alienate the Muslim and non Muslim communities.

  • It has taken centuries for Britain to develop the freedom and civil liberties, that we should be rightly proud of. We will not throw those centuries of toil and sacrifice away simply to placate those who are intolerant and bigoted.
Those who will not accept mixing with their fellow British citizens in a communal facility (funded by the community), and who seek to commandeer that facility, should consider their future in this country.


Division and segregation lead to suspicion and intolerance.

Intolerance and bigotry are not welcome.

This is non-negotiable.

Feel free to write to Croydon Council here Croydon Council

Here is a list of councillors, and their email addresses Councillors

Give them my love:)

I would write to them myself, but they have steadfastly ignored very single communication that I have ever sent to them. So much for local democracy!

Whilst you are about it, why not drop Bliary Poppins a note too? He has been banging on about Muslims needing to integrate more, this segregation is surely a contradiction of his stated policy is it not?

Write to the PM here Bliary Poppins.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Big Brother

Big Brother
You know you are in a police state, when children are having their fingerprints taken without having committed a crime.

Holland Park School recently proudly became one of the UK's first school to fingerprint every pupil, in an effort to monitor their attendance.

It plans to build a database so that children can be identified, and their time of arrival recorded in a "Live Register", by pressing a finger on an electronic pad.

Children who do not press the pad will be recorded as absent.

Here is a page from the school's website explaining the system (it also has a photo of the fingerprint "gizmo"), Holland Park School.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in which Holland Park School is located, denied that the database is being developed as part of Nanny's proposal to build a Children's Index, a national database of under 12s.


"All data is retained in the school

as part of our current database

and will not be shared with any third party

So that's alright then!

Am I the only person who suspects that the privacy controls over this "live register" will be open to abuse and interference by Nanny and others?

The issue with all of these "improved" IT methods of monitoring us etc is that there is no way to trust the current government, or governments in the future, not to misuse the data being collected.

As has always been the case, the less the state knows about the private lives of it honest citizens, the better.

Why not drop the council a note expressing your views on the subject?

Here is their email address

Here is the list of concillors, with their email addresses, Councillors.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Croydon Runs Out of Light Sockets

Croyodn is Crap
Croydon's light socket shortage.

Says it all doesn't it?


Folks, it would greatly help me if wider coverage could be given to the issues about the decay of Croydon (sans Christmas lights), that I keep raising on

Any help there would be greatly appreciated.



Nanny Bans Mince Pies

Nanny Bans Mince PiesIn keeping with the season, you will undoubtedly not be surprised to hear that Nanny has banned mince pies.

Rather, Nanny's health and safety Gestapo have ordered that a risk assessment of mince pies be conducted before she allows a Christmas party to take place.

Nanny's jobsworth lackeys in Craven Council have decreed that the organisers of the Embsay Christmas party (a village in the Yorkshire Dales) must perform a risk assessment of their mince pies, or their party will be "nixed".

Nanny's council have also ordered that posters will have to be displayed at the party, warning villagers that the pies contain nuts and suet pastry.

I know that there is currently a world wide nut phobia, as "little Timmy" once got one stuck in his throat. However, since when was suet a health and safety issue?

As if that were not enough, it seems that there has to be a thermometer thrust (can I say thrust at this time of the day?) into the hot chocolate, in case it is too hot.

How did we manage before the invention of thermometers?

Come to think of it, what if the thermometer contains mercury?

Ooh, it doesn't bear thinking about!

Steve Dobson, who is organising the event, said that he learned of the regulations after writing to Craven District Council to ask if he could use a car park outside Embsay village hall to hold the free party for the community.

Now you see folks, that was his big mistake.

Never, ever, tell Nanny what you are about to do; because she will always come along and try to spoil the party or stop you.


Simple, the sort of people who involve themselves actively with Nanny (such as jobsworth council lackeys etc) could never make anything of their lives in the real world. The only way that they can justify to themselves their existence on this planet, and to give themselves some sense of self worth, is to impose their fears and petty rules on the rest of us.

As I have said before, there is no value or useful purpose to local councils; we would be far better off if they were restructured into oblivion.

Anyhoo, Mr Dobson had planned a fireworks display, mulled wine, Santa's grotto and free mince pies (which would have been made by Nanny's arch enemy the good ladies of the Embsay and Eastby Women's Institute).

You know the sort of thing, nothing unsafe about any of that.

Not until Nanny came along.

Mr Dobson said:

"The council gave me a huge list of things we had to do.

I wrote back, a little bit tongue in cheek,

asking if I really had to risk assess free mince pies

and a brass band, and they said yes.

Everything we do, from putting tinsel up

to providing refreshments has to be assessed.

We have to consider the dangers involved,

that someone might choke on their mince pie or have a nut allergy.

I also understand that Santa may need a Criminal Records Bureau check.

For a small Dales village we found it a bit of a joke really.

It's gone from us hoping to use a bit of council property for a community party,

to needing the same sort of planning

we would have to put in for the Great Yorkshire Show

Mr Dobson rather wisely is now considering moving the party to private land, elsewhere in the village. The trouble is, he has put his head above the parapet. Nanny will try her best to muscle in on that as well, and I bet charge him for the privilege.

Craven Council's director of community services, Jonathan Kerr, said:

"We support these community events

and we try to help local communities organise them

and make sure they are as safe as possible

The astute amongst you will observe that the above statement, in the context of the problem, is meaningless.

Nanny does not even bother to try to pretend to justify her actions any more.

Breathtaking arrogance!

Feel free to tell Craven Council what you think of them via these routes:

-General contact

-Jonathan Kerr's PA

-The thirty councillors of Craven are listed here, Craven Council, together with their email addresses:)

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Dangers of Fruit

The Dangers of FruitNanny's health and safety Gestapo have struck again.

This time the Gestapo have raided the hotel health club that I use. To save the embarrassment, for the moment, of the good people of the hotel in which the club is housed I will not give away their name. They run a good hotel, aside from this aberration, and have always looked after myself, family and friends very well.

Anyhoo, let me tell you what has happened.

The club has been in existence for a good few years now, and aside from the five years that I lived in Sweden I have been a member since around 1994. During this time there has always been a bowl of fresh fruit, in the reception area of the club, for consumption/scoffing by the members and hotel guests.

Can you guess what happened?

Yes, that's right, the health and safety Gestapo have decreed that the fruit presents a health and safety risk. Therefore it has been banned.

As far as I am aware, there have yet to be any fatalities in the club arising from the consumption of a contaminated piece of fruit. Maybe they are worried about a spot of polonium getting mixed up with it...who knows?

I would suggest that, at a pinch, apples and pears could be contaminated by dirty hands. However, bananas and oranges are safe; as no matter how dirty the skin, or the hands that touch the skin, no one will be eating the skin on these.

I would also ask how is it that supermarkets, farmers' markets and the French have managed to sell fruit (that is poked and prodded by dirty little hands) for countless years without a mass outbreak of corpses littering the street?

Suffice to say, I am not particularly hopeful about the prospects of the traditional mince pies and wine being laid out on the reception desk this Christmas (as has been the case each Christmas since I have been a member).

All very silly, and very unnecessary. I have sent the hotel a copy of this, and will let you know if they rethink this daft policy.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Thought Crimes

Thought Crimes
Can one commit a crime, merely by thinking about it?

The Catholic Church would have us believe that we will be condemned to ever lasting hell for "thought crimes", even though we never act on our thought and carry out our "criminal/immoral impulse" in reality.

However, Nanny intends to go one stage further than Holy Mother Church; she intends to lock people up in this life for their thought crimes, or rather for their perceived thought crimes.

I think it fair to say that we in Britain produce more than our fair share of people with, how shall I put it?, unusual and challenging personalities. In short, we are a nation of individualistic, strong willed eccentrics.

Now, Nanny doesn't like this; because such people are very difficult to control and to break. Hence the fact that we have always taken a stand against foreign aggression, even when the odds have been heavily stacked against us.

Nanny has decided to try to use the medical profession to identify people who, because of their "unusual personalities", may commit a crime in the future (even though they have yet to commit a crime). Once these people have been identified, Nanny would of course lock them up for our own, and their, "protection" for an indefinite period of time.

Nice eh?

Sounds all a bit too similar to other past dictatorships doesn't it?

The question is, what constitutes an "odd personality"?

Could, for example, the elderly lady who keeps 20 cats be considered to be odd?


What if she was also leading a campaign against the council tax?

Maybe she needs to be locked up, because she is a threat?

Get my point?

Were the doctors to obey Nanny, and report patients with "unusual" personalities, it would be a breach of their ethics.

The doctors face a dilemma they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Quite how a doctor can predict from someone's unusual behaviour that he or she is a future criminal is beyond me.

However, instead of blaming the police and the Home Secretary Nanny will in future be able to blame the doctors for the rise in the crime rate.

It's a real winner!

Monday, December 04, 2006

Nanny's Inactive Banana

Nanny's Inactive BananaNanny is a strict mistress, when it comes to the discipline of her underlings. She believes that they should devote 100% of their mental energies to their work, without any form of distraction.

Therefore Nanny's chums in HM Revenue & Customs management, in North Wales, have introduced a regime that includes a ban on family snaps on the workstations of their processing staff. The ban also extends to food veto, with workers restricted to one cup, a pen and a pencil.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said:

"This brave new world is not only de-skilling

hard-working staff but dehumanising them.

It's ridiculous that this group of

'plan to improve service' workers

is being banned from having things

such as a photo of a loved one on their desk

Mr Serwotka has hit the nail on the head, Nanny believes that the best form of control can be achieved via dehumanisation.

A memo, sent to Nanny's staff in Wrexham and Rhyl, lists essentials and those items that are forbidden for workstations:

"Essential: a computer, document holder, calculator, pens, desk and chair.

Non-essential: personal papers, memorabilia, packed lunches, personal shopping, handbags or money

One hapless employee had a banana on his desk, and was asked whether it was active or inactive. Once the banana was identified as being inactive, the worker was told to move it or eat it.

What utter bollocks!

I wonder which consultancy company is growing fat on the profits made from selling this load of old tosh to Nanny?

Radiation Hazard At Olympics Site

Radiation Hazard At Olympic SiteNanny didn't tell us about this when she conned us, and the IOC, into staging the Games in London.

Nanny, much like another dictator from 1936, is getting a real ego boost out of these unwanted Games.

The trouble is, it will be us who end up paying for them!

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is Father

Nanny is Mother, Nanny is FatherNanny has an almost messianic belief that she would make a better parent to people's children, rather than the parents themselves.

As such it should come as no surprise to learn that Nanny's special little friend, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes, wants to force parents to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes.

For farks sake!

In Nanny's view, those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must therefore "correct" their inadequate parenting.

Now, I fully agree that interacting with children by reading stories etc is a good thing. However, how precisely will the state determine if a parent is interacting enough?

Cameras in people's homes maybe?

Encouraging children to nark on their own parents, as they did in Nazi Germany and in Orwell's "1984"?

Nanny Hughes said in November that the state would train a new "parenting workforce" (who the fark thinks these phrases up?). This "parenting workforce" would ensure that parents who fail to do their duty with nursery rhymes are found and "supported".

How will Nanny "find" these non singing parents?

What constitutes "support"?

Bliary Poppins, the man who invaded Iraq and caused countless deaths of women and children, says that he believes strongly in family values. He is now backing a variation on the ASBO, the FASBO.

A FASBO is a pre-emptive ASBO, designed to "correct" (whenever the state uses the word "correct" I immediately wretch) the lives of children who are likely to fail even before they are born.

How can you possibly identify a failure before they are born?

In Victorian times there were those who believed that criminal behaviour could be identified, by reading the bumps of people's heads. It seems that we have a new breed of "bump readers".

Parenting orders are now likely to be directed against parents whose children have committed no criminal offence.

Nanny Hughes gave details of the new Nursery Rhyme directive, when she outlined details of Bliary's "national parenting academy" in November. This is the body that will train teachers, psychologists and social workers to intervene in the lives of families and become the "parenting workforce".


"Some parents already know that reading

and singing nursery rhymes with their young children

will get them off to a flying start

often because this is how they themselves were brought up.

For other parents without this inheritance

these simple techniques are a mystery

and are likely to remain so

unless we act and draw them to their attention

Nanny Hughes condemned the way governments before 1997 (ie she took a cheap swipe at the Tories) thought they had no role in the upbringing of children, which it "regarded as the entirely private arrangements families make."

The reason that governments pre 1997 thought that it was a private matter, is because it is!

Herein we see the fundamental problem with Labour, they believe that they know better than the individual as to what is best for the individual.

When the state thinks that it knows better than the people who elect it, then we really are in trouble.

Nanny Hughes then said that without Labour's policies:

"We would be on the road to ruin..."


The arrogance of the woman!

Pass me the sick bag someone.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Nanny's Cold Turkey

Nanny's Cold Turkey

Nanny really does care about her "charges" and their human rights. In fact she cares about them so much, that even criminal drug addicts are set to receive a special payment to compensate them for the fact that they can't access the drugs of their choice when in jail.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

It seems that around 200 drug-addicted convicts will receive a compensation payout of almost £700K, after Nanny gave in to claims that stopping their use of drugs breached their human rights.

It seems that if the claims brought by the inmate junkies had reached court, the inmates could have been granted even more compensation.

The 198 prisoners were receiving treatment to help them kick hard drug addictions.

They had been receiving drugs such as methadone, paid for by Nanny (oops, I mean paid for by us). However, the policy was changed and the most effective treatment was deemed to be a slice of "cold turkey" - as it were.

How appropriate at this time of year!.

The junkies, using legal aid, argued that this was unlawful under Nanny's Human Rights Act and should count as "torture" or "degrading treatment".

Given that it was not Nanny who made them take drugs in the first place, I find that argument to be somewhat tenuous.

They went on to argue that the prison system had no right to make them stop, or to put them through detox programmes without their consent.

The average payment will be around £3.5K each.

Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust said:

"This case loses sight of the fact that taking drugs is illegal,

and these prisoners took drugs of their own accord

and broke the law to fund their habits.

The Human Rights Convention was set up

after the war in response to Nazi atrocities.

It is disgraceful that 60 years later

the Human Rights Act is benefiting offenders bringing such frivolous claims

There are two ironies in this story:
  • Prisons are awash with illicit narcotics anyway, so these guys will readily have access to the drugs of their choice.

  • Honest, non drug addicted people, are being denied life saving drugs by Nanny's NHS in order to save money.
Funny old world, isn't it?