Been a busy morning for the Nanny Staters. If the Coalition wants decent publicity and a soft ride on the BBC, it needs to come up with views that are all about IMPOSING the will of the State on people. So Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer, pops up on Today @ 8.50 to explains the serious health problems caused by second hand smoke. She made some tenuous connections between children wheezing as a direct consequence of second hand smoke and was allowed to get away with them, unchallenged. In fact she was being encouraged by Humphrys to suggest that we will only really change behaviour if there is legislation so perhaps we need a law to stop us smoking on their own property. To be clear; I have never smoked and hate the smell of it BUT I fail to see why the State, encouraged by the State broadcaster, seeks to remove choice from people in terms of what they do in their homes, in their cars.


BBC leading the charge this morning about the evils of drinking. On both Radio and TV, it is running with the idea that up to one in three kids are horrified at the drinking they see going on in the home.The BBC itself has commissioned the study which suggests that a third of children said they feel scared when adults drink, a fifth say they have witnessed angry and aggressive behaviour, and the majority had seen their parents drunk. On TV, David Yelland was on to talk (again) about his recovery from alcoholism. The BBC has embraced the neo-Puritanism of the last Labour administration and lobbies to make us all feel bad about any form of enjoyment.


The BBC never misses an opportunity to evangelise on behalf of the Nanny State. And so it is that following the continued horrendous revelations concerning Haringey social services, the utterly ineffective Lord Laming is wheeled on to inform us that the logical conclusion to this sordid tale is ….that the State needs to become even more active in the role of parenting. No counter view required. None offered. Well, allow me to provide one. The guy that raped the two year old child needs castrated and put away for life, end of. The useless social workers need sacked. The politicians that presided over this should resign, Parents need to be held reponsible for their kids. How about some REAL debate?

The Global Sexism Scam

Aunty Big brother is concerned that you should be concerned about global sexual equality in this time of World Economic Crisis which the dear leader Brown is not responsible for and grappling with . The fact that the concept would barely be understood by half the world is unimportant (they haven’t even noticed the WEC poor dears!). You and your emotional condition are the targets. Let’s only talk “global female unemployment”. Yes, that would be meaningful. To make the report especially meaningful, let’s leave this little detail to the end:

“The ILO is predicting a global rise in unemployment this year of up to 51 million people – 22 million, it believes, will be women.”

You may think this undercuts the report- oh no, you’d be wrong. It’s all about “raising awareness”, after all.


Quite honestly ONLY the BBC would give prime time space to a loon who suggests that we need MORE Nanny State intervention! In this instance, Dr Alan Maryon-Davis suggests a ban on smoking in cars carrying children and a ban on massive price-cuts on alcohol would not be nannying but just responsible government. How about we are given the CHOICE as to what we buy and what we do? How about we are given a CHOICE as to whether we pay so much as one penny for for the BBC?

Weight coverage not broad enough…

This concerns one of the most mind-numbing BBC coverage areas of recent times: the fat issue. The BBC just loves an opportunity to wax on about swollen numbers of fatties. The mass of stories are contradictory, tendentious, and depressing. There are stories like this from the deterministic point of view- and stories like this from the social conditioning point of view. All the time the BBC infuriatingly racking their brains about how to rid themselves of the offending fatties, without ever considering that eating and lifestyle need balancing.

And then a completely different sort of story comes along. A heartwarming story (heart-burning story?) of an eater that would have made my Grandmother proud who also happens to be a world-beating athlete. What’s that I hear from the BBC? A chirping of crickets? A blanket of absent coverage?


Did you read this article from the BBC informing us that due to the serial recklessness of the sinister “alcohol industry” Government in the loathsome form of SuperNan Dawn Primarolo, may have to consider banning happy hour, banning larger wine glass sizes etc to help save the NHS?? Note how the article is contrived to establish the central proposition that individuals are NOT responsible for their own actions and need our benevolent government to step into the breach and “help” them. The advance of the neo-Puritans in the form of Labour seeking to ban as many of our choices as possible is given an easy ride by the servile BBC. Time for bed now, lights out…lie back and think of the Great Leader as he selflessly considers what to ban next….


. I was reading the latest instance of Nanny Statism, faithfully reported by the State Broadcaster. This wheeze involves paying smokers in the poorest areas of Dundee £150 worth of groceries from the NHS if they are able to give up cigarettes. Let’s leave aside the obvious stupidity of this which I am sure the more ingenuous Dundee smokers will quickly exploit. The BBC plainly states “There are 36,000 smokers in Dundee, about half of whom live in poverty. “ Wrong. There are not. The BBC is referring to the Government and NGO definition of relative poverty – a left wing invention in recent years to enable them to shakedown more of our taxes for their favoured client groups. In repeatedly making this claim the State Broadcaster advances a leftist agenda proving once again that it cannot be trusted to give us just facts rather than spewing out propaganda.


. I don’t smoke – never have! But I defend the right of other people to smoke if that is a risk they wish to take – it’s called freedom of choice and it is a concept that sits uneasily with the BBC left wing intelligentsia . Take it’s enthusiastic reporting this morning of the proposals that government may ban vending machines, packets of ten and all branded logos from the front of packets of cigarettes. Not only that but government may also demand that retailers place cigarettes below the counter or in a locked cabinet. I listened to an interview on Today this morning with a spokesman for Independent retailers who made the fatal error of saying that he thought this “consultation” reeked of the Nanny State. You can imagine the chill from the BBC interviewer that greeted this observation. All his points concerning the impracticability of these draconian proposals were met with studied indifference – it is clear that the BBC fully supports the idea of more bans from the government. Why are there no interviews with Tobacco companies and those who gain employment from such enterprises? Why is there this all prevailing sense of “if it produces smoke, just ban it”? (Unless it’s illegal drugs producing the smoke of course, in which case it IS personal choice in Beebworld) To repeat, I do not advocate that anyone smokes but I do believe in the concept of personal choice. Given the BBC’s demand that we all pay it our money, I suppose choice is a dirty word for the BBC, maybe even dirtier than cigarettes?

The nonsense that passes for news

One can’t push back against it all, but Dizzy has a great go at a story which the Independent-echoing BBC report about food waste. It’s probably supposed to make the supposed food crisis more, you know, “interactive”. An absurdly long BBC report misses most of the points which Dizzy raises. The money quote as far as I am concerned occurs almost at the bottom: “WRAP receives government funding from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” (WRAP is the niftily named organisation which carried out the food waste study. Nb- interesting how Gvt funding is pointedly devolved). Good of them to tell those readers who actually consider the matter newsworthy enough to read to the bottom.

Picture the little group hug that all this involves: the Labour Gvt, WRAP, the Indy, and the BBC. On second thoughts don’t- wouldn’t want you to waste your dinner.


I fully accept that the Royal College of Physicians has every right to lobby for the view that the pub industry is acting irresponsibly by offering customers larger glasses for wine than they (the RCP) would like. Some 14% of licensed premises say they now offer only 250ml sized wine glasses – equivalent to a third of a bottle. Of course the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers is just as entitled to hit back claiming that it was in the business of offering customers choice. A balanced exchange of views, until that is, BBC correspondent Keith Doyle puts his pennysworth in by suggesting that there was “even anecdotal evidence that some pub staff were under pressure to maximise profits by encouraging customers to opt for larger drinks.” The evils of capitalism, eh? exposed by the BBC. Keith’s “anecdotal” contribution means nothing and it injects a bias we do not require.


I don’t smoke, never have. But then again, that’s my choice. Others exercise the same choice and do decide to smoke and I support their right to do so. I am sure it must be an unhealthy option for them but I do not wish to impose my choice on anyone else! But the rabid intolerance of the health fascists on the left has meant that smokers are portrayed as worse than rapists, lower than paedophiles. Take this BBC report – read it all the way through and you will surely conclude that it is entirely one dimensional and carries one message; if you smoke in your home, or in your car, and there are children present, then you are endangering their lives as well as your own. Parents who smoke are described as “liars” and a persons’ home is described as akin “to a workplace” which means they should go out of their own homes to smoke. The claim that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illness is repeated as if it were an indisputable fact. It’s nothing of the sort. But this is a puff of anti-smoking propaganda dressed up as if it were high science. There are issues here concerning freedom and liberty but they are neatly stubbed out by the BBC in this story. We should have a right to behave as we see fit (so long as it is legal!) in our homes regardless of how this offends Nanny State and it’s broadcasting arm. There is a serious danger that the State will extend control over what we do in OUR own private property through the calculated use of this type of story. That’s the real danger for me in this story – it’s that our liberties could be reduced to ash all in the name of making us healthier. What further behavioural modification might Labour and the BBC have in mind for us? The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes but we all know that it is intent to further regulate our activities, further limit our choices, and this is assisted by the propagandising of State Broadcaster masquerading as news.

The war on motorists.

I was watching the main BBC1 morning news programme and up came an item about motorists who still hold their mobile phones whilst driving. Obviously this is not a good idea since it can lead to serious accidents. To discuss the topic the BBC had invited in two guest; a lady whose daughter had been tragically killed by a motorist who had been driving recklessly and a journalist from the Motoring press. The conversation followed the line that to even have a mobile phone switched on in the car was dangerous (even hands-free!, that the use of a SatNav was dangerous, and that taking your hands of the wheel whilst driving was verging on the reckless, if not criminal. There was a general consenus around these points with both BBC presenters cooing along with the awful dangers that us drivers present. Where was the voice of someone saying that our cars are private property and what we do in them is our business so long as it is not illegal? Where was the voice to challenge the intrusion of the State into how we drive our cars? You see I believe that the BBC is a primary advocate for the Nanny State and that even on relatively minor issues like this it is careful to put out the view that we need to be legislated for – since you just can’t trust the British public.