Skip to main content

When you read this, remember that 100 Pounds equals $200

Nanny Knows Best makes me laugh as often as it outrages me with its chronicle of Statist intrusion into everyday life in Great Britain, and I really do have to resist the urge to link to virtually every story posted there.

But three days ago in my deed-restricted community one of our neighbors ran out into the street screaming at my wife that she was not allowed to put out a sign supporting the upcoming Red Clay referendum. [I think this was the same one who finked on me for leaving an empty trash can out in front of my garage door one night.]

So maybe you'll understand why this one resonates with me.

Nanny has found another nice way to screw us for money, that's nice!

Nanny has instructed local councils to fine householders for putting out a single bag of rubbish at the wrong time.

Nanny has produced an "enforcement manual" (pass the sick bag someone), which will be distributed to local councils. The manual instructs local councils to implement a "zero tolerance" policy on waste collection.

On-the-spot penalties of around £100 must be levied on those who leave their rubbish out early, or fail to close the lid of their wheelie bin properly.

Oh yes, this is going to go down so well!

So far, Nanny has fined 44,000 people £100 for "crimes" such as leaving their rubbish out on the wrong day or putting out black bags next to their wheelie bins.


The thoughtful State has even provided a manual of proper conduct for bin inspectors:

The document tells bin enforcers to be alert for the signs a person is getting angry.

According to the Environment Department, these include "changes in breathing patterns, the throbbing vein in the temple, the opening and closing of their fist, increased tension in the face or body".

The document advises staff:

"Let them know that this behaviour is not acceptable, e.g. 'I am not prepared to carry on this interview whilst you are calling me a w***er and a jobsworth. Are you prepared to stop doing this/I am requesting that you stop this behaviour'."

It adds:

"You will probably meet plenty of barrack room lawyers when you are going about your duties.

As a matter of course, you will technically be interfering with an individual's freedom, but this is not the same as infringing their human rights.

After a confrontation, staff are told that it is "important to offload what has happened".

"You can do this by screaming and shouting (in a safe place)."


I tend to do a lot of screaming and shouting these days. But there also seem to be a lot fewer safe places.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, you need not go to Great Britain to find "Nanny" :

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880212004

The money quote :

"Changing behaviors is the main thing we do, actually,” Mayor James Baker said. “It’s not fun, or popular, but that’s what we do.”

The worst pigs in Wilmington aren't the ones leaving trash around.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...