Egged on by the nanny state

Picture the scene in my kitchen yesterday evening. There's a whisk, a mixing bowl, some sea salt and black pepper, a packet of butter, some double cream, and eggshell everywhere.

And when I say everywhere, I mean everywhere. The work surfaces, the hob, the microwave and the sink all bore traces of this unseemly carnage.

I don't mean to over-egg it, but this could have been the T-eggs-as Chainsaw Massacre.

Now, if we lived in a true nanny state, none of this would ever have happened. I would have heeded the Government's recent calls for caution when eating more than one egg and would simply not have entertained the idea of a four-egg omelette du jour.

If only the advert had said "Enjoy Eggs Responsibly" at the end of it. I mean, how was I to know? You see, what ordinary, law-abiding people don't understand is that we actually NEED a nanny state.

Indeed, we should embrace it with a pre-determined hug which has passed all the possible health and safety checks and can, in no way, cause any alarm, distress or unforeseen reaction.

Without being told the obvious and being protected from the highly-implausible-but-never-the-less-quantified, this nation is a mess. It's out of control.

So while it is all very sweet to show a re-run of the timeless Tony Hancock advert in which he encourages us to 'Go to work on an egg', airing it 50 years on is simply irresponsible.

Yes, going to work on an egg alone is truly appalling in this age of the balanced diet, say the aggressively named Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC).

So, if the British Egg Information Service is going to show this slice of nostalgia, it needs the caviat which says: ". . . don't forget to eat your egg with fruit juice or toast." In my mind that just doesn't go far enough.

If we are trying to protect this nation from meltdown it should also add that eggs are not an appropriate form of transport and going to work on one could really cause a great deal of disruption.

BACC spokesman Kristoffer Hammer, who should really change his name on the basis that it "sounds" dangerous, could not understand why everyone was getting their knickers in a twist (especially that knicker-twisting was to be avoided given the possibility of painful consequences in the nether regions).

"We are not questioning the effect it would have on your health," Kristoffer Hammer told GMTV. "Our role is to ensure that advertising that goes on television is in compliance with the (Communications) Act.

It's quite clear from the Act that they should be presented as part of a balanced diet." You tell 'em, Kristoffer. Of course, the impact of all this on Shropshire's hefty concentration of chicken and egg farmers (don't ask me which one came first) is yet to be seen.

Those of you, like me, who listen intently to what the state has to say before we act will no doubt limit our egg production accordingly while the ren-egg-ades in our midst will buy more just to make a stand.

But then, if you do make that stand, you've got enough to worry about, like playing conkers without safety goggles and handing out napkins to old people's homes despite the blatant choking hazard.

By the way, I forgot to mention that you are not allowed to read this column without having had an eye test in the last six months. You must also be sitting comfortably and not have a mug of tea perched on any unstable surface within a radius of three feet in case of a hot spillage.

And if you're reading this on the internet you need to make sure you have a screen break every 1.4 minutes and you're sitting more than 112cms from your hard drive to counter the onset of infertility.