Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Nanny's Special Childcatchers - The Kent Police

Nanny's Special ChildcatchersAs I often observe on this site, Nanny (aided and abetted by a very compliant and semi hysterical media) have managed to convince a vast swathe of the population that all children in Britain are under direct threat from paedophiles, attackers, and child traffickers etc.

Such is the level of hysteria that now prevails even members of the police force, who should know better, have become infected by it.

Julie Maynard, of Ware Hertfordshire, who was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel found this to her cost in February.

A detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, who is 12.

The family were stopped by the plain clothes officer from the Channel Tunnel Policing Unit on 20 February.

Ms Maynard, who happens to be a legal advocate (how unfortunate for Nanny!), said that the officer, who failed to identify who she was, asked for the family's passports then asked "who's the boy?".

Joshua is mixed race, and Nanny immediately (because of course Nanny only sees people by their skin colour) assumed that Joshua was being trafficked.

The officer said:

"I believe you are child trafficking."

Ms Maynard then asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same question if her son was white, the officer replied:

"Are you accusing me of being a racist?"

You can see where this is going can't you?

Yes, that's right, for reasons that only Nanny can come up with the family were then detained under the Terrorism Act and surrounded by "at least 10 police officers" who ordered them to get out of their car.

Now please tell me why, if Nanny really believed that this was child trafficking, was the Terrorism Act used?

Could it be that Nanny knew that she had no grounds for an accusation of trafficking, and therefore used the Terrorism Act as a catch all to impose her jackboot on an innocent citizen?

This is where we have got to. The promises made by our "leaders" that the act will only be used for terrorists have been exposed as lies.

The act is being used as a catch all device to allow Nanny and her followers to conduct personal vendettas.

Once people lose respect for the law, the law becomes unworkable and the criminal justice system will collapse.

Ms Maynard was separated from her husband and son, who is autistic and has cerebral palsy, and taken to a detention room for questioning, leaving Joshua distressed.

Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her:

"It's obvious he [Joshua] has nothing to do with you".

Again, why the Terrorism Act?

Officers told the family they had powers to hold them for up to nine hours under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, but they were released after more than two hours.

Julie Maynard said:

"More and more people are being stopped under the Terrorism Act - there's absolutely nothing in the act to stop individual officers abusing their powers.

They have a difficult job to do in a difficult climate but their approach needs to be reasonable and not presumptive that every person is somehow guilty of a possible terrorism or criminal offence
."

Kent Police have paid a "substantial sum" of money to the welfare fund at Joshua's school, reimbursed the family's ferry fare and offered Joshua a visit to the Kent police marine launch.

Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote:

"Your complaint and my subsequent enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked the professionalism I expect.

I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was a very isolated incident
."

The officer has been transferred.

All well and good. However, how many other incidents like this are happening across the country where the Terrorism Act is used?

What would have happened if Ms Maynard had not had legal experience?

This sucks, big time!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

16 comments:

  1. john rimmer10:22 AM

    Did something funny happen to the site yesterday, because when I tried to access it in the afternoon I got an alarming "this is a phishing site" on my Norton security. All OK later in the day, and now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't know John...sorry?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken:

    You are right....The terrorist act is being used as a catch all law to detain anyone Nanny wants to....Nanny used to arrest suspects for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace but, it now seems the new terrorism laws are being used instead.

    It beggars belief that, even if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the lawyer was child trafiking, she would have considered it to be a terrorist act, although I suppose if shouting rubbish at a Labour Party conference is terrorism then I suppose having a child without the right colour skin may well be. The world has gone mad.

    What's the betting that a minister announces a review to see if such a situation could be avoided by chipping kids at birth in the same way we do pets?...... I am sure some plank will come on here and say;
    "Well if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

    Lastly, I am really pleased that the Police force saw fit to give away a substantial sum of MY money to the welfare organisation, (despite being a good cause) instead of spending it on policing as they are supposed to. ....None of these public bodies have money of their own, they only have what they can take off us in taxation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reminds me of the fact that the only time the new extradition treaty between America and UK, which was brought about using the excuse of "terrorism" after the hoax attack of 911, was for the extradition of three Nat Westminster bankers who were allegedly involved here in the UK in the Enron scandle. What they had to do with "terrorism" beggars belief.

    (And if you still believe that 19 Arab hijackers outwitted the most advanced military in the world for over 1 1/2 hours.... then Google "911 false flag" or visit sites such as http://www.cornwall911truth.info , http://stj911.org or http://www.ae911truth.org - do some research and make your own mind up)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord of Atlantis2:27 PM

    In situations such as this, the money, fine or whatever should not come from the taxpayer, but have to be paid by the police officer involved. Similarly, when
    'public' service providers or
    'public' bodies are fined for poor service or whatever, the fine should be paid by them, not the taxpayer, and they should be forbidden from recovering the money by means of a price hike. I wonder if the 'detective constable' would have bravely adopted the same approach with a well-built skinhead, covered in tattoos? Like hell he would!

    Our policemen and women used to be the envy of the world but, now, too many of them act like the gestapo, or the SS, or the KGB, or the Stazi. Yet, our government has the nerve to lecture other countries about 'freedom' and 'democracy'! No wonder that Mugabe sticks two fingers up to the West! Was it in the interests of 'freedom' and 'democracy' that we were denied a vote on the European treaty, and that the Irish (who rejected it at the ballot box) are now being 'leant on' to change their minds?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:51 PM

    Spiv,

    Stick to flogging dodgy nylons and bent ration books. As anyone knows, it was Elvis who flew the first plane into the twin towers, aided and abetted by Lee Harvey Oswald and Adolph Hitler, who never really died in Berlin but has been in the pay of Mossad for the past 60 years.

    This site is to debate and hopefully counter the nanny state, not to spout gibberish and lunatic conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous4:29 PM

    A then there is this story about a grandmother and her 5 years old grandson being investigated by police after a walk in the woods.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038089/I-took-little-grandson-play-woods-So-earth-did-end-frogmarched-home-police.html

    In fact it looks like the Mail has a few similar stories today.

    See. Just goes to show that there ARE police out and about in the country.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:37 PM

    Hmm.

    Another story from Kent.

    Well I never.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038285/Grandmother-arrested-race-charges-telling-rowdy-Asian-students-home.html


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon, I've never flogged any "dodgy nylons and bent ration books" in my life. Indeed, I'm in the same profession as Ken. And as for the relevance of my comments, ask yourself just what accelerated most of these "anti-terrorism" laws in the first place.

    And if ever you do try to seriously start looking at world events and thinking for yourself (assuming that you are not too busy 'celebrity watching' or such activity which seems to dominate the lives of most people) just ask yourself why so many pilots, architects, engineers, physicists, academics and thousands upon thousands of ordinary people around the world are also questioning the 'official 911 conspiracy theory'.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:48 PM

    Dear Spiv,

    Don't get your pencil moustache in a quiver. Do try and gain a sense of humour, dear boy it will aid you greatly as you delve into the great mysteries that surround you.

    Must dash, Big Brother is on the telly there is a fascinating bloke on today who knows a bloke who knows David Beckham and this bloke reckons that 9/11 did not not happen. That's right it was faked, in fact the twin towers are still there. He also knows that the moon landing did not take place and that Elvis is still rocking in Panama.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon, imagine my disappointment at you not asking me who these many pilots, engineers, architects, military men, academics, physicists et al are. See here http://www.patriotsquestion911.com and here http://ae911truth.org and here http://www.truthaction.org/USMC.html and here http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org for starters.

    And when you are fed up with your purile C4 "Big Brother" insult to your intelligence, then you may like to switch off your television (and the mainstream news) and start a journey of discovery into the realities of your world.

    And I can tell you it wasn't Elvis wot dunnit!!

    And next time you have these so called "anti-terror" laws used against you for just going about your daily business, you may like to reflect on things accordingly. You say you want to "counter the nanny state". Well then, you couldn't do better than start to ask some very deep questions indeed, and wonder about the lies told us by Blair, Bush and their fellow war criminal cronies to justify two illegal wars, the erosions of our freedoms, the encroachment of the facist database police state, and, of course, the ever present 'Nanny' state.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dixon of dock green7:59 PM

    The officer was just transferred? She should have been sacked.

    Insensitive? She was acting like a member of the bloody Gestapo.

    As Ken says the hysteria seems to have infected the police. They have come to believe that routine questioning to determine whether a crime may have been committed requires rudeness, a raised voice, vast numbers of attendant police officers and histrionic displays of high moral outrage. No doubt if the lady concerned had been at home they would have begun their enquiry by smashing her door down.

    I blame the wimmin. And the instructors at the training schools. And especially the senior officers, like the prat from Tyneside today urging the public to intervene more when they witness youngsters behaving badly. What, chum, so that your police officers can then arrest the intervener(s) as suspected paedophiles?

    Gitowdofit!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous8:13 PM

    Ken said: “Officers told the family they had powers to hold them for up to nine hours …

    What is it about immigration people in this country?

    I remember one time arriving at Heathrow. A young woman in the queue in front had stopped beside a large sign while she searched for her mobile phone, and then started chatting to her mum about how wonderful her holiday had been.

    She didn’t notice that the sign said “Switch Mobile Phones Off”.

    I found it to be just another one of those occasions when you think to yourself “There’s nowt funnier than folk” or “Oh that’s life”.

    However, the woman scrutinising the passports (I assumed she worked for BAA) felt differently. She started hurling insults at the young woman, asking if she was blind and such like.

    The fact is that if you want to retain your sanity in this country or survive a shopping session at Tesco while still remaining fully intact and compos mentis, it’s essential to have perfected the art of “Oh that’s life”.

    As for conspiracy theories - I’m waiting for the arrival of the first aliens who can create a crop circle without the need for a set of tractor tracks running through the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent article, Ken.
    To be fair, you don't emphasise the fact that Kent police deny Ms Maynards version of events.
    I know who I believe.

    Good batting, Spiv, in the face of the outrageous slings and arrows of those who would like to impose the Big Nanny State on all of us.

    You are quite right in pointing out the connections between the goings on in Kent and in New York.

    You may like this link.

    http://www.sentinelave.com/ave.html

    Another part of the jigsaw.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ken - you say: "The officer has been transferred. All well and good."

    It is not all well and good. A person who can tell a mother that it is "obvious" that her son is nothing to do with her, and enquire "are you accusing me of being a racist? [oh horror!]" is obviously utterly unfit to be a police officer. She should not merely have been sacked - she should never have been employed in the first place. And her "training" was obviously abysmal, so her trainers should be sacked too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. number 63:45 PM

    Anticant,

    I would have said "yes, I am calling you a racist and a childophobe/possible peadophile abuser of my son's and my own human rights etc" and then used all of Nanny's lovely 'uman rights and anti-racist laws against her. I would also have engaged a bleeding heart lawyer to screw them for every penny I could get, and make sure that the press were aware of every step of the trial.

    The laws are there, use them to make the cretins who seek to enforce them squirm. Live by the Nanny state, die by the Nanny state.

    ReplyDelete