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.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

21st Century Witchburning

21st Century Witchburning
Nanny's obsession and with paedophiles and her hysterical campaign to heighten parents' feelings of fear for the safety of their children, aided and abetted by a weak and intellectually/morally bankrupt media, are having their desired results on people's behaviour.

Witness this story about a mini riot on a tram in the Croydon area, after a man was spotted allegedly taking a photo inside the tram on his mobile of two children.

The mini riot broke out at Waddon Marsh tram stop when Dimitri Petrov, in his early 20s, was called a paedophile after taking a photo. He was chased on to the track, and was was punched by Terrence Crawford, 18, who broke his jaw.

Crawford pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm at Croydon Crown Court last Friday.

John Gardner, prosecuting, said that Mr Petrov was on a tram travelling from Croydon when it happened.

He said:

"There were a couple of children on board and some passengers seemed to think he had taken a picture of one of them on his mobile.

He later admitted he had taken a picture of a child.

The word 'paedophile' was bandied about
."

A number of youths started to hit him as he was chased off the tram at Waddon Marsh.

Mr Gardener said:

"He found himself still being confronted and he took some form of sanctuary on the rails.

He stood in front of the tram and he started throwing stones at those pursuing him.

Crawford walked towards him and, in a haymaker movement, he punched Mr Petrov in the face.

Mr Petrov fell to the ground, and Crawford also fell over
."

An off-duty police officer who had been on the tram was later able to identify Crawford and he was arrested in March this year.

Errmmm...couldn't he kind tried to intervene earlier to calm things down a bit???

Police had decided there should be no proceedings against Mr Petrov. Crawford will also have to pay £500 compensation to his victim.

Nanny, by whipping the general public up into a state of fear and anxiety, exercises her control over us by making people turn on each other. This is exactly the same way that the church and state used people's fear of witchcraft, in the 16th and 17th centuries, to control the masses.

Nothing changes!

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

20 comments:

  1. chave the lad10:17 AM

    Ken,

    Doubtless you have read that your beloved Croydon was voted the Chavest town in England. It beat some heavyweight (due to all the chips and lager consumed whilst slumped in front of daytime telly, waiting for the giro to arrive) contenders including I believe some really nasty Northern cities.

    Your heart must swell with pride. Dust off your burberry cap and get down to da mall wid da crew bruv, nick some special brew and white lightning from Lidls and start celebrating!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is the story:)

    http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/3561347.Survey_labels_Croydon_UK_chav_capital/

    ReplyDelete
  3. This type of incident is exactly the natural conclusion to Nanny's "Frighten the Lives out of 'Em" policy.

    Although a frightened, ignorant population is easier to control than an educated confident one, Nanny appears to have triggered the natural fight or flight reaction, and because we can't easily leave, we are likely to see more "fight" so like anything else Nanny does, it's gone wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A truly bizarre story, right up there with the one about the woman who, having taking a picture of a swimming pool (empty, no less) was suspected of paedophilia. I still don't quite get the pool-peadophilia connection, but I suspect that after a few weeks in one of Nanny's reducation camps, I'd see it well enough.

    Mr. Petrov sounds like he might not be a native of Nanny's fair land, and difficult though it may be for her minions and thugs to accept, there are people in other parts of the world who are capable of finding children ""cute" without wishing to sexually molest them. After all, for the true pervert, I believe their are photos available more salacious than a cellphone shot taken on a tram. But as you've pointed out, Nanny has whipped up mob hysteria to the point that anyone smiling at a child not personally-related to him is immediately suspect of harboring perverse intentions.

    There does seem to be a taint of perversion here, but not necessarily where Nanny suspects. Oh well, she does have to focus the "two-minute hate" on something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord of Atlantis12:18 PM

    "Police had decided there should be no proceedings against Mr Petrov."

    Why the hell should there be? Mr Petrov is the victim here, and Terrence Crawford, along with the other mindless thugs who attacked him, ought to serve a long spell in prison without any luxuries or privileges. Surely, it isn't 'rocket science' to work out that a real paedophile would not carry out their sordid behaviour in public?

    "An off-duty police officer who had been on the tram was later able to identify Crawford and he was arrested in March this year.

    Errmmm...couldn't he kind tried to intervene earlier to calm things down a bit???"

    No chance, Ken, most of today's coppers only seem to involve themselves with persecuting people over petty matters, or those who take the law into their own hands, because the police have failed to do their job. The poor dear might have got hurt if he'd involved himself in a situation like that!



    "This is exactly the same way that the church and state used people's fear of witchcraft, in the 15th and 16th centuries, to control the masses."

    Not wishing to be pedantic, Ken, but I think most of the burning of so-called witches at the stake took place a little later, in the 16th and 17th centuries, although I agree with your comparison entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OnTheRun1:20 PM

    I think the mob was right, there is NOTHING more disgusting than a peadophile,
    well except a suspected peadophile.
    Or a smoker.
    Or a smoking peadophile!
    Or even, an obese, smoking peadohile,
    an obese, smoking, salt eating, 4x4driving, chinese peadophile.
    Oh hell there are just so many people to be suspicious of these days. I'll just check the BBC to see who else im meant to keep my eye on. After all we are only thinking of the children, cant let those little future tax slaves come to any harm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Erm, did anyone actually ask the person why he was taking a picture of a child he did not know on a tram? Certainly I would have words with a stranger photographing my kid and I am no fan of the nanny state.

    Point in case my missus and I (we live by the seaside, beside the sea) confronted a bloke taking pics of kids getting changed - at first thought he was maybe a grandad photographing his kids. Turned out he was photographing all and sundry with his mobile phone.

    I asked politely what he was doing, he turned tail and ran. Could have been all innocent but then again I am a bit suspicious of anyone who photographs kids they are not related too and without parents (not nannys) Permission.

    Said gent, by the way, later made the front page of our esteemed local organ, he was again watching kids one handed. The other hand was engaged in a non photographic activity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous2:38 PM

    If the guy was that suspicious, how come the police..person didnt do anything? And no doubt just let this mob run wild. Nice one PC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:27 PM

    Anonymous said: “we live by the seaside, beside the sea”.

    What a perfect place for nature to put the sea!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe you could explain (? again) to an incredulous outside world why taking photographs of children is harmful to children.
    And why anonymous felt it was good and proper to confront a photographer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can't stand small children,and wouldn't touch the little horrors with a bargepole, so that lets me out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. number 610:29 AM

    Anon,

    Beside the seaside, beside the sea is a refrain from a jolly old British seaside tune. It vanished a long time ago, about the same time the old jellied eel stall was pulled down to be replaced by an islamic cultural centre.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous10:32 AM

    Cramerj,

    I will explain again as you missed the point. The person was photographing children getting changed into their swimming suits.

    I along with other parents don't see a peado behind every bush as nanny wishes us to, but I am sensible enough to know that it is not normal to be photographing youn kids getting out of their clothes.

    If you think this is not harmful to kids perhaps that is because it is a hobby you share with the aforesaid gent?

    ReplyDelete
  14. number 64:18 PM

    I agree with anon. This is an issue of common sense, something that in nanny's world is far from common - as noted by Ken and many posters here.

    If I see someone photographing kids (mine included) at a school sports day or a school play, my common sense tells me that the most likely reason they are doing so is because they are a parent capturing the event for the family photo book.

    If I see a lone male photographing little girls getting changed at the beach my common sense tells me that the overwhelming reason he is doing it is because he is a nonce.

    Perhaps those who see 'no harm in this' believe gaining sexual arousement from viewing naked children is an 'alternative lifestyle choice' and that those who exercise a common sense response to challenge them should seek anger management from nanny's youth/mature sexualy challenged understanding for the child attracted social worker unit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In the incident in question, the victim of this attack photographed two children, fully clothed, on a tram. Anonymous describes a situation in which a stranger was photographing children in various states of undress.

    I would think most people could see the gaping difference between these two scenarios. One would like to believe that the vigilante mob on the tram might have been able to understand this distinction as well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous10:12 AM

    Black Sea,
    Indeed, but I would still question why an adult was photographing other people's children on a tram.

    If he could provide a valid reason for doing so, it would be interesting.

    I do not subscribe to the notion that a slavering peadophile lurks behind every park bush and tree, but such people do exist and it would appear that part of their modus operandi is to photograph kids they, or others, have a sexual interest in.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "If he could provide a valid reason" for photographing children on the tram, "it would be interesting."
    No doubt, but there is no law against photographing anybody or anything, so no need to provide a reason.
    We are into the realm of thought-crime here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous2:01 PM

    Sambo,

    A valid point, as you state there is no law against photographing anyone at anytime and proving intent of taking a photo for anything other than harmless reasons would be difficult.

    However,Common sense, or custom, at least in the 50 years I have lived in England would seem to dictate that no one actually goes about snapping photos of people (especially kids) without consent of those being shot. Certainly if someone took a photo of me or my family I would ask in no uncertain terms what the fxxxx they were doing as I regard my own personal space and freedom to walk or travel unmolested to include having my photo taken without consent - that response would be equally more robust for any of nanny's minions taking photos for any reason.

    Maybe as a foreigner (gather as such from his name) we should just except that in the name of multiculturism some people do things differently.

    I do like your image by the way and wrote a strong letter of objection to Robinsons Jam when they removed you from the jam jar.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous2:02 PM

    Sambo et all, that should have read NOT having my photo taken without consent - too quick on the send button and one too many red wines early in the day off I am afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think we can all agree that there are in fact paedophiles lurking about and parents - and adults more generally - have perfectly valid reasons for safeguarding children.

    I also think that it may be relevant that the person assaulted in this instance has a foreign-sounding (Russian?) name. I would think that almost anyone raised in the contemporary Anglosphere would know that his behavior was a bad idea, but it may well be that in Russia such behavior is not deemed particuarly suspicious. I can see how this might well have been a matter of differing cultural norms (I know, I sound like Nanny, but whatever) rather than malicious intent. In any event, his behavior hardly justified the physical assualt to which he was subjected.

    I live in Turkey where such behavior wouldn't, I think, automatically trigger such suspicions. I well remember one Turkish student telling me that he found it quite difficult to get used to the idea that, while living in America, he was never to pat on the head or stroke on the cheek a stranger's child, since such behavior is considered perfectly normal in Turkey.

    ReplyDelete