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, October 26, 2005

The Dangers of Walking

The Dangers of WalkingIt is always reassuring to know that Nanny has our best interests at heart. She is for ever vigilant with respect to the security threat, that she tells us we face.

To this end, it was highly reassuring to read that a suspected terrorist was arrested on the grounds of national security a week or so ago.

Sally Cameron a blond property developer, clearly fits the standard terrorist profile.

Nanny was vigilant and swift in her actions.

Sally was held for hours, for being a suspected terrorist.

Why, I hear you ask?

She was arrested under the Terrorism Act, for walking along a cycle path in the harbour area of Dundee.

She said:

"I've been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit.

One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn't use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I'd be arrested.

The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying:

'You're trespassing, please turn back'.

It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing.

But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act.

The harbour master was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged

Ms Cameron added:

"I was told that the cycle path was for cyclists only,

as if walkers and not cyclists were the only ones likely to plant bombs. There are no signs anywhere saying there are to be no pedestrians.

They took me to the police station and held me for several hours before charging me and releasing me

She has now received a letter from the Tayside procurator fiscal's office, telling her that she would not be prosecuted.

The letter noted that

"the evidence is sufficient to justify bringing you before the court on this criminal charge".

Now can anyone tell me why Nanny is so keen to stop and arrest people such as Ms Cameron?

However, London bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan reportedly featured in a surveillance operation by intelligence services last year.

Khan was secretly filmed and recorded speaking to a UK-based terror suspect, according to a well-placed source.

A Radio 4 File on 4 and BBC Two Newsnight investigation also suggests he was in contact with al-Qaeda activists for the last five years.

Was he arrested?


Can someone explain that contradiction in Nanny's security policy please?


  1. Anonymous10:06 AM

    zryyi"OK Osama, that's the plan to distroy public toilets in York, now let's move on to target number One hundred twenty-five million, three hundred sixty-two thousand, five hundred and thirty-eight, Dundee Harbour".

  2. Anonymous12:24 PM

    It's such a waste having laws if you don't use them.

    These new anti terror thingies look so good in the local paper, using them makes you look like part of an elite special force. Instead of just being a special needs job's worth.

  3. Now can anyone tell me why Nanny is so keen to stop and arrest people such as Ms Cameron?

    For the same reason that cops everywhere spend more time handing out traffic tickets and harrassing people peacefully minding their own business than patrolling at-risk neighborhoods for violent crime: it's safe, and even potentially lucrative. Ms. Cameron was easy pickings for Nanny's bored uniformed bullies. "Real" terrorists like the London bombing crew are presumably armed, dangerous and likely to resist if cornered. Heaven forbid Nanny's badged welfare recipients should be called upon to earn their dole money by defending the public against real danger. Where's the profit in that?

  4. Anonymous2:01 PM

    There is no contradiction in the security policy merely a misunderstanding of whom it is directed against.

    You're working from the wrong baseline namely the Terrorism Act is to protect the public from the terrorists; in fact it is to protect the state from the public, especially by so intimidating the public they obey whatever stupid thing rather than take on the state.

    What you're witnessing is the mid stage of phase 1.

  5. Nanny knows that if you keep the 'great unwashed' in a state of insecurity and fear, then she can rush in and 'save the day', so earning many brownie points, and get elected again.

    This continual use of the word "terrorism" is merely a way that Blair, Blunckett, Clarke and the rest of the Uncle Tom Cobbly gang can pass laws which no normal civilised country would ever pass. Witness the 'Money Laundering' regulations, which, as from 1st March 2004, have had every lawyer, accountant, estate agent, financial adviser and other professionals on the look out for any proceed of any crime, even as low as 1p. What do these unwilling press-ganged informers have to do? Report you to Nanny's National Criminal Intelligence Service!! So don't ever bring home your employer's pen from work, that is a proceed of a crime!! These laws were brought in under the cloak of "terrorism".

    The trouble is, most of the great unwashed really think that Blair, Clarke and this bunch are protecting us. Nothing could be further from the truth. Witness July 7th, would ID cards have stopped that?? I very much doubt it.

  6. Spiv

    You sound like a fellow accountant.



  7. Ken, I am, and a very angry one at that.

    Over the years I have watched in total disbelief the steady erosion by the state of our civil liberties and rights, accelerated by Blair and his cronies. My exasperation continues with their use of the word "terrorism", which has been mis-hyped and mis-utilised since the atrocities in America in 2001. I don't deny there is a threat, albeit no greater than many other threats which face we ordinary citizens, but it is the use by the Authorities of this 'threat' which is completely unacceptable.

    Little did I realise back when I was watching the terrible TV pictures of the twin towers, that the word "terrorism" would be used to such effect against ordinary people.

    I believe that Blair, Bush and co have misused their positions of responsibility and need to be brought to account. I believe that they have lied to us for their own ends, they have invaded other countries, they have and are continuing to treat all of us as if we were all "terrorists" and "criminals". They will also use every means to 'cover their tracks', including the use of tame Nanny judges to come out in their favour, witness the Butler whitewash.

    Others also feel the same, and I would invite you to take a look at Barbra Streisand's site at