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.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Well Said Dame Stella!

Big Brother
I doff my hat to Dame Stella Rimington, ex head of MI5, who has lambasted Nanny's lackeys in the government for turning this country into a police state and for using fear to kowtow the population.

Here is an article in the Telegraph about what she said:

Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.

“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.

“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.

Dame Stella, 73, added: “The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” She said the British secret services were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.

Dame Stella became the first woman director general of MI5 in 1992 and was head of the security agency until 1996. Since stepping down she has been a fierce critic of some of the Government’s counter-terrorism and security measures, especially those affecting civil liberties.

In 2005, she said the Government’s plans for ID cards were “absolutely useless” and would not make the public any safer. Last year she criticised attempts to extend the period of detention without charge for terrorism suspects to 42 days as excessive, shortly before the plan was rejected by Parliament.

Her latest remarks were made as the Home Office prepares to publish plans for a significant expansion of state surveillance, with powers for the police and security services to monitor every email, as well as telephone and internet activity.

Despite considerable opposition to the plan, the document will say that the fast changing pace of communication technology means the security services will not be able to properly protect the public without the new powers.

Local councils have been criticised for using anti-terrorism laws to snoop on residents suspected of littering and dog fouling offences.

David Davis, the Tory MP and former shadow home secretary, said: “Like so many of those who have had involvement in the battle against terrorism, Stella Rimington cares deeply about our historic rights and rightly raises the alarm about a Government whose first interest appears to be to use the threat of terrorism to frighten people and undermine those rights rather than defend them.”

In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.

The report, by the International Commission of Jurists, said: “The failure of states to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law.”

The report claimed many measures introduced were illegal and counter-productive and that legal systems put in place after the Second World War were well equipped to handle current threats. Arthur Chaskelson, the chairman of the report panel, said: “In the course of this inquiry, we have been shocked by the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures in a wide range of countries around the world.

“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has been clear that where surveillance or data collection will impact on privacy they should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate. The key is to strike the right balance between privacy, protection and sharing of personal data.

“This provides law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect the public as well as ensuring government has the ability to provide effective public services while ensuring there are effective safeguards and a solid legal framework that protects civil liberties.”

In her interview, in La Vanguardia newspaper, Dame Stella also described the shock of her two daughters when they discovered she was a spy and told how she used most “gadgets” when she was in office except for “a gun’’.

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. is brought to you by "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


  1. Seems to me that the rowdy and demanding population of this country causes the government so much trouble that maybe we ought to do away with it.

    With a zero "civilian" population the national and local government could then get on with the real business of running an efficient infrastructure free from threat and free from the wear and tear of 65 million whining individuals.

    Think of the savings! Think of the efficiencies that might be achieved if only we pesky "the people" were out of the picture!

  2. Anonymous1:08 PM

    The main problem is this; If you give broad powers to people they tend to use them. They also tend to use them for things that are outside of the original reason or justification of such powers. The use of anti terror powers by local councils to spy on their citizens is a classic example.

    Most of the government's pet projects, such as anti terror, climate change etc etc are just justification to control and interfere more and more in our lives....Then again, Stalinist states always do don't they and let's face it, the EUSSR is one huge Stalinist state in the making.

  3. Anonymous1:14 PM


    I disagree.

    We are not heading for a Police State, more a bureaucratically run spying organisation working without the (ever decreasing) framework of constraints within which the Police have traditionally operated.

    That insidious advance of the Local Council minions and various 'pressure groups' whose funding is a matter of interest seems to me to be outside the Law (generally) and is much more dangerous to personal freedoms and liberty than the official Law Enforcement agencies, despite even THEIR, erosion of rights.

    The young will not understand this. The majority of 30 and 40 somethings will not have time to be concerned in the current economic climate and the 'elders' will be dismissed as out of touch, out of step and out of time. Which is probably why Stella Rimington's comments are appearing first in a Spanish paper.

  4. Anonymous1:33 PM


    Population reduction, by any means (except restricting immigration it seems) is required for the "Fight against Climate Change".

    And it has to happen quickly according to that goracle of information James Hansen of the USA. He who flies (offsets I wonder?) to the UK to speak up for people who disrupt and damage Power Stations. Indeed Hansen now describes the shipment of coal as 'Death Trains'.

    So your plan would seem to be a good result for Nanny and one could perceive it as being part of her strategy, given that Nanny Gordon seem intent on destroying any form of employment other than Local Authority regulators.

    I'm looking forward to the day that someone asks the members of the Optimum Population Trust - J Porritt and D Attenborough come to mind, which members of their families they have earmarked for the human cull that Hansen seems to think will be required within 10 to 20 years.


    But than the Stalinist concept resolves the issue I raised above by taking the decisions on behalf of the people who might be unable to decide which members of their family to eradicate for the good of the planet.

    Given such a difficult decision I'm sure many would be grateful for the opportunity to delegate it to some spotty herbert from the local council. All it requires is for the masses to be suitably conditioned (groomed?) to see the benefits of the easy third party decision process over grappling with the problem oneself. Nanny state is good at that.

    Nanny just needs to decide whether to use 1984 or Brave New World as the basis for an operational manual.

  5. Grant, me ol' fruitbat, my point was that the elements who were once upon a (fairy tale) time charged with "running" the country so that we mere civilians could get on with our lives now seem to believe that the contract runs backwards. The tail is wagging the dog.

    Instead of government and its various instruments being the servants of the public the emphasis now is that government is the nation and the population are theirs to do with, control, change and order about as they please.

    The former is a fairy tale that everyone likes to believe but the balance of power has now shifted so far away from it towards the latter that more and more of us are feeling very uncomfortable with the "bargain".

    The government brief is - should be - to work an infrastructure around whatever (within civilised bounds) the population wants to do whenever, wherever and how ever it wants to do it, not to restrict the population so that the workings of government are easier.

    From day to day I shouldn't even notice government, let alone have to step in it every five minutes like public information doggy do.

    p.s., much though I'd like to do it and much though I think it's needed I don't think you can cull the population as such. Maybe cricket-bat enforced demonstrations of the doubling problem might help? 6,500,000,000? It's all getting very silly, isn't it. Perhaps H.M. Government could print up a few posters exhorting anyone over the age of nine to "try and keep it in their trousers"?

  6. In 2005, [Dame Stella] said the Government’s plans for ID cards were “absolutely useless” and would not make the public any safer.

    I certainly hope that this isn't Dame Stella's primary objection to these plans.

    "Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights.’’

    Such a statement (a maddeningly common one) naively assumes, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary, that governments "allow themselves" to be manipulated by events. Quite the opposite; governments are event manipulators. The destruction of civil liberties on both sides of the Atlantic today is not in response to terrorism, however much the MSM would have us believe this to be the case. Rather, these destructive acts are a form of terrorism. The U.S. government in particular clearly knew far more about the events of 9/11/01 in advance of their occurrence than it publicly admits. Although the true extent of its complicity is wide open to debate, one thing is crystal clear: The aftermath of the attacks provided the perfect pretext for accelerating the dismantling of the constitutional republic upon which the nation was founded, long a plan of the reigning establishment. Until September, 2001 the regime had to chip away at civil liberties in a subtle, piecemeal fashion. 9/11 gave them all the justification they needed to throw all caution to the wind and bring the destruction out into the open (think "Reichstag Fire", Berlin, 1934). If 9/11 hadn't come along on its own, they would've made it happen eventually anyway.

    In summary, never attribute to ignorance or stupidity that which is more accurately explained by malice.

  7. Anonymous1:57 PM


    I agree other than I think that a lot of what we think we see comes from a 'government' that is a govt. in name only. Mostly they are rubber stamping diktats from the EUSSR establishment hence the desire to avoid (pointless) debate and dabble ever more in small personal and local matters.

    The occasional foray into 'saving the world' or 'solving the problems of Africa' allow some people massage their egos at the public's expense but by an large they are no more than expensive and meaningless gestures.

    As for the cull - well the point is the Chinese were pro-active about this decades ago and they allow low safety standards (allegedly) in order to have at least some sort of secondary barrier to those wishing to access old age.

    Here in the 'west' we have, stupidly in the opinion of some, focused more on keeping people alive under agency of absolutely any pretext at all. So when some suggest there is an urgent problem that demands rapid de-population as the solution it is obvious we are so embarrassingly far behind other places that only incisive action will suffice.

    I'm sure that 'they' would leap at the chance of some useful vote rigging social re-engineering based on population bias adjustment but probably get cold feet about it when they consider the tax take reduction. Being first to market is not always a good thing.

    I'm sure of the EU came up with some sort of rebate scheme for human 'set aside' the Weasels of Westminster would suddenly find a way to slip the proposals into Law without anyone noticing.


    One of the stranger things about the USA is its oft quoted subtitle - 'Land of the Free' .

    The more one understands about the way things are run there the more obvious it is that there is less to the slogan than people might imagine.

    The EU, using whatever opportunities float by, is seeking to make itself in a similar but more centrally controlled mode. They already have 20 odd 'states' in thrall and seek more. Each addition weakens the influence of the other individual states and devolves more authority to the central bureaucracy.

    The USA has a somewhat different traditional starting point which is better established but the objectives of the controlling elite seem much the same - either party.

    Both scares and immigration (to introduce more immediate change to the traditional social patterns) are valuable tools to those who feel themselves above the masses at one level or another.

    Plus, of course, thee days many people, especially the young, are looking for people to 'do something. So something will be done. Mostly anything that is highly visible to distract us from the important things that are less visible.

    I suspect the outcome may well solve the perceived (by some) world population crisis.

  8. Anonymous3:33 PM

    We have to start fighting back. Not with weapons or demonstrations - no, they're far too wiley for that - they EXPECT it, hence, the new photography laws, tazers to the police etc...

    We need to fight them in the same way they have fought us - disinformation.

    We need to bombard them with FOI and DPA requests, start rumours about the next daft law (say, they are making laws to force us to get rid of cash so they can restrict our salt intake - mind you, is that made up? Who can tell these days). We need to rile the population up so much, that they do the same without even realising it.

    That way, we keep them busy with the minute details in much the same way they have us.