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.

Monday, March 01, 2010

A Nation of Paedophiles - No Family Photos

My sympathies to Kevin Geraghty-Shewan, who fell foul of Nanny's Paedofinder General the other day.

Mr Geraghty-Shewan was shopping with his wife and 4 year old son, Ben, at the Bridges Shopping Centre Sunderland. Mr Geraghty-Shewan paid for Ben to ride on a children's train ride outside one of the stores and, at the suggestion of his wife, took a photo of Ben on the ride.

Can you guess what happened next loyal readers?

Yes, that's right, Nanny's Paedofinder General (in the shape of a security guard) appeared and told him that he must not take photos because he might be a paedophile.

The security guard went on to say that Mr Geraghty-Shewan could not prove that he was Ben's father and that "there is a real problem with paedophiles", he then threatened to call the manager.

A few minutes later, as if by magic, a policeman apprehended Mr Geraghty-Shewan and told him that a complaint had been made a about a man fitting Geraghty-Shewan's description taking photos of children.

The policeman then asked what Mr Geraghty-Shewan was doing in Sunderland, asked for his name and address and told him he had the right to delete his pictures.

Then, for good measure, he threatened Mr Geraghty-Shewan with arrest for breach of the peace.

Quite what effect all of this must have had on Ben is anyone's guess. Nanny, of course, doesn't give a damn about that though.

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 booze. 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. Nanny gets nasty; very nasty:

  2. The inevitable consequence of an (unwanted) zero tolerance society.

    People who hold even the smallest authority over others are incapable of making rational decisions.

    How long are the innocent general public going to put up with this stupidity?

  3. Anonymous11:53 AM

    I can almost excuse such fuck-wittery from a brainless security guard, but I am amazed that the police took it so seriously.

    Since I heard recently that nurses are now required to be educated to degree level, shouldn't Police be required to do the same?

    That much get rid of such retarded muppets from the force who are presently only too eager to do Nanny's work.

  4. This is Nick Hogan smoking in Westminster:

  5. Ken,

    As I understand it, there is no right for anyone, including a police officer, to make someone delete their pictures....I hear that Nanny is looking into the possibility of a law to make it an offence for anyone to take pictures in a public place...I suspect she doesn't like it when are storm troopers are photographed attacking the public but, hey ho....Back to the main point.

    It strikes me that some people seem to wish to upgrade their percieved powers....Check out drones demand ID, school staff become gaolers etc etc....It seems this security guard took it upon himself to become the paedophile finder general as he decided he had some power and decided to use it and upgrade it.....As I have said before on here, Nanny has given too much power to people that are neither intelligent nor sophisticated enough to exercise such power....God help us if the civil contingecies act is ever implemented because, all these "civil enforcement officers" then receive the same powers as a proper copper.

    Use faux powers responsibly.

    Search online for drunk on power

    Who the hell is this Dorothy Gov (Dot Gov) that keeps telling us what we can and can't do all the time?

  6. Anonymous12:12 PM

    An interesting logical deficit in the security guard's argument here:

    If Mr X can't prove he is Master Y's father (hence not allowed to take photos) then surely Master Y should be taking in custody by social services? That is if you take the proposition that Mr X cannot prove fatherhood seriously...

    Since Master Y was not (we assume) taken into care, then surely the assumption must be that Mr X was, in fact, the child's father.

    So, having established that nobody actually seriously doubted that Mr X was Master Y's father, why wasn't he allowed to take pictures of his own child exactly?

    Clearly security guards and the Police are unable to follow logic this clearly...

  7. Anonymous12:14 PM

    Also, an interesting question arises here: if we are expected to be able to prove that we are legally allowed to be in the company of any children present with us, how exactly are we supposed to do this?

  8. Anon;

    I expect that will be on our ID cards when we are eventually forced to have them....Papers Please, where is your authorisation to be out with this kids....It doesn't matter if he is your son, without the proper license you are committing a crime....Now give me your DNA and finger prints...Come quietly.....

  9. Have you seen the film "taking Liberties"?
    One section of the film explains how coppers use section 5 of the puplic order act to stop people taking photos and even delete their pictures, when in actual fact, section 5 gives them no such "rights".

  10. Lord of Atlantis1:56 PM

    If a policeman or security guard or any other of Nanny's minions were to forcibly destroy someone's pictures, they themselves ought to be charged with assault, theft and criminal damage. As it is, Mr Geraghty-Shewan ought to make an official complaint against this constable to the police complaints authority, and report the security guard to his superiors/employers.

  11. Anonymous2:04 PM

    It's high time people stood up to these tossers and told them to p@*% off! I wonder if they would have reacted with the same enthusiasm towards a gang of yobs vandalising the centre?

  12. Archroy4:30 PM

    I think everybody in Sunderland should be told that the Bridges Centre has "a real problem with paedophiles". Maybe the local paper could do a report on how much of a problem it it, and maybe the good folk of Sunderland should keep well away from the place until the problem is sorteed out.

  13. Anonymous5:04 PM

    I saw the film too, Bucko - quite an eye-opener.

    In addition, if Mr Geraghty-Shewan was actually suspected of having committed, or was being charged with, a crime, the police officer had the right to demand his name and address. However, if the police officer approached him under Stop and Account or Stop and Search regulations, although he had the right to ask for Mr Geraghty-Shewan's details, Mr Geraght-Shewan would have been under no obligation to supply them. (This information comes from a police inspector.)

  14. Although he may have been under no obligation to supply his personal details, I very much doubt that any modern day police officer would simply let him walk away from the matter. I am sure that an arrest would have been made for some offence, perhaps obstruction.

    And anyway, Would providing proof that he was the father of the child have exonerated him in the eyes of the security guard and the policeman?

    Are they so stupid as to think that parents have never been known to abuse their own children?

  15. Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells9:55 PM

    Gary said

    "Are they so stupid as to think that parents have never been known to abuse their own children?"

    The subject under discussion is what in my childhood days was a perfectly normal practice: parents taking pictures of their children enjoying themselves, for posterity.

    I'm sure parents intent on abusing their children would choose a better place than right in the middle of a busy shopping mall. Nor do I consider photographing their own children to be "abuse".

    The way things are going it'll soon be an offence to be in possession of a camera, given how recently an amateur photographer spent eight hours in police cells for the heinous crime of taking pictures of Accrington town centre.

    Incidentally, if you are using a film camera a copper can't insist on your deleting photos, because you can't. Forcibly removing the film from your camera constitutes criminal damage.

  16. Grant1:54 AM

    So how does this 'rule' not apply to CCTV video cameras? (Rhetorical question ...)

    My kids are bit old for toy rides. In fact they are too old to go out shopping with an aged P. However were they younger I might well eschew the use of a camera and take to drawing them instead. I'm a hopeless artist of course but, hey, who cares - I could be a hopeless photographer too.

    So, is there a law to stop people drawing in public? Or writing things down?

    Are we still allowed to walk on the (many) cracks in the pavement?

    I like Archroy's sugesting about publicing the problem that the shopping centre has. By inference, of course, it means that Sunderland as a whole also has a major problem - also good to publicise I would think.

  17. Anonymous5:42 PM

    I am a police officer and we certainly DO NOT have the right to delete somebodies photos, whether we do it ourselves or by forcing the individual to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of my collegues around the country are being brainwashed by Nanny. I, however, am not one of them.

  18. I heard the other day of an imminent new regulation which included this. If a single woman with a child or children meets a new man for a relationship, she will be allowed to ask the police if he has past sexual convictions. Oh well, if I am ever single again, I will make sure I have an up to date CRB certificate on my person, then, if I was chatting up a lady with children I can 'whip it out' to save her the trouble.

  19. Anonymous12:58 AM

    Vid on Old Holborn's blog of the "Love Police" getting the better of plastic plod who objected to being filmed.

    "The Bridges" shopping centre open air carpark displays signs saying that it is "illegal to smoke on these premises" - it isn't.

    Re Nick Hogan being imprisoned for 6 months for refusing to enforce Nanny's no smoking law - the fund to secure his release reached its target today (see my post on "Nanny Hates Fags" thread).

    People are fighting back and the response to Nick Hogan shows that it can be done via WWW - without begging permission from Plod to protest and without relying on the MSM.

    I'm rather enjoying doing it - the other day I asked (in a deliberately authoritative manner) of a traffic warden why he was taking note of reg nos. I knew very well that, in a restricted zone, it's the only way he can prove that a car's exceeded the time limit, but that's not the point. The point was to demand that he, paid out of the public purse, justify his behaviour to me as I pay his wages, which he did - very meekly (reminded me of that Monty Python sketch of the accountant? who hadn't a cat's chance in hell of becoming the lion-tamer he wanted to be!)