42 Days - Dictatorship by Stealth

Tomorrow our "respected" and "popular" Prime Minister will lead Nanny's campaign to impose a 42 day detention period without charge, on people that the state "believe" to be terrorists.

We are told that this is for our own protection, and that the law will only be used against terrorists.

Well, Nanny would say that wouldn't she?

Question: If the state really has the evidence to support their belief that an individual is a terrorist, why does it not charge that person within say 7 days, 14 days or 28 days?

Answer: the state does not have the evidence.

Sir John Major wrote in the Times recently that the proposal would aid the terrorists, and help them recruit more people to their cause. Major went on to say that Nanny's case is bogus, and little more than scaremongering.

He was quoted in The Times:

"If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to do.

The Government has introduced measures to protect against terror. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular – and no less violent – assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering."

Sir John said that Labour was creating "an intrusive State with authoritarian tendencies.

This is not a United Kingdom I recognise and Parliament should not accept it."

Sir John should read the stories on this site over the last four years, an intrusive authoritarian state is exactly what Labour is all about!

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, who as Director of Public Prosecutions would have a key role in authorising extended periods of detention, said that the 42 day power was not needed.

Lord Falconer has promised to lead a revolt in the Lords if the bill passes the Commons.

Lord Goldsmith, QC, (Bliar's Attorney General) has told The Times that he will oppose the measures if they reach the Lords.

"I remain of the view that no extension is necessary or justified."

MI5 have kept well out of it.

Even the police believe that the proposals are unworkable.

That isn't stopping Brown from trying to bribe people, with our money, to go along with his monstrous plan. Innocent detainees would be entitled to claim up to £3K for each day spent in jail; so that's alright then!

The man driving this proposal is an authoritarian control freak, who fears individuality and freedom of action.

His reputation, health, credibility and party have been destroyed by his own actions and delusions. He and the Labour party are nothing more than an animated corpse.

Britain is being sleepwalked into dictatorship by a corpse, Britain does not deserve to be run by a corpse.

Let us put this corpse out of our misery once and for all!

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

The Grim Ripa

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions.

In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Wise words indeed!

It is "reassuring" to see that our local councils (those organs of the Nanny state which, as you know, I have such a high "respect" for) are testing out Herr Shickelgruber's ideas at this very minute.

Following on from last week's story about Poole council using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) to spy on a family, over the non terrorist issue of school catchment areas, it transpires that other local councils have been invoking Ripa for spy missions too.

Were they invoking Ripa to counteract possible terrorist threats?

No!

They invoked Ripa, and spied on their voters to investigate petty offences such as dog fouling, under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations.

Councils and other public bodies are using Ripa (anti terrorist legislation) to spy on people, obtain their telephone records and find out who they are emailing.

Did you know they could do all of that?

In 2007 councils and government departments made 12,494 applications for "directed surveillance", according to figures released by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. This was almost double the number for the previous year.

Ironically, applications from police and other law enforcement agencies fell during the same period, to about 19,000. One local government body stated that councils and other public bodies would soon carry out more surveillance than the police.

That's reassuring isn't it?

Ripa is now being used by councils to spy on otherwise law-abiding people committing minor offences such as; fly-tipping, failing to pick up dog mess and to gather evidence that can be used to instigate fines.

Gosport borough council is currently using Ripa for an undercover investigation into dog fouling. Council officers equipped with digital cameras and binoculars are spying on dog walkers.

Chris Davis, the council's head of internal audit, said without irony:

"We have strategically placed members of our enforcement team to blend in with the natural environment and observe people walking dogs.

They are using digital cameras to get hard evidence. Dog fouling is a real issue and in this case it is happening close to a leisure facility where children play."

Dog fouling may well be a nuisance, but why is anti terrorist legalisation being used to combat it?

Why are innocent people being spied on by the council?

What controls are in place wrt the data gathered? (None I would warrant!)

When Ripa was passed in 2000, only nine organisations, such as the police and security services, were allowed to use it. That number has risen to 792, including 474 councils.

Whilst councillors can be held to account, and indeed can be voted out of office; Local Government Officers (LOG's), on defined pensions and very generous pay packages, cannot be held to account and are virtually impossible to remove from office.

Do we really want people like that spying on us?

When Ripa and other anti terrorist laws were introduced by our political "masters", we were assured that they would only be used against the "bad guys".

It transpires that we are all now "bad guys".

How did this happen?

1 The politicians lied

2 Politicians are incompetent headline grabbing fools, who don't think things through

3 Politicians ignore the fundamental principle of British law, ie innocent until proven guilty. The reason that we have limits on detention without charge etc is to protect the innocent from being held on false charges. Without that failsafe, we would all be held by the police on the slightest whim.

4 Brown and his ilk are control freaks, who do want to monitor what we do

5 Local councils are worse than worthless

6 It is the nature of councils et al to use all the tools at their disposal, to monitor and control their populations. The more we give them, the more they will use.

Brown and his mob even now are pressing for the police to have the wright to detain someone for 42 days without charge, if they suspect him/her of being a terrorist. How the hell do we know that one day we will not be held for 42 days, without charge, on suspicion of being a terrorist?

The solution?

-These festering sores on our democracy, LGO's et al, brought in en masse by "Nu Labour" should be removed from office in one massive culling operation.

-Ripa needs to be repealed and reworked.

-The 42 days detention rule must be stopped.

-Brown and Labour must be kicked out.

Nu labour and the local councils have marked out a path (by misuse of Ripa) that others, even more repellent people, will follow.

You have been warned!

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions.

In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Nanny Bans Hugging

In Nanny's world, human contact is frowned upon as it may distract people from their devotions to Nanny.

Remember this mantra:

Nanny is Mother Nanny is Father


As such it should come as no surprise to learn that one of Nanny's schools has decided that hugging is evil, and has banned it.

Mossbourne Academy in Hackney has banned pupils from engaging in physical contact with classmates.

Head teacher Sir Michael Wilshaw said pupils had been asked to be "sensible" about greeting one another.

He said it was to ensure accusations of people touching each other inappropriately could not be made.

Sir Michael said:

"Most physical contact between pupils is

totally innocent but on occasions it is not.

We don't want staff being drawn into

dealing with accusations of

inappropriate behaviour."

Pupils who flout the rules will be punished by detention.

That sends a very interesting message doesn't it? Human contact is wrong...

I wonder what kind of "well adjusted" sociopaths this school will produce then?

Nanny's Sloppy Law Making

There are two comments that best sum up Nanny’s botched anti terror laws, which were introduced in haste and without due care and attention post 9/11.

Lord Hoffman noted, in the Law Lords ruling on Thursday, that:

“The real threat to the life of the nation….comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these..”

Another public figure, also had a few thoughts on the subject of detention without trial:

“The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious it's the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist..”

Who spoke so wisely?

A political pundit?

A lawyer?

None other than Sir Winston Churchill, in 1943.

It seems to me that Churchill’s words are as valid now, as they were then.

The case Nanny has to address, and frankly it was as obvious as when she passed the terrorism act, as it is now; is what do you do with the people who are incarcerated under this law?

Incidentally, where were the “opposition” parties when these half-baked laws were being passed?

The detainees cannot be held forever, as appealing a prospect as that may sound.

Nanny needs to ensure that one, or all, of the following take place:

-Put them on trial for terrorist offences

-Put them on trial for other crimes

-Deport them

-Release them

The above actions may not be easy, and indeed were rejected as being too troublesome by Nanny’s old chum David “trial without jury” Blunkett, but nonetheless are necessary.

The trouble with Nanny is that she is intellectually lazy; she acts before thinking and she likes to play to the populist gallery, she does not do “difficult”.