Nanny's Shit Database

I am highly gemused to see that Nanny intends to expand her ever growing network of databases.

This time she intends to create one containing dog shit.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

Nanny's chums from the Isle of Wight Council want to create a database containing the DNA taken from dog shit.

For why?

Seemingly this will be used to prosecute dog owners who allow their mutts to befoul (there's a good word!) the pavements.

David Pugh, leader of the Isle of Wight Council, as per the Telegraph told a council meeting:

"We could test samples against the database and trace it to the dog's owner. I imagine we would see an immediate cessation to the problem. 

It's something we would have to pilot, and I'm not wishing to make policy on the hoof."

Seemingly the shit can be matched to individual dogs using samples of fur or saliva taken from animals.

Owners must give consent for the DNA sample to be taken from their pet, but it can them remain on the database for the rest of their life.

Well, given that permission is required first, I don't see this as getting anywhere.

I would also ask that, given that we are facing years of austerity and cuts, where exactly is the money coming from to fund this?

Barking mad!

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"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Beware Nanny's Prum Treaty

In the "good old" days of Nu Liebour, Nanny quietly signed up to an EU treaty in 2008 known as the Prum Treaty.

This treaty (yet to be implemented in the UK) entitles EU police forces to access Nanny UK's DNA database, the police fingerprint database and the DVLA records of every driver in Britain.

According to the Mail, Nanny EU is now fed up with the foot dragging of Nanny UK and is threatening to fine the UK unless access is given.

When this is implemented in the event that there is a cock up, ie an innocent person is mistakenly identified as a suspect, innocent Brits will find themselves extradited to a foreign land before they have the chance to prove their innocence in the UK.

Mind you this is par for the course under Liebour, given that it was Bliar that gave the US the right to extradite British citizens to the US to face trial over there (rather than be tried in the UK under British law) without the need for prima facie evidence of a crime.

However, it is only a one way agreement!

- It removes or restricts key protections for defendants
- It was signed and adopted without any parliamentary scrutiny

Under the treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

All happy with this are we?

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"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Gene Genie

Oh dear, I see some tired old Victorian theory about criminality being hereditary and determined by bumps on the head etc, has been dredged up and dressed in 21st century "genetic theory" to make it more plausible.

A University of Texas study recently published in the Criminology journal claims that, although there is no single gene which causes criminal behaviour, there are "probably" a wide range which play a small part in raising or lowering our chances of offending.

Dr J.C. Barnes, one of the co-authors, claims that there are thousands of genes that will incrementally (1%) increase the likelihood of being involved in a crime.

The trouble with research such as this is that, although scientists usually can grasp how probabilities and risk factors work and how significant or not they really are, politicians and the media know fark all about them and immediately work on the premise that an increase in risk/probability means "definitely will occur".

Cue calls by dog whistle politicians and the shouty media for a massive DNA database!

Oh hang on a minute, we're halfway there already aren't we?

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"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Pussycat Doll's DNA Database

I see that our pussycat loving Home Secretary, Theresa May, is in disagreement with the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) over DNA stored by the police.

Pussycat May wants the police to be able to store indefinitely the DNA of adults convicted/cautioned, whilst those charged but later cleared (ie "not guilty" in the eyes of the law) would have their DNA stored for up to five years. Plus, in the event of a "perceived" threat to national security, DNA could also be stored by the police.

New Balls Please

Oh dear, I really despair sometimes when I read what certain members of the police feel is worthy of their time and energy.

Lorretta Cole of North Baddesley has been getting a tad fed up with her neighbours' kids' cricket ball constantly landing in her garden.

One day it damaged her car, and she decided not to hand it back.

A classic neighbourhood dispute!

What happened next was not so "classic".

Mrs Cole was visited on three occasions by officers from Hampshire Police, who tried to persuade her to return it.

They warned her she could be arrested for theft, but she continued to hold on to the ball.

The result?

She was arresyed and detained for 5 hours while she was questioned and had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken.

Whilst I can see that, "technically", refusing to hand back the ball could be construed as "theft" and possibly also "wasting police time".

Surely questioning her for 5 hours and taking her DNA was a tad OTT?

She has now been released on bail, pending advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, and will have to return to the police station next month.

The ball has been seized by police as evidence.

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 booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Nanny's Bloody Database

I see that Nanny has been quietly building a DNA database, using blood samples taken from millions of newborn babies.

The blood samples are taken to check for serious conditions. However, despite giving new mums a nice little leaflet explaining why the samples are taken, what Nanny doesn't tell the mums is:

1 How long the hospitals will store the samples.

2 That the records can be accessed by police, coroners and medical researchers.

Some places are, apparently, keeping the samples on record for more than 20 years.

A glossy leaflet is not informed consent.

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 booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

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

Nanny's Council Spies Screw Up

You know how proud Nanny is of her extensive, and ever growing, network of CCTV cameras that follow our every move?

Well, my loyal readers, a rather large fly landed in Nanny's oinkment the other day in the shape of The Thirst.

The Thirst are a Brixton rock band, who were performing a gig at a pub in Chasetown, near Cannock on November 21.

Having duly "gigged", they were making their way back to their vehicles when 30 armed members of Nanny's "finest" (Staffordshire police), dog handlers and a helicopter "greeted" them with the well worn phrase:

"Down on the bloody ground!"

The Thirst were then taken off to the local nick and had their DNA taken.

Was their performance really so bad?

Errmmm...no, not quite!

Seemingly a member of the local council CCTV monitoring department saw one of The Thirst with a "gun" earlier in the evening.

Nanny's finest leaped to action, after allowing the performance to go ahead, and nicked them.

A few small points to raise at this point:

1 It was not a gun, but a set of jump leads for a flat battery

2 The police, for reasons that escape me, did not look at the CCTV footage themselves; they took the word of a council employee as gospel

3 Having not found any gun, the police still took DNA samples

Am I alone in finding this more than a tad "worrying"?

Since when were council staff members of the police?

Since when was it standard practice to nick, and DNA someone without any evidence?

Suffice to say a full apology has now been given, and an investigation is underway.

However, what would have happened if The Thirst had not been so co-operative?

This could have turned into a very ugly incident, all down to the say so of a council employee.

CCTV is not the be all and end all of law enforcement.

The pictures are invariably lousy, the "evidence" suspect and the fact that CCTV does not deter that many crimes (displacement, zero real time deterrent etc) indicates that it is a poor substitute for real, properly trained officers on the beat.

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 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

Nanny's DNA Database

I see that Nanny has come up with a sneaky way to build a DNA database for the entire population.

She is now routinely arresting people, simply to record their DNA profiles on the national database. That is the finding of the Human Genetics Commission.

A retired senior police officer told the commission:

"It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons . . . is so that DNA can be obtained."

DNA is not foolproof either. All a criminal has to do is wear someone else's clothes in order to contaminate the scene of the crime with a third party's DNA.

All in all a nasty and insidious development!

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 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

Big Brother - Nanny's DNA Database For Babies

Nanny's desire to record all of her subjects on a DNA database will not be mollified by ethics, decency or public outcry.

Nanny's best chum the ever hapless and hopeless Home Economics Minister (sorry Secretary of State for The Home Orifice), Jacqui Smith, has found herself trying lamely to defend a decision to place a baby's DNA on the national database.

Smith admitted that the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored.

I would remind everyone that, aside from the obvious point that a baby is unlikely to commit a crime, the age of age of criminal responsibility is ten in England and Wales.

Why therefore did the state choose to take the baby's DNA sample?

The most likely explanation is that the baby was at a crime scene, and all persons present had their DNA taken.

OK, that sounds just about plausible.

However, could Ms Smith explain why the baby's DNA sample (having been eliminated from the enquiry) was not then destroyed instead of being place in the database?

Even our "friends" in Europe think we are overdoing this. The European Court of Human Rights condemned the system as excessive and disproportionate, claiming it "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".

Oddly, back in December Ms Smith said that the Nanny would take "immediate steps" to remove the profiles of children under ten.

So why then does this baby's DNA remain on the database?

To further expose her lack of comprehension of the basic tenets of a democratic and just criminal justice system, Ms Smith said it was her intention to treat innocent people with "greater flexibility and fairness".

Errmmm...call me old fashioned...but isn't that what the system was meant to be doing already?

Is Ms Smith suggesting that the system does not, at present, treat innocent people fairly?

Isn't that the hallmark of a dictatorship?

Ms Smith is a fine example of a ZaNuLabour frontbencher:

- lacking in initiative,
- lacking intelligence,
- lacking understanding of the basic principles of law,
- lacking empathy with the voters,
- a failure,
- disliking democracy and,
- ignorant.

Vote ZaNuLabour for more of the same.

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

Big Brother - The Secret Use of The DNA Database

My thanks to Dixon of Dock Green who alerted me to this article on the Liberal Democrat site.

I publish below unedited.

Now is this doesn't tell you that Nanny has been lying through her teeth to us, over her plans for the DNA database, what will?

We still have two more years of this bunch of fascists in office (whoever ends up being PM), it never ceases to amaze me how the Labour Party (which claims to be "for the people") always ends up acting like fascists.

Things are going to get worse!

Article from Lib Dems (who are in many cases almost as bad as Nu Labour)

The Home office has been allowing private companies access to the DNA database for commercial reasons, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.

The information, revealed in response to Freedom of Information requests, shows how:

• Up to May of this year, the Home Office approved 25 applications for research projects using DNA profiles from the DNA database



• 5 are from private companies - Three from LGC and two from Orchid Cellmark



• In some of the research projects, full details are not disclosed because of FOI s43. This allows companies to not give details because it would harm their commercial interests.



• No one whose DNA is being used in these projects has given their consent.



• Innocent people are on the database, and their DNA will have been included in the research.



• The police, many of whose officers have added themselves to the DNA database voluntarily, rejected a request for their DNA samples to be used in a research project.

Liberal Democrat MP, Jenny Willott said:

"For nearly a decade, the Home Office has been secretly approving controversial research projects using profiles from the DNA database.

No consent was ever sought from the people involved, many of whom have never been charged or convicted of any offence.

It is outrageous that people's DNA has on five occasions been passed to private companies to pursue their own commercial interests.

The 25 projects that have been approved by ministers include some sinister explorations into ethnic profiling.

It is appalling that these Big Brother practices have been allowed to go on unchecked for so long and with extremely limited ethical standards.

Unless the Government comes clean about exactly what they are using profiles for, this highly dubious ethical practice of dishing DNA out for research must be suspended immediately."


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

Big Brother

Nanny, despite the fact that her DNA database is riddled with errors (see the "Big Bruvver" article) is intent on filling it with more data.

Nanny's ever efficient Home Orifice is considering giving the police the power to take a DNA sample on the street, without taking the suspect to a police station, as well as taking samples from suspects in relatively minor offences such as littering, speeding or not wearing a seat belt.

That's nice isn't it?

Drop a sweet wrapper, and you will end up on a criminal database!

The database is the largest in the world, with 3.4m profiles, more than 5% of the UK population. If the powers are granted, it would expand massively.

Don't worry folks, there will be public inquiry held by the official genetics watchdog.

So that's alright then!

Nanny always listens to her watchdogs, doesn't she?

Big Bruvver

Oh dear oh dear...what is the point of a database, if the data on the database is bollocks?

That is the question that Nanny is pondering after it was revealed that her much vaunted DNA database contains over 500,000 names that are false, misspelt or incorrect.

Nanny's much "respected" and "competent" ministers have admitted that one in seven of the genetic profiles on database is a "replicate", raising alarming questions about the integrity and accuracy of the entire system.

Nanny's database contains 4 million names, it is the largest in the world.

Something to be proud of eh?

It holds details of rapists, murderers, and suspects arrested but not charged. Unfortunately a database is only as good as the data it contains, if the data is bollocks then so is the database.

Thousands asked to give their details to police, upon arrest, have given false names or alternative spellings of their names. In other cases, mistakes have been made in the spelling of names. Some files include names belonging to someone else, or names of people who do not exist. Altogether there are 550,000 "replica" files.

Needless to say these errors, aside from making Nanny and her database look ridiculous, also pose a threat to innocent people who may be ensnared by the state because their names are mistakenly on the database.

The database also contains details of 150,000 children under the age of 16, many of whom have been arrested by police but found to be innocent or not charged with any crime.

We should not be surprised at this fiasco, Nanny's record when it comes to IT projects is lamentable (to put it politely) eg the health service. Politicians should never be allowed anywhere near long term complex projects such as IT development (or indeed the Olympics), they have neither the brains, experience, qualifications or time (5 year projects run by 2 year politicians) to be involved with such things.

That being said, Nanny doesn't give a stuff; she will continue adding to her erroneous database and hang the consequences (and any poor sod mistakenly picked up by the state for having his/her name on the system)!