Do you recall those marvellous public information films in the sixties and seventies, which on the one hand warned of the dangers of playing near canals and ponds (lest you fall in and drown) and on the other encouraged you to learn to swim so that you could save yourself, or someone else, if you did end up in the water?Well, Nanny has decided that the safest thing to do is to ensure that we don't swim at all.
Nanny's trolls in a Weymouth magistrates court earlier this month decided to ensure that Nanny's no swimming message was heard loud and clear, much to the chagrin of Daniel Roy from Portland Dorset.
You see Mr Roy was caught in Weymouth Harbour, which has a strict no "enter the water" policy. The magistrates fined Mr Roy £68 for breaking the law.
However, I should at this stage point out that Mr Roy was not in the water for some self centred personal amusement; he was in fact trying to rescue his best friend from drowning!
Maybe he shouldn't have bothered?
Welcome to Lah Lah Land!
You mean to tell us that the fool actually paid this fine?he deserves everything he gets , unfortunately this moron is dragging the rest of us down the same path by not resisting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I should at this stage point out that Mr Roy was not in the water for some self centred personal amusement; he was in fact trying to rescue his best friend from drowning!
ReplyDeleteMaybe he shouldn't have bothered?
Apparently Mr. Roy lacked the proper lifesaving permit (and probably wasn't "officially" CPR certified either).
I can think of few more egregious sins that a lowly thrall can commit than to prove that Nanny the Omnipotent is superfluous to the process of saving lives. I'm just surprised the poor victim in this case wasn't thrown back into the water so that Nanny's minions could "rescue" him properly.
"I'm just surprised the poor victim in this case wasn't thrown back into the water so that Nanny's minions could "rescue" him properly."
ReplyDeleteEr ... how do you know they didn't?
Ah, but how do you know that the "friend drowning" story wasn't made up to cover the fact that they were larking around?
ReplyDeleteThe local paper has a similar prosecution story. It still seems a complete waste of public money to prosecute though.
http://archive.dorsetecho.co.uk/2006/2/11/114134.html
David
I assume then if you happen to be in the area of Weymouth harbour, and encounter someone drowning, you should not attempt to rescue them but leave them to drown? What kind of sick jobsworth made the decision to prosecute this case and what did the magistrate have for brains? Even if the person had NOT been rescuing someone who had fallen into the harbour but was larking about, there was no justification for taking this case to court (and it should have been thrown out and those who brought the case charged with a malicious prosecution). But to prosecute under the circumstances in question was obscene. Would I be correct, therefore, in assuming that there is little or no real crime in the Weymouth area, no problems with violence, drug dealing, burglary, car crime, etc., since police and court resources can be used for such a frivolous prosecution?
ReplyDeleteThe lunatics really have taken over the asylum?
O wow haha i did not relise this
ReplyDeleteSoz i'm Daniel Roy haha :P yes the one in this blog
www.myspace.com/esedess for proof
:S
but thanks for letting people know, thats kool
:)
And loving this site going through it now