True British Spunk

I received this letter (see below) today from a regular visitor, who was enraged by the daft decision of Nanny to fine Daniel Roy for trying to save his friend from drowning.

If I may say so the author, by sticking two fingers up at Nanny and by swimming in the Mersey, displays true British spunk!

Can I say spunk on the net?

My thanks to the author for writing to me.

Here is the letter:

Hi Ken,

Re the above, I just sent the following to Weymouth's Tourism department:

"£68 fine, 1 year's conditional discharge, and if I remember correctly, £460 pounds costs. All inflicted on a young man for diving into the local harbour to save someone from drowning. You even have the brass neck to prosecute the rescuee. As a keen swimmer you can be sure that I've struck you off my list of places to visit, and I'll persuade as many others as I can to follow suit. I'm not interested in "Health and Safety" nonsense. I swim in one of the busiest rivers in Europe, Liverpool's R. Mersey, just hundreds of yards from container ships and other large vessels. Perfectly safely, from a designated bathing beach."

Yes, the rescuee WAS also prosecuted.

I wouldn't take a boat there either. If I fell in no-one would rescue me, and if I survived I'd end up before the beak having to sell my boat to pay the fine.

Yes, I do swim in the now clean, but muddy Mersey perfectly safely and legally from New Brighton's EU approved bathing beaches. Just hundreds of yards from rapidly moving supertankers etc. and in full view of Liverpool's famous waterfront. And I should be taking part in a charity swim the 1.5m across the river in August

What could be so hazardous about Weymouth's little harbour to justify their stance?

NB I'll forward a copy of their reply - that is if I get one!