Conker season is upon us once again, as such along with the tradition of small boys throwing sticks at trees to knock down the conkers we have come to expect the now annual tradition of Nanny interfering with our nuts.
In previous years she has tried a few of her old tricks, see Conkers 2004.
Now this year she has gone one step further, and actually got the police involved!
Kiya Jayne, Charlie Richardson and a couple of other boys aged between 7 and 11 from Littlehampton (can I say Littlehampton on a public site?) were following the time honoured British pursuit of conker collecting. This involves throwing sticks into the conker tree to knock the conkers down to the ground.
Can you guess what happened?
One of Nanny's chums in the police intervened, confiscated their conkers and gave them a formal documented stop and search notice!
To add insult to injury, when the boys went back to the same tree the next day to get some more conkers (since the police had confiscated their original haul) they were confronted by the same policewoman.
The parents were told that the tree had a preservation order, and was on private property.
Yet, when challenged, the council then admitted that this was in fact untrue.
Bending the facts to suit the action of their police is hardly the correct thing to do is it?
Nanny's Sussex Police said:
"We confiscated a large bag of conkers.
The forms are a necessary form of bureaucracy
to ensure parents are aware we have spoken to their children."
Twats!
I am sure that the streets of Littlehampton are free of all crimes; there are no assaults, robberies or drug related incidents.
That is the only way that I can imagine that Nanny could possibly explain why her police force found the time, energy and inclination to confiscate a bag of conkers.
Small boys have been throwing sticks at conker trees for centuries in Britain, the trees have managed to survive and thrive without Nanny's "help".
It is hardly surprising that some children grow up with a major disrespect for the law.
"It is hardly surprising that some children grow up with a major disrespect for the law." In this day and age when the police are obviously completely incapable of realising what complete and utter twats they make of themselves, it would be truly surprising if anyone grew up with any respect for them. Remember the Constable Savage list of offences:
ReplyDeleteloitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing, smelling of foreign food, urinating in a public convenience, coughing without due care and attention, looking at me in a funny way, walking on the cracks in the pavement, walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness, walking around with an offensive wife and possession of curly black hair and thick lips.
These don't sound so ridiculous when placed against revving a car in a racist manner and collecting conkers. Surely the looking at me in a funny way arrest is only around the corner for these poor, sensitive little darlings.
At least walking aroud without one's brain engaged is not an offence as there hardly be a copper out of the nick, not that there is that often, too busy filling in the paper work on heinous little 7 year old villains collecting conkers (I guess some little policewoman is up for a bravery award for confronting these dangerous criminals all by her lonesome).
"Bending the facts to suit the action of their..." "is hardly the correct thing to do is it?"
ReplyDeleteEhrmmm.. didn't Nanny do that when she went off to invade foreign lands these past few years? Good example she sets then, isn't it?
As you so rightly say, no wonder there is a major disrespect for the law.
The police woman detected a tree two days running! Must be defective, sorry, Detective material. I suppose given that the average member of the Police Farce is out of their depth on a wet pavement we should be grateful that crime is so low. (Except in Manchester, which daily resembles the Wild West).
ReplyDeleteI can understand why Nanny's minions would initially claim the tree was on private property and protected.
ReplyDeleteImagine what would happen if they admitted responsibility for the tree on public land and someone claimed for injury from falling conkers under the ealth and Safety laws.
No doubt Little Hampton council, responding to their name, will have the tree removed before next year as a hazaerd to health. This will cost the tax pateyr of the borough very dear because not only will they have to pay for the tree to be obliterated but I assume they will be honour bound (at least) to buy some carbon credits to offset the loss of tree credit for carbon sequestration. Not sure how long a conker tree is expected to live but I would have thought a few hundred years so quite a lot of credits would be required.
They will also have to compensate the planet for the potential loss of conker tree offspring. Potential losses are almost always based on guesswork and come out as very high cost indeed. I can't imaginde the locals being able to afford all these penalties.
Unripened conkers are usless for playing with as they are too soft,i see no reason why these "little angels" can not wait untill they drop of thier own accord,why dammage a perfectly good tree through the inability to wait,but alas this is the "now" culture where we must have instant gratification ,wether it is sub-standard or not,everything is cheapned without patience.
ReplyDeleteKids have always knocked down conkers before they were "ready" - I certainly did.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a recent phenomenon.
" Remember the Constable Savage list of offences:"
ReplyDeleteI think that Constable Savage has been promoted and is now Chief Constable of the police force responsible for Littlehampton!