Oh dear, Nanny has banned my Dutch cousin..there's a very lame joke there folks, if you think hard about it!
OK, on with the story...
Ken Hardman was recently defrosting his car outside of his home, in Whittle-le-Woods Lancashire, and was fined £30 by Nanny for the offence of "quitting" the vehicle and leaving it vulnerable to theft.
However, Mr Hardman disputes the validity of the fine; he noted that thieves had no way of stealing his Mercedes saloon, because its windows and doors could be locked while the engine was running.
"I heard a knock on the door at 8.20am.
The officer asked me whether the car was
mine and said that, if it was, I was committing a crime.
I think it's completely outrageous.
This fine means that I'm paying stealth charges
even though there was no way of stealing it."
A police spokesman said:
"The officer tried to offer words of advice
but the male refused to accept them.
So the officer was left with no option
but to issue a fixed penalty notice of £30.
Every year we appeal to the public not to
leave their cars running unattended on frosty
mornings as they are easy pickings for thieves."
So, let's get this straight, Mr Hardman was fined because in the view of Nanny his car might have been stolen?
Isn't that Mr Hardman's business as to how well, or badly, he safeguards his property?
Does that mean Nanny will be fining all and sundry every time she sees a risk of a car or other object of being stolen?
Is this just an excuse to make money out of us?