Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Prats of The Week - CPS



Goodness me, the week is almost over and I have yet to award one of my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes (somewhat belatedly, as the story is a tad past its prime) to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

For why?

Ask Michael Thompson, who was recently prosecuted at the behest of the CPS.

What did he do?

Way back in July 2010 he was driving through a police speed trap in the Grimsby area, and flashed his headlights to warn fellow knights of the road about a mobile police speed gun.

The police flagged him down and charged him, peding CPS approval.

Note, he wasn't prosecuted by the CPS for speeding but for warning other motorists.

Nanny's chums at Grimsby Magistrates' Court have fined Mr Thompson £175 plus £250 costs plus a £15 "victim" surcharge ("victim"? what "victim"??), on the basis that he was wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.

Mr Thompson is of the view that it was his civic duty to warn others.

Here's my view, the CPS and police are fooling no one with this prosecution. The theoretical purpose of speed traps etc is to ensure that motorists adhere to the speed limit.

Therefore if motorists know that there is a speed trap they will slow down, thus ensuring they keep to the speed limit and satisfying the alleged purpose of the speed trap.

However, the reality is that speed cameras and traps are a nice little earner for the state and local police forces (cameras have raised £100M in fines since they were introduced in the 90's). The reason for the prosecution was that Nanny was furious that one of her ways of making money out of us was thwarted.

Ker farking ching!

Mr Thompson should be praised for his actions!

The CPS, well deserving Prats of The Week!

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, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

4 comments:

  1. Ken,

    Totally agree!!
    I have had conversations with police officers and council "officers" regarding the purpose of speed cameras etc.....They told me that the main reason for such things were to slow down the traffic. In fact, one police officer told me that when a motorist sees a marked car, he will slow down even if he is not speeding.
    I think the general public became less supportive of speed cameras when the local councils became involved, at which point it became a mere money making scheme and had nothing to do with road safety.
    I was also told by an officer of the law that, people complain to them when the police do their "Get to know your local police team and grass on your neighbours" meetings that too many people are speeding through their residential streets and it is dangerous for the children (ah the kid card; won't someone think of the children)on their way to school however, when the police set up an operation to catch these speeders, very often it is the locals that they catch and often, the parents that were complaining about their own child's safety.

    So why was this gentleman prosecuted? simple, as you say, a few extra quid in Nanny's bin plus, another set of DNA and fingerprints on Nanny's database and a box ticked for a cleared up crime!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lord of Atlantis3:35 PM

    Surely, if Mr Thompson was warning other motorists that there was a speed trap ahead, the majority would reduce speed to the legal limit, or less, thereby reducing the risk of a serious accident occurring? I agree with you, Ken, what victim, apart from Mr Thompson?

    Tonk said: ".... was also told by an officer of the law that, people complain to them when the police do their "Get to know your local police team and grass on your neighbours" meetings that too many people are speeding through their residential streets and it is dangerous for the children (ah the kid card; won't someone think of the children)on their way to school however, when the police set up an operation to catch these speeders, very often it is the locals that they catch and often, the parents that were complaining about their own child's safety."

    I'm afraid I have absolutely no sympathy for such a bunch of hypocrites!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lincolnshire has form on this. I used to visit one of my former employer's premises in Grimsby and was warned that Lincolnshire police were very agressive. I got caught in a naughty speed trap which involved a partially hidden sign, etc., in Lincolnshire as, not knowing the area, I was concentrating on the road. A lot of the speed traps there catch out visitors rather than locals, what a great incentive for tourists to visit! I haven't been back and have no intention of going.

    On this subject, have you seen the latest wheeze for spending taxpayers' money in Lancashire?

    http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8810811.20mph_limits_for_all_Lancashire_residential_roads/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tonk.4:52 PM

    My Lord said;
    "I'm afraid I have absolutely no sympathy for such a bunch of hypocrites!"

    No, neither do I.....I was merely pointing out how hypocritical people can be....Many people think laws should only apply to others.
    Anybody caught speeding in a residential area should have the book thrown at them however, speed limits are a typical "one size fits all" law and doesn't take into account traffic levels, road conditions nor time of day for example, I can see no justification for nicking a driver at two o'clock in the morning, on a well lit, dry, empty motorway for doing eighty miles an hour but, I could see the justification for nicking someone driving at thirty two miles an hour on a wet road, by a school in a residential area at ten to nine in the morning....I merely advocate common sense.


    With reference to;
    (("Get to know your local police team and grass on your neighbours" meetings}}

    I was merely pointing out that here we have had such "events" and many of the people that attend these events appear to have a need or wish, to see others getting into trouble; a bit like the class sneak. We had a large gazeebo, three police vehicles, three proper police officers in hi-viz and two PCSOs, also in high viz, camped almost outside my house for a day. For the rest of the week they moved around the area. They gave out stickers and things to kids and gave "advice" to adults. We are told that we have too few police and resourses in our area and, I am told, that when one reports a burglary, often one is just given a crime number so one can claim on ones insurance and the police seldom attend. I just feel that, whilst this type of event may well look good on paper for the box tickers, it starves the area of police and thus has a negative effect.

    ReplyDelete