So Nicholas Soames MP is banned from driving for 2 months. Class-envy ridden anti-hunt protesters filmed him driving a quad bike on a public road and, technically, the vehicle was not insured for the few moments it was off private and on public property.
Quite why this had to come anywhere near a court is beyond me. The time spent by the police, prosecutors, court officials, magistrates and the cost of legal representation is wholly out of all proportion. I'm all for zero tolerance but is this honestly the kind of prosecution that anyone thinks the CPS should be mounting when a caution would have been more appropriate? I know Mr Soames went to Eton but he is hardly likely to become a menace to society!
Who knows, maybe Gordon Brown's welcome conversion to localism (which sees him endorse the idea I proposed over a decade ago to the National Association of Conservative Graduates whereby police should be truly locally accountable) may mean that such pointless prosecutions become a thing of the past...
Saturday 4th July 2009
-
9.15am Local Government: Should council sue parents who lie to get their children into good school? ToryDiary: CSJ report to provide "Tory blueprint for the ...
1 hour ago
5 comments:
Being a Tory MP continues to be seen as being an aggravating factor.
C'mon Donal - he's carrying three young children and a pregnant woman unrestrained in a slurry-splattered agricultural trailor without insurance on a public road (albeit briefly) - had he hit someone, without insurance it could have had serious implications for that entirely innocent third party.
He ignored warnings on the vehicle and didn't even have the good grace to acknowledge it was a bit reckless when first pointed out to him. He already had 9 points on his licence for presumaly breaking the law on other occassions and for all of that he's been fined less than a days wages and told to keep of the road for a couple of months.
I completely agree that there are far more pressing issues for the police to handle and yes, class-envy was no doubt part of the motivation.
But your selectively edited post suggests an entirely innocent man falling foul of a technicality when any fair reading of the story demonstrates otherwise - a bit of a reckless moron 'with prior' as they say and clearly in need of a lesson.
I suspect you're 'zero tolerance' man like me - if so it works both ways and there are no exemptions for people just because you might consider them 'good sorts'! If he'd had the humility to recognise his error beforehand I suspect things might've been different anyway...
So whats the alernative? A pat on the back and ask him not to do it again?
I think that assuming he should get off without charge is a textbook case of class arrogance. The fact that he has the letters M and P after his name does not mean he can ignore the law, no matter how trivial it is.
Yep, laws are there for a reason. They apply to us, they apply to him and they apply to you.
Perhaps you're one of those that believes that Amy Winehouse should be walking the streets a free woman? I mean, hey, its not like she's hurting anyone... right?
You're not big on dialogue Donal are you?
Your blog, your rules I suppose but when people take issue with you and you don't even respond or defend your position your arguments and opinions start to look weak and ill-informed.
You'd serve your readers and your own thinking better if you engaged a little....
Get a life, Cassilis. As you observed: this is my blog and is governed by my rules. Unlike you I actually have a busy and fulfilling life such that I cannot publish or respond to each and every comment on here. If you don't like it, GO ELSEWHERE!
Post a Comment