A man found guilty of illegally keeping wild birds in his garden shed has been banned from driving for four months by a district judge.
I swear, I am not making this up. This bugger, who frankly sounds as daft as a brush, was caught illegally keeping birds, couldn't prove anything, bang to rights, all fine.
District judge Jill Watkins said as he was on benefits and a "man of limited means" [remember this] she would punish him with a driving ban as a deterrent to others.
A driving ban? What the cunting fuck was this dozy cow smoking? How is a driving ban in any way, shape or form, a relevant punishment for keeping birds illegally? What's next, a Chinese burn for littering? A donkey punch for failing to stop at a traffic light?
Remember the "limited means"?
She also ordered him to pay £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.
Not that fucking limited, then.
Am I being unduly cynical or paranoid when I wonder if driving bans are going to be the de rigeur future punishment of choice for left-leaning, eco-wibbling, but above all fucking stupid judges?
Hat tip is due to fuckweasel for this one.
6 comments:
WTF the chap has to pay a grand and loses the use of his car?
Actually driving bans can be good punishment. Maybe not in this case.
Losing your license for thirty days or more is something you will remember. Paying a fine of a few hundred dollars means nothing to many people.
The weakness of the ban is that the person may simply drive anyway and get away with it.
A fine seems more certain. You pay. But that many not be true.
In the US you just tell the court clerk you don't have the money at the moment.
You will be told to return with it. You leave. The clerk files a paper and it is forgotten.
Nothing happens unless you are arrested again for some reason and the old record is found. Then you will be told to pay. You tell the clerk you don't have the money at the moment....
Most courts would be better run by six-week-old puppies. But they have the power of law and can summon almost unlimited force when irritated. That is why most people avoid provoking them.
Remember a few months ago this scumbag excuse for a government introduced the surcharge on speeding tickets to pay for compensation to victims of domestic violence. Again, a punishment for a completely unrelated crime you didn't commit. Bastards, all of them.
Woah!
How do you 'keep birds'? Were they cooped up in a shed or something? You put out food, they fly in, scoff it and fly off again.
Driving bans are only a suitable punishment for driving badly, end of. This isn't the first time this has happened - Google "Stuart Harding" + A325, though at least that was tenuously related to driving and you could almost understand how magistrates might jump to a driving ban as appropriate punishment for obstructing police running a speed trap. But for keeping wild birds? Jesus, Britain really is becoming a stupid place.
Read the last couple of paragraphsof this. Interesting, eh?
Post a Comment