Yacht Skipper accused obstructing warship

[toad_oftoadhall]

just thought i would post it

There's a widow in sleepy Chepstow,
who weeps for an only Son....

 

[Sybarite]

Question - is it not dipped three times to the RN and once to Merchant Navy?

John

 

[Sybarite]

In France there is a specific offence of not complying immediately with an order given by the Police. You comply first and question after.

John

 

[Sybarite]

I was returning to Lorient after dark one and saw small nav lights approaching. Plenty of room in the channel to let this little mobo past. 'Twas a submarine.

John

 

[timbartlett]

Sorry but its stuck at two.

Today's appearance would be to take a plea and set a date for the trial. No need for witnesses to attend.

The police cannot make any comment as it would be sub judice. Not breaking the law would seem to be a sensible policy for the police.

Since the trial hasn't yet taken place I can't see any victory for anyone.

W'll just have to wait and see what the trial brings.

If you would care to check the beginning of this thread, you'll see that the incident rook place in May, and the first court appearance was in September. The victim pleaded not guilty, and the magistrates adjourned the case for a full trial on Dec15-16.

The latest news story is that the prosecution has been dropped because "it is not in the public interest".

So it is not sub judice*: the prosecution has been dropped, so the proceedings are no longer active.

I agree that not being prosecuted shouldn't be regarded as a victory, but the fact remains that in modern Britain, random prosecution and arbitrary penalties are becoming commonplace.

I wouldn't mind betting that the decision to drop the case had been made before the first trial, but that they thought it was worth a punt in case the target might plead guilty. The only reasons I can imagine for keeping it alive kept it alive for three months -- to within a week of the trial date -- are
(a) a lot of people would have seen the stories in September and assume "no smoke without fire" and (b) in their minds, anyone who dares to oppose "authority" deserves to be inconvenienced and left out of pocket as much as possible.

Not breaking the law would seem to be a sensible policy for the police.

When did this change of policy happen, and why haven't we been told?

 

[chrishelen]

oh believe me, you will not have known obnoxiousness until you have met some of the worst naval officer!

,

Some officers wifes can show off a bit as well.