Wednesday, January 05, 2011

The road to hell

[NB: I am not the Devil]

Yes, I know I'm on a break. No, I honestly do mean it: I'm just putting my head round the door. But really, shit like this just fucking boils my piss:

A driver prosecuted for flashing his headlights to warn motorists of a mobile police speed gun has defended his actions as his "civic duty".

Michael Thompson, 64, was pulled over by officers in Grimsby in July after warning several oncoming cars. He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £250 costs after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.

It's worth teasing out the implications of this case, which for the sake of clarity I shall henceforth refer to as Cunts et al. v Thompson. Because it now seems as though warning someone not to break the law is itself against the law. Worse, it would appear that what the authorities want us to do in these cases is quietly to connive in the lawbreaking behaviour we see going on in front of us - even though that behaviour is supposedly endangering the lives of other road users. We are through the looking glass, people.

When I see someone committing, or intending to commit, a crime, then following the precedent laid down by Cunts et al. v Thompson I'm clearly supposed to look the other way because it's none of my business. But that is absurd. If I see an anti-war protester sneaking up behind Tony Blair to kick him in the nuts, am I supposed to say nothing and just let the assault take place?

OK, bad example. But Mr Thompson was warning motorists to obey the speed limit. The reason he chose to do this is entirely fucking irrelevant. There are many reasons we choose to obey laws; because of our moral beliefs, out of habit, or because we fear the consequences of being caught. Mere observance of the rules is enough; it doesn't fucking matter why and it's none of your business why, you jobsworth shitballs.

The finding of guilt in Cunts et al. v Thompson says it all, really: "wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties". Get this, you spunk-gargling fucktrumpets; your "duty" is to stop people from driving too fast on the motorway. Your "duty" is not to entrap people to juke up your arrest stats because you're a miserable lowlife excuse for a human being whose most meaningful moments in life have exclusively centred around sitting on the sofa with a bottle of Lambrusco whacking off to The Bill.

Michael Thompson was doing your fucking job for you, Plod. "Civic duty"? Damn right.


cuffleyburgers said...

Good to see you back Mr E - I suspect that more piss-boiling moments are in the offing as Messrs C and their coalition continue to nudge us towards achieving what Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler all failed to do, and I fervently hope you will not be alone in returning unto the breach...

blingmun said...

Shocking, outrageous, disgusting...I am almost lost for words. The Police have become a menace. It is time for concerned citizens to plan how we can use force to help people like Michael Thompson. Cases like this should be escalated to any level of violence necessary, until everyone in the country is obliged to choose between supporting arbitrary, cynical abuse of police power, and simple common sense.

Intruder said...

A big contrast to the police activity in my rural part of France. Here crime is rare and insurance rates reflect this. But the police, who need something to do, publish the places and times of their mobile radar traps in the free newspaper. or maybe they want to remain popular with the locals and only catch interesting tourists.

knirirr said...

I've discussed sort of thing with leftists before. They seem to believe that those who view the light flashes and who were speeding just beforehand are criminals who have now evaded punishment, and the flashing of lights is therefore morally equivalent to warning a burglar, who is in the middle of raiding someone's house, that the police are on the way.

It hardly needs saying that this is bollocks.

JuliaM said...

Excellent to see you back!

Almost worth the police being totally out of control barely a week into 2011 if this is the result... ;)

Davieboy said...

Great post, reminding us of what we're missing....

microdave said...

One thing that immediately struck me as totally hypocritical, is the way that "Safety Camera Partnerships" always say that their purpose is to get people to drive within the speed limits, and that they are NOT solely about collecting revenue.

This case blows that bullshit clean out of the water!

I am just waiting for the next time a spokesperson pops up in the local paper...

Cunts, the lot of them...

gordon-bennett said...

Next thing you know, they'll be suing speed limit signs for warning drivers to slow down!

Anonymous said...

"Next thing you know, they'll be suing speed limit signs for warning drivers to slow down! "

Hah. California, USA, just passed a law to encourage and making legal for any and all types of retail stores to pass out free drink samples of beer, wine and even hard liquor. And this in such a "health conscious" state that outdoor smoking is banned nearly everywhere, though the effects of SHS/ETS have YET to be shown dangerous. So why then make a law to encourage and enable everyone who drives to retail stores to swallow down huge gobs of liquor, free and on-the-house, if not the same state government is planning on having police cars patrolling around these stores just waiting for the first person to drive out of the parking lot and into the street, to be arrested. With the legal alcohol limit damn close to 0 in California and police blockades of main thruways a daily constant, the example shown here could just be the reasoning behind why California would suddenly decide to encourage free hard liquor sampling at all retail locations across the state. I still flash my headlights to warn of trouble ahead, be it accident, back-up or patrol car on the prowl for revenue. Police are no longer the defenders of the good like they used to be. They are enforcers of the state and becoming disgustingly hard-core to the point of jack-boots if they take it any further. There needs to be a defense fund, a real charity, not the fake-charity the types we only see today that always promote the state over the people, but a real charity to work the other way around, so that innocent people like in this story can have a fighting chance against the dictatorship of government and its legions of police enforcers.

Sean O'Hare said...

If I see an anti-war protester sneaking up behind Tony Blair to kick him in the nuts

I always thought Bliar was a bit strange, but having his nuts around his backside seems utterly bizarre!

JuliaM said...

It is. We all know Cherie keeps them in her handbag...

Anonymous said...

It's great to see you back Mr E.

However, I do wonder what any of us is actually going to do; other than write angry blog posts and comment on them.

I'm not going to do anything. I've learnt that taking part in party politics is a waste of time.

So, what else? It's embarrassing to admit but I have too much to lose to take part in direct action and would almost certainly:

* be on my own
* be labelled a fascist because I support something that isn't left-wing.

Seriously, what can we do? The weight of entrenched interests and a bovine populace seem to have led us beyond a point of no return.

In short, we're fucked but no one's going to do anything about it.

Sean O'Hare said...


I didn't know that. Nice one (or two)!

Anonymous said...

I couldn't have put it better myself, in fact I doubt _anyone_ could have put it better!

"Get this, you spunk-gargling fucktrumpets;" is now my favourite part sentence!


Dioclese said...

"You can't teach a pig to sing - it frustrates you and annoys the pig!"

Seems rather apt in this case...

Alan Douglas said...

Didn't I once hear, a long long time ago, that the courts were the ordinary man's bulwark against the imposts of the overweening state ?

Now they seem to be nothing more that pricks. That is, of course, the goads at the end of the hammers which are used to smash the individual, rather than any other less fortunate meaning. Pricks, every one of them.

Alan Douglas

Wake up Plod! said...

If he had had legal representation he probably would have won the case, as a similar one had been thrown out before (2003-ish?).

Perhaps he could not afford it.

Justice - the best that money can buy.

Anyway, it's not illegal to debate with plod at the road-side. Just ill-advised.

Funny how plod love a soft-target though, eh? Kettle those nice middle-class protestors while the black-clad anarcho-lefty-gayboys are burning the buildings.

Wake up ploddo - remember who pays your fucking wages.

Anonymous said...

It's frowned upon in Germany, so instead drivers will extend a hand towards the windscreen with the fingers splayed -5 digits = 50 km/h, geddit?

It is against the rules in that fucking nanny/police State of New South Wales. I used to flick my interior light on and off.

Nice to see your rage again, Mr E.

Roue le Jour said...

To the best of my knowledge it has always been illegal to warn other road users of police 'traps', they just haven't had the brass neck to prosecute.

Older readers will recall the 'AA patrolman that didn't salute'. Younger readers can check this Daily Mail article.

Chris Edwards said...

Unless the road traffic acts have changed the speed limit is for safety and if exceeded you MAY be liable to prosecution. so unless the plod could prove beyond reasonable doubt that this gents actions caused any offenders to cease being unsafe and slow down surely there was no offense?? I left the effin nazi state after getting screwed by the CSA wh I had bang to rights legaly but they dont do legal.

academic said...

Thank you for posting such a useful, impressive and a wicked article./Wow.. looking good!
Kitchen Garden

FlipC said...

Just to play devil's advocate consider the following situation:

You are walking along when you see someone about to commit an offence. Your response is either -

1) "Hey you shouldn't do that and I'm calling the police"
2) "Hey you shouldn't do that as there's a copper following me and they'll catch you"

The first reply is an acceptance that the law should be obeyed. The second that the law should only be obeyed when you think you won't get caught breaking it.

knirirr said...


Is the offence in your example one that is clearly immoral, in that it involves the initiation of force or fraud against another? If so then the first reply (and associated reasoning) would seem appropriate.

But, if it's not such an offence then the matter is less clear cut.

FlipC said...

Either, neither. The phrase "clearly immoral" is a subjective term, but let's not head down that route.

Now define force. If I take a corner too fast that could result in force against another is that different from someone dropping litter that either forces me to pick it up or forces me to pay for someone else to do so (discounting the third option of just ignoring it)

Now in both cases it could be said that the offender's intentions were not to initiate any force at all, but our Greek friend has already stated that "Mere observance of the rules is enough; it doesn't fucking matter why and it's none of your business why" so the point in this case is moot.

To the point are you warning against a breaking of the "rules" because they should be observed or because you don't want to get caught.

knirirr said...


To address your point of:

To the point are you warning against a breaking of the "rules" because they should be observed or because you don't want to get caught.

If the rule says to not do a thing that is (subjectively, as you please) bad and naughty, an act I would consider wrong even in the absence of a law against it, then I accept that the law should be obeyed.
If the rule says to not do a thing that is not clearly bad and naughty, then I am less likely to accept that the law should be obeyed.

Thus, I might warn people not to murder someone in order to steal their valuables because it is evil, but warn them not to grow pot in their own loft because they might get found out and arrested.

FlipC said...


Skipping the b&n and back to the initial case, my point was that by warning the drivers to slow down removes the disincentive of them getting caught speeding and thus they'll just do it again at some other point in time.

As such this is my second response of "Hey you shouldn't do that as there's a copper following me and they'll catch you" It's not stopping the offence simply moving it to another time/place.

Therefore this isn't observation of the rules, this is observation of the rules when under observation.

knirirr said...


It's not stopping the offence simply moving it to another time/place.

In relation to this, is there any driver who has never exceeded a speed limit anywhere, ever, even by a tiny amount? Some may claim so, but I would not believe them. The limits are really a crude and imperfect means of identifying whether a driver is increasing the risk of accident to 'excessive' (another subjective measure) levels. There are so many other factors to consider in addition to speed, and although increased speed will very likely increase the damage caused in an accident it does not necessarily increase the chance of one occurring.

Thus, it is not true to say, for example, that at a particular spot on a road that 50mph is always 'safe' and 51mph always 'dangerous'. Following on from that, to define the act of driving at 51mph through this spot as a 'crime' is, in my opinion at least, rather unreasonable and simplistic. As, indeed, is punishing someone for warning others that if they do so they'll be sorry.

Therefore this isn't observation of the rules, this is observation of the rules when under observation.

Fair enough.

David C said...

Great post. Very clearly argued - by far the best of the many posts on this. I hope you will start posting regularly again soon.

Anonymous said...


In order to be able to radically alter this country to something near their totalitarian ideal, the old reds like Straw, the Milipedes, Charles Clarke, Blunkett etc infiltrated Labour to get their red mitts on the levers of power. Naturally these creatures made a bee line for the home office once in government on the coat tails of Anthony Bliar, a vacuous but voter friendly front man.

That method is really the only realistic option for libertarians if they wish to destroy the neo fascism we now see around us. The police state didn't just happen, it was planned. The uber statist euro nightmare attracts the old reds because it is their new Soviet dream project, since the old one they worshipped fell apart.

Libertarians must gain control of an existing party which has a chance of governing, just as the Marxists found it was no use trying to change things by staying in tiny socialist agitation groups.

JimmyGiro said...

Mr. E. wrote:
" would appear that what the authorities want us to do in these cases is quietly to connive in the lawbreaking behaviour we see going on in front of us..."

Ayn Rand wrote:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Write Mind said...

I can't believe it what a piss take. It just shows that the police have no interest in safety and just want the bleeding money!

The Arseholes!

the a&e charge nurse said...

What a cracking post (very funny, yet though provoking).

Many have long suspected that the persecution of motorists is little more than a fig leaf to squeeze as much money (out of honest people) as possible out of people - while at the same time massaging conviction stats to make the police look they are doing a good job.

More important though is the principle, now endorsed by the courts and the police, that crime prevention will be viewed in a very dim light should it get in the way of extorting motorists or making the police stats look marginally less impressive?

Roger Thornhill said...

I think it should read "willfully obstructig a Police Officer in his revenue collecting duties"

David Chappell said...

"Therefore this isn't observation of the rules, this is observation of the rules when under observation."

This a "when a tree falls unobserved" type of argument and it doesn't fucking matter. The point is that, observed or unobserved, the rules are being obeyed.

Of course, there is apparently no evidence that the people being warned were in fact breaking the rules by speeding, and if they weren't, no offence occurred and so how could the plodess be obstructed in her duty?

FlipC said...

@David - Thus to push this argument to the same extremes as has been done you would contend there is no such offence as attempted murder; or that should I accidentally drop a heavy object on a person and kill them this should be regarded the same way as if I did so deliberately as my reasons for disobeying the law should be held in the same regard as my reasons for obeying the law?

mark patrick norris said...

Jerry Adams Scotland Yard rope berry
to stop it. news hub. tub the other way round.

AS Minister John Major would say we will not harbour there conductor
of light of earth wire of Star Chamber program of bubble echo nor
should we bus shelter there cogs wheels of pilot light as Scotland
Yard Clive stevens to open up shop nor should William Hague support
the 14 for a copy across the law bar to transfer their restaurant in
air to lay it a cross the ground to dust bag Jerry Adams no matter
what the weather as thy spoon and ping on protocol on big wheels of
cog 33 tables as yard occupied 26 tables on Qdoss may say Alastair
Campbell buy space book of paint by number as Jerry Adams enters the
restaurant has starter and main course as they check there shores he
does not get to eat deserts has he his carried out on a trolley as s/y
puts on a balaclava and runs out off restaurant and caught on cctv as
William Hague would say we have gone pub-lic on tiny cog wheel what
happened to Ian Huntley bubble I hope it was shut down or did they get
another gig or rest bite…

saint danger
best regards
as my mind is online
mark patrick norris
50a Castle Hill Avenue
CT20 2RE