THE LIMIT OF THE LAW

I'm sure that like me, you're pleased when you read that through the advancement of forensic techniques, murderers and rapists are being prosecuted many years after the offence. No doubt they thought they had got away with their crimes after they went unsolved for so long but thankfully 'cold cases' are in the process of warming up.

Cases of child abuse are undergoing a similar process and the horrific stories which have emerged often reveal that the worst offenders frequently worked as professionals with children. So who can children trust?

You might think that a county judge would administer fair justice to his children but the recent viral video released by Hillary Adams of her father beating her in 2004 when she was 16 years old disproves this. The video is sickening and shows the father clearly losing self-control as he repeatedly lashes his daughter with a leather strap. At one point he shouts 'Lay down or I'll spank you in the f***ing face.' Hillary had the forethought to set up the 'sting' when the beatings were forming a pattern, secretly filming the event and has now shared it with the world.

I shall leave you to form your own opinions about this case but the one thing which appals me is that because of the American 'statute of limitations', there is a good chance that this clear act of child abuse will go unpunished. Apparently cases have to be brought to court within five years. The argument is that as time passes, evidence becomes less reliable.

In this country we do not have such a view. We try the case and if the evidence is deemed unreliable so be it but if the case is proved then justice has been done.

Here ends the case for the prosecution.

HORSE SCENTS

It has been a while since I had a good old-fashioned rant so should you be carrying a hard hat about your person, this might be a good time to put it to use.

Pretend for a moment that you own a dog, all the better if you actually do. It doesn't matter what type it is but since the royal wedding is still keeping us buoyant let's go for a corgi. Your much loved corgi needs regular exercise and the fact that it is sitting there looking at you with the lead in its mouth is a clue here. So off the pair of you trot for a brisk walk.

Your corgi is very creative and takes an early opportunity to produce a small work of art on the pavement in a carefully chosen spot. Having completed its masterpiece, it sniffs it and satisfied with its achievement is ready to continue.

Being well aware that the local council do not share your corgi's opinion of its latest production, you produce a plastic bag from your pocket and dutifully scoop up the poop so as not to fall foul of the law. However, as you are doing so, a horse and rider pass by and said horse chooses this moment to deposit a massive smelly, steaming pile of dung in the road which puts Fido's small effort to shame.

Unlike the contents of your plastic bag this is completely legal excrement. The horse can if it wishes, prance around the road depositing small dollops wherever it likes and then ride on leaving steaming heaps in its wake. What madness is this?

Of course, horse riders pay no tax to use the road whereas the poor motorist, that will be you and me, pay an extortionate amount of road tax, part of which is used to pay people to clean up the horse shit. This is plainly unfair. We even have to stop, or slow down to let these free-riders pass.

My vision is that horse's bridles be slightly modified with a small circular pocket to display a tax disc. They should in future, pay for the use of their road toilets.

Alternatively, how about horse nappies? I commend the idea to the house.

WHO CARES?

I really shouldn't be complaining about this government and its laws. They have been so ridiculous lately, that I have had plenty of content for these posts. There was the idea of letting cyclists get a new bike from me by shoving their bikes in front of my car which I covered in 'The lunacy of the law', then there was the case of the school meals assistant who was sacked for letting a father know that his daughter had been the victim of a bullying attack not a skipping accident as the school had told him. That one was dealt with under 'Bully for her'.

The latest example is a beauty. Two female police officers who worked at the same station (so were colleagues and friends), have been looking after each others children - which worked really well since they work different shifts. You are probably waiting for me to go on to reveal something which they did wrong. I already did!

The government agency responsible for governing childcare (Ofsted), have declared their arrangement illegal. This is apparently because
1. They are not registered child minders.
2. They look after the children for longer than a 2-hour stretch.
3. They are remunerated for their time when looking after the children by receiving free childcare.

They are policewomen for heaven's sake! All they are doing is helping each other out and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with the law. To say that the law is an ass in this case is an insult to asses.

Rant over.

THE LUNACY OF LAW

I'm a bit peeved, no I'm cross, no I'm annoyed, no let's face it I'm furious! This tired government of ours is now openly displaying signs of utter senility. The issue is cyclists.

Although I am a motorist, I have nothing but admiration for cyclists. It is a great way of keeping fit. It is also a very green form of transport. I have no problem with cyclists jumping the lights when there is nothing coming - even though motorists can't. However, I do have a problem with new proposals by the government to 'improve' things for cyclists.

Firstly, they are thinking of making it legal for cyclists to cycle against the flow of traffic - to go in the wrong direction in one-way streets for instance. It's not hard to imagine myself happily driving my car down a one-way street when suddenly, a cyclist swings round the corner directly into my path.

As if this weren't crazy enough, the second idea they've come up with is that in any traffic accident, regardless of who is actually at fault, to assume that the most powerful vehicle involved is legally responsible for costs. A few examples... a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who doesn't have a chance to avoid the collision - the cyclist pays. A cyclist swerves in front of me giving me no time to miss him - I pay.

This is utter lunacy! The law normally blames the person who is at fault but is now expected to ignore the issue of who is at fault and blame the most powerful vehicle involved. How would this translate to other areas of the law? Let's see.... diminutive wife stabs beefy husband to death for his money - his fault because he's the bigger person!

So cyclists, if your bike is a bit old and rusty, just swerve into my car and I'll have to buy you a new one!

Is it me?