We had a group of engineering officers visiting today and they joined us in the common room for break.
For some reason the conversation got onto motoring offences (none of my doing. I was playing Bridge so wasn't taking an active part in the discussion.)
Eventually one of the visitors trotted out the old clichÃ© about Police detecting real crime instead of victimizing motorists, at which point I became even less interested.
Predictably, I suppose, knowing the easy target the Judiciary make under normal circumstances, the conversation escalated to a discussion of the merits of defending oneself in Court against an allegation of a motoring offence and the same young chap (after mummy had taken him from the nipple, I suspect ) began to "give it large" concerning his seemingly vast experience of the Judicial system and the Court process. Not so much a chip on the shoulder, rather, I think, the whole damned forest
He then told all and sundry that it was useless to contest a motoring offence in Court because the Magistrates and Judges are "instructed to take the word of the Police." He swiftly followed this revelation with his view that the self-same Magistrates and Judges have absolutely no bottle and even less intelligence and understanding of the modern world, wishing only to know from whence came their next gin and tonic.
"That's why", he said, "they automatically double your fine and points if you argue the toss in Court."
Bless... nobody told him that there were, at that particular moment, three Magistrates in the room, who might want to take issue with his protestations. As you might imagine, similar conversations tend to occur frequently in our common room and most of the lecturers are more enlightened that your average bear when it comes to Court procedure
I did notice though, that after his last diatribe, the room went deathly quiet...
I just continued playing my hand and we made good on our bid of six spades
Oh callow youth.