WEDNESDAY October 10 - my letter (‘I have survived …’) has been published. I am satisfied that the content, a subtle reflection on the antics of Speedwatch, is sufficient to uphold the tradition of using humour as a means of debunking the pomposity of those with a smattering of power.
I envisage some sort of published reply, quoting unsubstantiated statistics, doubtless using the death of some poor accident victim, in an attempt to instil guilt and justify a raison d'être.
I look forward to the delivery of the next edition of the weekly organ, akin to a hungry Labrador awaiting a bone thrust through a letterbox.
Wednesday October 17 - correspondence from the father of the local Speedos, no less!
I read the reply, trying to cut through the fusillade of worn, spat-out feathers. I attempt to see the relevance of the letter, the content seemingly only confirming the failure and ineffectiveness of the writer's organisation. I conclude that he, in haste to cobble together something salient, has missed my point.
So I decide to state my position as a responsible citizen. I regard speeding as a criminal, dangerous and anti-social act. I leave implementation of the law to our well-trained and tax-funded police. I trust the courts to punish the guilty.
I do not support the attempted enforcement of the law (and implied guilt) to a bunch of self-important velocity do-gooders.
As requested by your correspondent (letters, October 17), I have taken my tongue from my cheek. I look forward to his taking his head from where it seems well and truly stuck.