Old Heliman
Of course it doesn't
"tie in well with what has been said in this forum".
What you read on Pprune is written by me; what you read in the newspapers is a journo's version of what I've said. I'm sure you don't normally believe all you read in the newspapers but I realise the temptation was too great on this occasion – for reasons you know, and I worked out a long time ago.
What I actually said (in the course of suggesting it was curious this matter was prosecuted rather than being dealt with by a warning) was that I couldn't recall a previous occasion when someone had been prosecuted
for infringing restricted airspace where there was no element of danger.
The CAA frequently prosecutes pilots for breaches of the regs where there was not even a remote risk of danger. What was unusual in this case was that the CAA had to concede there was no danger. The more common CAA approach is to embark on flights of fancy about what 'might' have happened in order to create an impression that what a pilot did was terribly dangerous.