razza699 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Terry Christian :censored:s baby goats, you know. Well I never Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well I never Yes you did. It was you that showed him how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Moving away from Razza'a perversity school, this is a very relevant take on it http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100007998/sick-comments-on-twitter-are-now-ludicrously-a-criminal-offence-so-how-come-no-one-has-arrested-frankie-boyle/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Beats the :censored: out of me why they plead guilty in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Another belter !! http://menmedia.co.u...-ref-on-twitter Terry Christian banned from watching son play after criticising ref on Twitter Seems fine to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think Frankie Boyle is hilarious, It's all about taste... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100007998/sick-comments-on-twitter-are-now-ludicrously-a-criminal-offence-so-how-come-no-one-has-arrested-frankie-boyle/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I know but just another example of how you cant do or say anything these days 20 years ago, the only dodgy digital communication you could have done is to write 'boobies' on your calculator. Surely the current issue is that by placing your comments on Twitter/FB, they can potentially be read by a infinite number of people and so are infinitely more chances to offend. The print media certainly feel that the general public are a lotter freer than they used to be and it is why, they want the messenger to be shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Another one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9601781/Jail-for-thug-who-wore-one-less-pig-t-shirt-after-death-of-policewomen.html Surely if this is 8 months then singing about Harry Roberts in a large choir should be a lot more? Not to say that it wasn't disgusting and it would have been no surprise if someone had given him a crack while he was walking down the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Another one: http://www.telegraph...olicewomen.html Surely if this is 8 months then singing about Harry Roberts in a large choir should be a lot more? Not to say that it wasn't disgusting and it would have been no surprise if someone had given him a crack while he was walking down the street. I think this case unlike the others is entirely correct... He wasn't just making a crude remark... He was wearing a shirt saying kill a cop for fun... Its different than the others... It goes way beyond free speech... Edited October 11, 2012 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Another one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9601781/Jail-for-thug-who-wore-one-less-pig-t-shirt-after-death-of-policewomen.html Surely if this is 8 months then singing about Harry Roberts in a large choir should be a lot more? Not to say that it wasn't disgusting and it would have been no surprise if someone had given him a crack while he was walking down the street. No mention of the fact he was in breach of his parole by possessing a personal amount of cannabis. The coppers will have known him, and he is a known offender. Wearing that shirt is asking to be stopped and searched. I don't have a problem with someone getting 8 months in prison for breach of parole conditions whilst wearing an offensive t-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 No mention of the fact he was in breach of his parole by possessing a personal amount of cannabis. The coppers will have known him, and he is a known offender. Wearing that shirt is asking to be stopped and searched. I don't have a problem with someone getting 8 months in prison for breach of parole conditions whilst wearing an offensive t-shirt. Well, I no more think he should be punished for possessing cannabis than for wearing that t-shirt. So whichever way I look at it he's been harshly treated. He's a bigotted arsehole who is happy that cops have died. He should be entitled to that view and to express that view. And from a purely selfish point of view, if someone is a complete tool, it saves me the time it takes to work that out if they have it written on their shirt. I am all in favour of dumbf*cks being allowed to express their dumbf*ckery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Nanny state intefering again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Another belter !! http://menmedia.co.u...-ref-on-twitter Terry Christian banned from watching son play after criticising ref on Twitter omg you mean that gobby :censored: has managed to breed ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Well, I no more think he should be punished for possessing cannabis than for wearing that t-shirt. So whichever way I look at it he's been harshly treated. He's a bigotted arsehole who is happy that cops have died. He should be entitled to that view and to express that view. And from a purely selfish point of view, if someone is a complete tool, it saves me the time it takes to work that out if they have it written on their shirt. I am all in favour of dumbf*cks being allowed to express their dumbf*ckery. Every one who breaches their banning orders at football games gets a further punishment. They are merely doing anything the rest of us can do legally but they have been banned. This idiot has been found in possession of a small amount of cannabis whilst on parole. He hasn't been punished for his possession of cannabis he has been punished for breaching the terms of his parole. A small amount of cannabis doesn't do anyone much harm. Breaching parole conditions can often do someone an awful lot of harm. Hence, why the punishment usually reflects the original sentence without early release for "good behaviour". He hasn't been harshly treated he has had his early release revoked after ceasing to display good behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Every one who breaches their banning orders at football games gets a further punishment. They are merely doing anything the rest of us can do legally but they have been banned. This idiot has been found in possession of a small amount of cannabis whilst on parole. He hasn't been punished for his possession of cannabis he has been punished for breaching the terms of his parole. A small amount of cannabis doesn't do anyone much harm. Breaching parole conditions can often do someone an awful lot of harm. Hence, why the punishment usually reflects the original sentence without early release for "good behaviour". He hasn't been harshly treated he has had his early release revoked after ceasing to display good behaviour. A small amount of cannibis doesn't do anyone any harm, except maybe the man himself. We appear to largely agree on that. Breaching parole conditions can often do someone alot of harm. Sure. Not with regards cannabis though. So I ask, why should his early release be revoked because of cannabis? How has he not been harshly treated regarding this? Edited October 15, 2012 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 A small amount of cannibis doesn't do anyone any harm, except maybe the man himself. We're appear to largely agree on that. Breaching parole conditions can often do someone alot of harm. Sure. Not with regards cannabis though. So I ask, why should his early release be revoked because of cannabis? How has he not been harshly treated regarding this? Because it was by virtue of him sticking to the conditions of his parole that he was allowed an early release from prison. Parolees often have a curfew, if they breach curfew they are in breach of their parole. (OK sometimes the cops will turn a blind eye). It is not illegal to be outside your house late at night but it is illegal to breach your parole conditions. You can breach your parole conditions in many ways, some of which are not illegal for the rest of the population. It isn't the nature of the breach of parole conditions that creates the punitive effect, it's the breaching of the parole. He has been returned to prison to see out the rest of his sentence for his original crime. If he had 3 months left on his sentence when arrested he would have served 3 months for having an small amount of cannabis and an offensive t-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Because it was by virtue of him sticking to the conditions of his parole that he was allowed an early release from prison. Parolees often have a curfew, if they breach curfew they are in breach of their parole. (OK sometimes the cops will turn a blind eye). It is not illegal to be outside your house late at night but it is illegal to breach your parole conditions. You can breach your parole conditions in many ways, some of which are not illegal for the rest of the population. It isn't the nature of the breach of parole conditions that creates the punitive effect, it's the breaching of the parole. He has been returned to prison to see out the rest of his sentence for his original crime. If he had 3 months left on his sentence when arrested he would have served 3 months for having an small amount of cannabis and an offensive t-shirt. It goes to show that he has :censored: for brains - a known criminal on parole wearing that a few hours after the WPCs were murdered was always likely to be lifted, and carrying a bit of gear when you are on parole and likely to be lifted isn't clever. It still doesn't answer the question of whether he should have been stopped on account of his shirt though. No stop = no search which makes the cannabis irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Personally, I would consider someone wearing a t shirt like on the day of the murder suspicious enough to warrant a search. Also isn't he encouraging people to kill others? Its a bit different to a protest. I think when we football fans complain of our treatment, the least we could expect is this guy to get searched. Guess what.... He's got previous oh and hes breached his parole conditions. Bye bye! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Apparently Thew's on antipsychotics, and has been in a mental institution , but should we really be locking people up for being unpleasant? Justin lee collins convicted of harrassment and making death threats to his former partner gets the humiliating 140 hours community service, and the mentally challenged Thew, gets four months. So, making death threats and harrassing someone is a less serious crime than wearing an offensive t-shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Whilst on the other hand, many people seem to be outraged by this use of social media, whilst I find it hilarious: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9611250/Britains-ambassador-to-Chile-angers-Argentina-after-Falkland-Islands-cowards-tweet.html#dsq-comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Apparently Thew's on antipsychotics, and has been in a mental institution , but should we really be locking people up for being unpleasant? Justin lee collins convicted of harrassment and making death threats to his former partner gets the humiliating 140 hours community service, and the mentally challenged Thew, gets four months. So, making death threats and harrassing someone is a less serious crime than wearing an offensive t-shirt. Perhaps it was not considered suitable for someone suffering from mental illness to have a community sentence.... Though you've got to wonder about Collins as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Just saw the same thing via Facebook and was about to repost! A very well thought out contribution to the debate and worth 9 minutes of time if you have them to spare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Another one. 100 hours of community service for shouting, same guy got a £200 fine for actually throwing paint at someone (admittedly it was only Nick Clegg). Which is more serious? Stuart Rodger sentenced for shouting at David Cameron Rodger targeted a speech in Glasgow by Prime Minister David CameronContinue reading the main story Related Stories Student threw blue paint at Clegg Nick Clegg hit by paint in attack A man who shouted "no public sector cuts" at David Cameron during a speech in Glasgow has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service. Stuart Rodger, 23, hid in a toilet at the Grand Central Hotel before bursting into a room where the prime minister was addressing Conservatives. He was tackled by aides before being led away by Special Branch. Rodger, from Fife, was previously fined £200 for hitting Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with blue paint in Glasgow. During an appearance at Glasgow Sheriff Court, the former Lib-Dem politicalactivist admitted behaving in a threatening or abusive manner by violating a security cordon, shouting and failing to desist, attempting to approach Mr Cameron and causing fear and alarm. He was handed a community payback order with the condition he has to carry out 100 hours of community service. Security cordon This was reduced from 150 because of his guilty plea. Procurator fiscal depute John Slowey told the court Rodger hid in a toilet prior to making his entrance on 31 July. It was heard he shouted "No ifs, not buts, no public sector cuts." Mr Rodger's lawyer said the "security cordon" he got past was someone asking if he had a pass, and Mr Rodger had only gone a few metres into the room. Rodger was previously fined £200 after breaching the peace by hitting Mr Clegg with blue paint during a visit to Glasgow earlier this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 He sounds like a right nob end. I'd have given him double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.