To**er !

Snokio · October 15, 2009, 06:44:38 PM

Another of our UK's finest! :ranting2:

"A man has been jailed for 18 months for allowing a three-year-old child to smoke."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8308946.stm

DogMeat · October 15, 2009, 07:03:22 PM

On the other hand, this piece of sub-human filth gets off untouched:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220579/Carnage-Shame-drunken-student-caught-urinating-war-memorial-mass-pub-crawl.html

(Yes Ron, I know it's the Daily Hate, but I'm just passing the link from elsewhere.)

TeaLeaf · October 15, 2009, 07:29:13 PM

Quote from: DogMeat;292863On the other hand, this piece of sub-human filth gets off untouched:

Why on earth would you want to touch it? The guy's been given a small enough piece as punishment.

lionheart · October 15, 2009, 08:08:56 PM

I'd imagine this young chap may be getting a visit from some off duty squaddies fairly soon.............well , we can at least hope.

Sn00ks · October 15, 2009, 09:18:14 PM

Well if they want to know where to start looking, that photo was taken in Sheffield town centre just outside City Hall and John Coles.

PS there are some perfectly good fountains just nearby that all the pixxheads jump in when drunks, so why didn't he use them?

Luminance · October 16, 2009, 04:49:25 PM

He should be publicly humiliated, that would make him think twice doing that, drunk or not!
Make him scrape gum all around that monument wearing an "I peed on that"-shirt (if there is any, which I am almost 100% positive off, as I've seen the place around Amsterdam monuments, which had more gum then stone

sorry for the not so seriously comment that's following now but, nice fotos on that link of urs Snokio

Penfold · November 26, 2009, 11:18:37 AM

Sentenced ----- 250 hours of Community Service :eyebrow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8380214.stm

T-Bag · November 26, 2009, 05:36:34 PM

To be honest I don't agree with picking on people with large sentences just because the press gets wind. I'd rather a drug dealer or a mugger gets his day in court than some guy who ****es on a monument.

I don't agree with ****ing on the monument, I just think if they don't bother arresting people who genuinely hurt people what good does punishing people who outrage the press do?

smilodon · November 26, 2009, 09:15:43 PM

Interesting point Mr Bag.

And it raises an interesting question (in my humble opinion). Taking a leak in public is illegal for a number of obvious and sensible reasons, hygiene an exposing yourself come to mind. But why is it worse to take a leak in one place rather than another? Why is it worse to urinate over a war memorial that say a lamp post?

The war memorial was raised to remember those who fought and died preserving our freedom and right to liberty. Their sacrifice was enough to secure that freedom, in spite of our current governments best efforts.

I live in a free society. I'm free to believe our part in the second world war was a mistake, that it caused the death of millions of Europeans, that Hitler would have been better dealt with across the negotiating table. I'm free to believe that the men from all nations who fought in it were fools who should not be remembered at all for the part they played in the worlds greatest act of genocide. And I am allowed to believe a war memorial is a vile reminder of a nation that through most of it's history has glorified war and those who slaughtered their fellow man in that nations name. A war memorial can mean as little to me as a lamp post. At least there's a practical point to a lamp post.

It's your and my right to hold that view if we want. The fact that I don't believe a single word I wrote in the last paragraph isn't the point. I do believe wars are sometimes worth fighting. And I do believe that those people who knowingly put themselves in harms way to protect me are worth remembering. That's not the point. That Democracy they fought and died preserving isn't about defending the views of anyone who believes in the same things I believe in. It's about defending the right to hold the views I absolutely don't believe in. It's why they went to war in the first place. So I could live in a world where I'd be free to show no respect to their monuments.

So if some lad whizzed all over the wall of a Mosque would I be as upset about it as a First or Second World War memorial? Would Philip Laing have got 250 hours community service, Ã,Â£185 fine and the possible end of his entire education if he'd urinated on the wall of a Sikh Temple ? I doubt it. Our society is nothing if not utterly hypocritical.

A paralytic bloke took a leak in the street and like most paralytic blokes he had no clue where he was urinating. I doubt he could see more than two feet in front of him. I've done it in my youth and if you're male I'm pretty sure you have to. And that's about all there was to write.

His bad luck was to be standing semi concious in from of a war memorial, to get photographed doing it and to come under the gaze of the odious turds who write that foul piece of shite called the Daily Mail.

lionheart · November 26, 2009, 09:40:17 PM

"His bad luck was to be standing semi concious in from of a war memorial, to get photographed doing it and to come under the gaze of the odious turds who write that foul piece of shite called the Daily Mail. "

And his good luck was for me not to of caught him.......

smilodon · November 26, 2009, 10:40:05 PM

But that's my point. As the judge said, he didn't do it maliciously. He didn't go 'Oh look there's a war memorial, I'm going to p*ss all over it." He was wasted and he took a leak. Sadly for him he happened to be stood in front of a memorial. If he'd don't it on a lamppost, tree, random wall etc. you'd have probably ignored him.

DogMeat · November 26, 2009, 11:25:42 PM

Quote from: smilodon;297568His bad luck was to be standing semi concious in from of a war memorial, to get photographed doing it and to come under the gaze of the odious turds who write that foul piece of shite called the Daily Mail.

Repugnant as the Daily Hate may be, but there's no evidence they forced the alcohol down his neck and pointed him at the memorial when it started coming out the other end. Even in my legendary squaddie drinking days, I managed to avoid wringing out my kidneys on passing war memorials even when utterly chitfaced - it's not difficult.

Still, he could have come off much worse...

smilodon · November 26, 2009, 11:46:45 PM

I guess that's the point. If he knew where he was and didn't give a toss then lynch him. If he was as wasted as his lawyer suggested he was then it's just a bad choice of direction.

And that's not taking away from the related problem of binge drinking we have in this country. With all the associated crime levels and costs to the Police and NHS, for which we ultimately all pay. :g:

Doorman · November 27, 2009, 12:02:01 AM

Quote from: smilodon;297582But that's my point. As the judge said, he didn't do it maliciously. He didn't go 'Oh look there's a war memorial, I'm going to p*ss all over it." He was wasted and he took a leak. Sadly for him he happened to be stood in front of a memorial. If he'd don't it on a lamppost, tree, random wall etc. you'd have probably ignored him.

Just like you'd ignore any prat that was ****ing in a public place. :sideways:

lionheart · November 27, 2009, 12:35:54 PM

Quote from: smilodon;297582But that's my point. As the judge said, he didn't do it maliciously. He didn't go 'Oh look there's a war memorial, I'm going to p*ss all over it." He was wasted and he took a leak. Sadly for him he happened to be stood in front of a memorial. If he'd don't it on a lamppost, tree, random wall etc. you'd have probably ignored him.

Oh well, that's alright then.............What if it had been your fathers grave?