Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[skinnydipper]

ANd its not just pizza ...... cookies too

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/19/local/me-12244

[Thracian]

Just a few points in reply

With regard to the exercise of judgement hindsight is a wonderful thing with which to bludgeon the original decision maker. If a trial judge got the sentence wrong then both defence and prosecution have the right to appeal.

I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of the present system and whether a 4 year sentence should mean 2, 4 or 10 years served. What I am saying is that those who work in the present system are sometimes tasked with decisions of great complexity. When subsequent events appear to make an earlier decision wrong that is not necessarily the case; the earlier decision may still have been the right one on the known circumstances at the time and in the absence of negligence it would be wrong to hold those decision makers to account.

Your stance on pizza thieves made me chuckle too. Death row for all serial pizza thieves

a) I have no problem with the appeal system. It is a right and proper safeguard for all concerned.

b) There is no complexity to me. If a person serves his given sentence then, during that time, there is NO CHANCE of him being a danger to the public.

If he serves only part of that sentence because all sorts of "experts" collectively recommend that he is safe to be freed then that is where the risk arises. And I'd say why take any risk.

The offender has been given an appropriate sentence for what he did. Be right by the people and make him serve it.

Decisions taken according to circumstances at the time never calculate the likely circumstances in the future and the way the already conviucted offender might have reacted to adverse circumstances.

The principal aim of some experts is to do a social service to the prisoner not the public. That they sometimes get it wrong (at the time or later in hindsight) doesn't matter. Why take unnecessary risks? There is only one offender but thousands of public who would potentially come into contact with him.

c) I didn't know death row came into it for the pizza thief. I thought you said a life sentence. Give me details and I'll happily expand on my views, but, like I say, people who keep offending should expect to be treated more harshly than when they first offend. And stealing pizzas does matter. That people make excuses for people who steal pizzas is part of the problem we have.

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[Thracian]

To be honest Thrac, for the majority of people processed through the criminal justice system, once is enough.

So it should be and I'm glad to hear it. But I'd still be wanting to do more about some of the animals who are released onto our streets to re-offend.

Not just via the justice system, but via the encouraging of good parenting and and through constructive social education.

The humanitarian side of me would even want to do much more to tackle the causes of crime but there's a difference between doing that and using problems as an excuse for crime.

I don't believe that deprivation is an excuse for gang attacks on women. It might be a factor but it is not in any way an excuse.

[skinnydipper]

a) I have no problem with the appeal system. It is a right and proper safeguard for all concerned.

b) There is no complexity to me. If a person serves his given sentence then, during that time, there is NO CHANCE of him being a danger to the public. If he serves only part of that sentence because all sorts of "experts" collectively recommend that he is safe to be freed then that is where the risk arises. And I'd say why take any risk. The offender has been given an appropriate sentence for what he did. Be right by the people and make him serve it. Decisions taken according to circumstances at the time never calculate the likely circumstances in the future and the way the already conviucted offender might have reacted to adverse circumstances. The principal aim of some experts is to do a social service to the prisoner not the public. That they sometimes get it wrong (at the time or later in hindsight) doesn't matter. Why take unnecessary risks? There is one offender and thousands of public who would potentially come into contact with him.

c) I didn't know death row came into it for the pizza thief. I thought you said a life sentence. Give me details and I'll happily expand on my views, but, like I say, people who keep offending should expect to be treated more harshly than when they first offend. And stealing pizzas does matter. That people make excuses for people who steal pizzas is part of the problem we have.

a) Agreed

b) Your real beef is with the system which derives its authority from primary legislation (parliament) and not common law (judges)

c) I'm surprised you took that at face value but in any event - perspective and proportionality ?

[Thracian]

ANd its not just pizza ...... cookies too

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/19/local/me-12244

From everything there, the bloke is an habitual criminal who has not only entered premises illegally but stolen from those premises. But for the alarm system he could have stolen other things.

Times the guy has had the chance to change. He's not responded.

I had a neighbour whose premises were entered by a burglar. She was so disturbed she had to sell up and move. I've had an arsonist attack my own business premises in Stoke a few years back. The consequences are far more considerable and far-reaching than many people can imagine.

No, he's had his chances and can rot in jail for the rest of his life for me. He cleaarly doesn't care how he makes other people feel. Why should society care about him?

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[Thracian]

a) Agreed

b) Your real beef is with the system which derives its authority from primary legislation (parliament) and not common law (judges)

c) I'm surprised you took that at face value but in any event - perspective and proportionality ?

Yes, perspective and proportionality do come into it. Except, having sat and listened to stacks of cases during my three years as a court reporter in Northamptonshire I rarely heard the real extent of the consequences of crime discussed.

Oh yes, I heard, for example, that two people had been killed and two people confined to wheelchairs after accidents. And sometimes there'd be vivid descriptions. Reference would also be made to the monetary cost of adapting houses to cope with the handicapped, the effect on the carers lives.

But those things would have been just the start, just a part of the perspective. What toll would the lifetime of care take? By how many years would the surviving victims' lives be shortened and what joys of life would all the carers have to sacrifice, etc?

That footballer, Hughes, who wrecked so many lives is now free and able to follow his profession. The people whose lives he affected will never be the same. Yes, I'd go for perspective and proportionality. In fact it would be a major part of my philosophy.

In the case of the pizza man I'd have detailed the consequences of that burglary and then made the judge aware of all the other consequences relating to his other crimes. Not just monetarily but emotionally - the effect on people of having your own territory invaded. Until it happens to you is is hard to imagine what it feels like. Sooner or later people have to run out of warnings or the criminals take the piss out of the system.

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[skinnydipper]

Yes, pespective and proportionality do come into it. Except, having sat and listened to stacks of cases during my three years as a court reporter in Northamptonshire I rarely heard the real extent of the consequences of crime discussed.

Oh yes, I heard, for example, that two people had been killed and two people confined to wheelchairs after accidents. And sometimes there'd be vivid descriptions. Reference would also be made to the monetary cost of adapting houses to cope with the handicapped, the effect on the carers lives.

But those things would have been just the start, just a part of the perspective. What toll would the lifetime of care take? By how many years would the surviving victims' lives be shortened and what joys of life would all the carers have to sacrifice, etc?

That footballer, Hughes, who wrecked so many lives is now free and able to follow his profession. The people whose lives he affected will never be the same. Yes, I'd go for perspective and proportionality. In fact it would be a major part of my philosophy.

In the case of the pizza man I'd have detailed the consequences of that burglary and then made the judge aware of all the other consequences relating to his other crimes. Not just monetarily but emotionally - the effect on people of having your own territory invaded. Until it happens to you is is hard to imagine what it feels like. Sooner or later people have to run out of warnings or the criminals take the piss out of the system.

I've got a lot more experience of court cases than you Thracian. Believe me. But I'm not for one moment suggesting that makes my opinion more valid than yours. Far from it.

But don't perspective and proportionality also have relevance to the nature and intent of the offending behaviour.It certainly does in our system e.g the distinction between murder and manslaughter is all about intent.

In terms of the effect defining sentencing policy the examples of death by dangerous/careless driving highlight the difficulty. Both offences are likely to have the same emotional and financial consequences but the culpability may be enormously different; one caused by recklessness, possibly drug or alcahol related, the other possibly by a momentary lapse of judgement- but each with the same consequences. For those of us who drive I suspect most have at some time or other been foolish or careless behind the wheel.

Incarceration may bring its own problems for the more minor offender. Mixing with more serious offenders or like offenders may in itself lead to heightened criminality upon release.

The present system may have imperfections but I'm not convinced that yours is any better

Edited 9 December 2008 by skinnydipper

[Thracian]

I've got a lot more experience of

court cases than you Thracian. Believe me. But I'm not for one moment suggesting that makes my opinion more valid than yours. Far from it.

But don't perspective and proportionality also have relevance to the nature and intent of the offending behaviour.It certainly does in our system e.g the distinction between murder and manslaughter is all about intent.

In terms of the effect defining sentencing policy the examples of death by dangerous/careless driving highlight the difficulty. Both offences are likely to have the same emotional and financial consequences but the culpability may be enormously different; one caused by recklessness, possibly drug or alcahol related, the other possibly by a momentary lapse of judgement- but each with the same consequences. For those of us who drive I suspect most have at some time or other been foolish or careless behind the wheel.

Incarceration may bring its own problems for the more minor offender. Mixing with more serious offenders or like offenders may in itself lead to heightened criminality upon release.

The present system may have imperfections but I'm not convinced that yours is any better

I've not got an argument with anything you say there although, while I don't doubt your court experienc, I do wonder aboput your experience of being a victim of crime.

Dangerous driving may well warrant a different sentence to careless driving, although where I would differ is in the assumption that someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be necessarily driving dangerously as opposed to carelessly but that's a very different and complex aside and I wouldn't want unnecessary complexities.

But, yes, if a judge decides "dangerous" warrants a longer sentence than "careless" that's fine. He'll have listened to the circumstances and anyone could appeal if they were unhappy. My only change would be to say the offender serves his sentence (unless the judgement subsequently proves that sentence to have been inappropriate). Normally, there would be no remission.

Again this belief that prison brings it's own problems may well be relevent but it is simply used for excuse making. Firstly the idea that a minor offender might be corrupted by major offenders is a condemnation of the system in itself and, secondly, if the authorities don't want and don't allow the two to mix then they won't.

As for my system being better, I don't doubt it would have its faults but one thing is for sure. No-one would be released before their time to commit further crime and, because of the harsher sentencing there would be fewer criminals on the streets at any one time.

The would be far fewer technical let-offs as well because my system would be nothing like so complex. Wherever unnecessary complexity is introduced you bring in flaws and introduce grey areas that can take hours to argue about. My system would be based on what is fair. And my judges - while given enormous flexiblility - would be expected to be just that. Wise and fair.

They would probably find that easier than at present because the laws would be much simpler, the sentences much more wide-ranging and their powers extensive. They would, of course be answerable based on the principles of "wise and fair".

The justice system would be a social service to the public first and to the offenders only if they showed willing to make it so.

Anything the prisoners got by way of benefit would not be a right but would be earned or lost.

They would effectively go inside as non-persons and would be helped and encouraged to improve from there if they wished to, so earning the increasing respect that would be shown to them if warranted. Otherwise they would effectively be kept outside the progressive part of the system.

Individually I would care which, but administratively I wouldn't. I would be as harsh and resolute as necessary or kindness itself were it justified. Communication would be the key. It is simple but effective. All would pay their way by on means or another. They would pay society for the inconvenience of their being there and for the privilege of having the opportunity to be educated.

Why the hell prisoners should get free education or training and our university students great big debts I cannot begin to justify (perspective).

And while I might believe in many aspects of the human rights charter, I wouldn't dream of having my justice system subjected to that or any other principles that might be abused or taken advantage of. Guidelines I would have. Inflexible dictates, no.

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[Thracian]

Is wanking and driving illegal?

How the hell do you get turned on when driving?

What stimulii is there?

Seventy mph - hardly exhilerating.

Spaghetti Junction - hardly relaxing.

Line of pay booths - not exactly sexy even in the fog.

All I can think of is the sensual image of cars....

Line up on the exhaust of a Renault Megane and ....

I see you baby....shakin that ass.

I see you baby - shake it in air,

I see you baby, shake on the car seat,

I see you baby aim it up there....

...bloody hell, the mind boggles.

Driving will never seem the same.

Edited 9 December 2008 by Thracian

[davieG]

It all becomes somewhat irrelevant when this is today's headline:

Prison overcrowding means early release

Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 09:30

More than 1,700 convicts have been released early in Leicestershire and Rutland in the past 18 months because of jail overcrowding.

That includes 315 inmates from HMP Leicester, 1,004 from HMP Glen Parva, in Wigston, and 153 from HMP Ashwell and 266 from HMP Stocken, in Oakham.

The figures – published by the Ministry of Justice – have led to accusations the Government is failing to deal with congested prisons.

Harborough MP Edward Garnier, a shadow justice minister, said: "The Government's early release scheme is clearly not a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.

"It was brought in to relieve overcrowding, but in fact the prison population has continued to grow."

All of the releases – of which there were 134 from the counties' jails in October – are part of the Government's End of Custody Licence scheme. Established to free cells, it means inmates can be let out an additional 18 days earlier.

Ministers have said they will look to end the scheme when prison space allows, though official predictions of prisoner numbers show that more than 200,000 could be released across the UK in the next seven years.

An MoJ spokesman said those convicted of serious crimes were excluded from the ECL scheme.

He said only three per cent of those released had needed to be recalled for re-offending and that only one per cent had actually committed crimes during the ECL period.

However, Leicester South MP Peter Soulsby said providing more cells was not necessarily the solution to overcrowding. He argued that along with ECL, the Government had recently moved to raise the profile of community punishments.

"Community-based punishments are not the soft option, they are often more effective than simply banging someone up for a period," he said.

[Daggers]

"Community-based punishments are not the soft option, they are often more effective than simply banging someone up for a period," he said.

It certainly seems to be working for Jan Battersby.

He's right though - living at home with your wife, having to sort your own food and not being able to consort with other blaggers on crime techniques probably isn't the easier option when compared to being banged up.

[Raj]

Full article

WAN KER

[Zingari]

another cvnt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7774097.stm

A man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a woman was badly injured when her car was stolen.

Caroline Johnson, 46, was scraping ice from the vehicle in Langley in Slough, Berkshire, when a man got into it. As he drove off, she was run over.

Mrs Johnson, who was dragged up to 20m (65ft) under the vehicle in Humber Way, is said to be in a critical condition.

Police said a man was arrested in Cippenham in Slough over the incident, which happened on 2 December.

The mother-of-four's injuries include smashed hips and a four-inch hole in one of her legs.

Her pelvis and lungs were also crushed and at one point her heart stopped beating.

[skinnydipper]

I do wonder aboput your experience of being a victim of crime

As for my system being better, I don't doubt it would have its faults

The would be far fewer technical let-offs as well because my system would be nothing like so complex. Wherever unnecessary complexity is introduced you bring in flaws and introduce grey areas that can take hours to argue about. My system would be based on what is fair. And my judges - while given enormous flexiblility - would be expected to be just that. Wise and fair.

They would probably find that easier than at present because the laws would be much simpler, the sentences much more wide-ranging and their powers extensive. They would, of course be answerable based on the principles of "wise and fair".

I have been a victim of crime: as a student in London I got mugged coming off the tube late one night by about 5 blokes , one of whom had a knife. More recently my wife frequently mugs me by cleansing my wallet before she goes on a night out.

Your system , as described, is no better than that which you criticise. The strength and weakness of the current system is its flexibility - what some will consider a wise decision others will consider to be rash. Your system envisages "enormous flexibility" with wide ranging and extensive powers. The decision makers are therefore entrusted with exercising judgement and discretion (as now) but with the caveat that they shall exercise it "wisely and fairly". Any Judge considers their own rulings to be wise and fair. Fairness ought to be objective but is often exercised subjectively - we all bring our own characteristics and experiences to our individual perception of fairness.

Your aim is that Judges would make their decisions wisely and fairly but wisely and fairly as perceived by you.If they did otherwise you would be calling their judgement into question and expecting them to be made accountable for decisions that you didn't agree with (as you do now)

The only way that you would entirely agree with the decision making in a flexible sysem is if you cut out the middle men (e.g Judges) and made yourself the single arbiter of justice

How does Lord Chief Justice Thracian sound ?

[Thracian]

I have been a victim of crime: as a student in London I got mugged coming off the tube late one night by about 5 blokes , one of whom had a knife. More recently my wife frequently mugs me by cleansing my wallet before she goes on a night out.

Your system , as described, is no better than that which you criticise. The strength and weakness of the current system is its flexibility - what some will consider a wise decision others will consider to be rash. Your system envisages "enormous flexibility" with wide ranging and extensive powers. The decision makers are therefore entrusted with exercising judgement and discretion (as now) but with the caveat that they shall exercise it "wisely and fairly". Any Judge considers their own rulings to be wise and fair. Fairness ought to be objective but is often exercised subjectively - we all bring our own characteristics and experiences to our individual perception of fairness.

Your aim is that Judges would make their decisions wisely and fairly but wisely and fairly as perceived by you.If they did otherwise you would be calling their judgement into question and expecting them to be made accountable for decisions that you didn't agree with (as you do now)

The only way that you would entirely agree with the decision making in a flexible sysem is if you cut out the middle men (e.g Judges) and made yourself the single arbiter of justice

How does Lord Chief Justice Thracian sound ?

Lord Chief Justice Thracian sounds fine if it would result in the epidemic of crime and repeat crime being seriously reduced.

But for all that I cannot quite understand how you arrive at my desk.

Okay, even accepting "my" laws and sentencing guidelines, and certainly some initial explaining of the principles behind those ideas, the decision making would still, in the first instance, be down to the CPS and then the earned and experienced judges I mentioned and the latter would have the benefit of flexibility because the seriousness of all crimes varies so much.

There would then be the same appeal system that we have now where more learned men would consider, if asked, whether the original judge had been wise and fair in the circumstances appertaining to the crime and in relation to the guidelines which accompanied the legislation.

In other words greater trust would be placed in our judges, not less.

And I wouldn't want to come into it. Quite the contrary. I would much rather be on the golf course.

It is not a family trait, being a control freak. We really do let people get on with their jobs.

But too often I read about judges complaining that, while a crime was heinous, they were restricted in the sentences they could impose.

I would seek to unlock the shackles and trust the judges to sentence people appropriately.

As for the innocent they would have no more to fear under my system than any previous system.

[skinnydipper]

Lord Chief Justice Thracian sounds fine if it would result in the epidemic of crime and repeat crime being seriously reduced.

But for all that I cannot quite understand how you arrive at my desk.

Okay, even accepting "my" laws and sentencing guidelines, and certainly some initial explaining of the principles behind those ideas, the decision making would still, in the first instance, be down to the CPS and then the earned and experienced judges I mentioned and the latter would have the benefit of flexibility because the seriousness of all crimes varies so much.

There would then be the same appeal system that we have now where more learned men would consider, if asked, whether the original judge had been wise and fair in the circumstances appertaining to the crime and in relation to the guidelines which accompanied the legislation.

In other words greater trust would be placed in our judges, not less.

And I wouldn't want to come into it. Quite the contrary. I would much rather be on the golf course.

It is not a family trait, being a control freak. We really do let people get on with their jobs.

But too often I read about judges complaining that, while a crime was heinous, they were restricted in the sentences they could impose.

I would seek to unlock the shackles and trust the judges to sentence people appropriately.

As for the innocent they would have no more to fear under my system than any previous system.

Great trust is placed in our Judges, often resulting in media uproar at perceived lenient sentencing. If you give the judges greater flexibility you have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth as even with training a true exercise of discretion will not always tally with your individual perception of fairness. What you're really unhappy about is that current penalties are not to your mind stiff enough and time sentenced should generally equate to time served. That is another albeit related matter but if you look back at the point at which I entered the discussion it was in relation to the accountability of decision makers. Both the current system and that proposed by you give flexibility of judgement and as such would always be the subject of criticism/ disapproval.

I didn't know that I had arrived at your desk and I'm not to sure what it means but if that's where I am can I go now?

[Raj]

another cvnt-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_y...ire/7506087.stm

[Thracian]

another cvnt-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_y...ire/7506087.stm

And we waste good money preserving his life. Drop him off on a remote deserted island somewhere cold with a tent, a day's rations and a suitcase full of baby pictures to remind him of why he's there and let providence decide his fate.

Edited 19 December 2008 by Thracian

[davieG]

The family of Madeleine McCann have condemned as a "disgrace" a young Tory activist who dressed as their missing daughter for a party.

A spokesman for parents Kate and Gerry McCann said leading Conservative youth member Matthew Lewis had been "offensive almost beyond belief" in making fun of their agony.

He wrote on his page on the social networking website Facebook that his costume included a blonde wig, "pink pyjamas, a teddy bear and a vial of fake blood".

Tory chairman Caroline Spelman said Mr Lewis had been expelled from the party.

She said: "This offensive behaviour is not only shocking but intolerable and completely unacceptable. There is no place for this sort of person in the party."

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, from Rothley, said the family were grateful for the party's "swift and appropriate action".

Mr Mitchell said: "His actions are not only disgraceful in themselves, they will also cause great hurt to Kate and Gerry.

"It is a complete disgrace that Madeleine's name and image should be made fun of in this way."

Mr Lewis has apologised to the McCanns for the upset caused.

In a statement, he said: "I unreservedly apologise to Mr and Mrs McCann for my actions.

"I completely regret my behaviour that night and since, and cannot express how sorry I am for the incredible hurt I have caused.

"Whilst my actions were not meant to be malicious, I fully understand the pain they have brought."

Mr Lewis – a student at Queen Mary, University of London – resigned as chairman of Staffordshire Conservative Future last month in protest at internal reforms.

Images on the group's website show him campaigning with David Cameron for last year's Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

Mr Lewis was not answering his mobile phone when the Leicester Mercury called him last night, but most of the exchanges remained on his Facebook profile until late yesterday afternoon.

The party is also understood to be examining whether action should be taken against other members involved.

On New Year's Day, after the party, Mr Lewis told another member online: "There was a brief moment when I thought I might have gone too far with elements of the costume, but it was okay."

He said that another guest at the party was dressed as Baby P, the toddler who died after a catalogue of horrific abuse.

Madeleine, then aged three, went missing while on holiday with her family in Portugal in May 2007.

[Bellend Sebastian]

What with Prince Harry's delightful nickname for one of his fellow cadets, it's ALMOST as if the ruling classes remain as hopelessy out of step with the rest of society as they ever were.

Having the (mis)fortune to know a few Conservative students in my time, I wish I could say that I'm shocked by what this little tosspot has done, but it's about in line with the crap they used to come out with

[Ultra]

The family of Madeleine McCann have condemned as a "disgrace" a young Tory activist who dressed as their missing daughter for a party.

That guy needs locking up. He clearly has some type of serious personality disorder.

The mate of his who makes fun of Baby P is no better.

[Bilo]

The family of Madeleine McCann have condemned as a "disgrace" a young Tory activist who dressed as their missing daughter for a party.

A spokesman for parents Kate and Gerry McCann said leading Conservative youth member Matthew Lewis had been "offensive almost beyond belief" in making fun of their agony.

He wrote on his page on the social networking website Facebook that his costume included a blonde wig, "pink pyjamas, a teddy bear and a vial of fake blood".

Tory chairman Caroline Spelman said Mr Lewis had been expelled from the party.

She said: "This offensive behaviour is not only shocking but intolerable and completely unacceptable. There is no place for this sort of person in the party."

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, from Rothley, said the family were grateful for the party's "swift and appropriate action".

Mr Mitchell said: "His actions are not only disgraceful in themselves, they will also cause great hurt to Kate and Gerry.

"It is a complete disgrace that Madeleine's name and image should be made fun of in this way."

Mr Lewis has apologised to the McCanns for the upset caused.

In a statement, he said: "I unreservedly apologise to Mr and Mrs McCann for my actions.

"I completely regret my behaviour that night and since, and cannot express how sorry I am for the incredible hurt I have caused.

"Whilst my actions were not meant to be malicious, I fully understand the pain they have brought."

Mr Lewis – a student at Queen Mary, University of London – resigned as chairman of Staffordshire Conservative Future last month in protest at internal reforms.

Images on the group's website show him campaigning with David Cameron for last year's Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

Mr Lewis was not answering his mobile phone when the Leicester Mercury called him last night, but most of the exchanges remained on his Facebook profile until late yesterday afternoon.

The party is also understood to be examining whether action should be taken against other members involved.

On New Year's Day, after the party, Mr Lewis told another member online: "There was a brief moment when I thought I might have gone too far with elements of the costume, but it was okay."

He said that another guest at the party was dressed as Baby P, the toddler who died after a catalogue of horrific abuse.

Madeleine, then aged three, went missing while on holiday with her family in Portugal in May 2007.

[Bryn]

Don't think that's too bad to be honest doesn't rank anywhere near the other stuff. It's the kind of costume you see at young people's parties all the time. Was right to be expelled from the Tory party (though the idea that he was caught through his facebook I think is a worse issue) and should be forced to apologise for the family but friggin hell, it's far from some of the stuff in here.

[davieG]

Don't think that's too bad to be honest doesn't rank anywhere near the other stuff. It's the kind of costume you see at young people's parties all the time. Was right to be expelled from the Tory party (though the idea that he was caught through his facebook I think is a worse issue) and should be forced to apologise for the family but friggin hell, it's far from some of the stuff in here.

Sorry I didn't know we were ranking cvnts now

Unacceptable is unacceptable to me.

[Bilo]

Don't think that's too bad to be honest doesn't rank anywhere near the other stuff. It's the kind of costume you see at young people's parties all the time. Was right to be expelled from the Tory party (though the idea that he was caught through his facebook I think is a worse issue) and should be forced to apologise for the family but friggin hell, it's far from some of the stuff in here.

It can hardly be ranked alongside child abuse or murder but it is in extreme bad taste, especially from people who are intelligent enough to know better. If I were to turn up at a uni fancy dress party dressed as Madeleine McCann or Baby P I imagine I'd be friendless pretty quickly. If I wasn't thrown out first.

Still makes the guy who decided it would be funny an absolute cvnt.