• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Great Acts Of Stupidity

Trevp666 said:
Wrong creator Yith.
Click to expand...

RA.jpg
 
Stormkhan said:
One person's fine art is another person's porn.
This was enforcing someone's personal taste, which is so out of order it's almost laughable in it's ignorance.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Goya's Clothed and Naked Maja paintings. Two paintings each depict a woman reclining on a couch.
In one painting she is clothed and in the other, nude. Nobody knows why Goya painted them.
 
escargot said:
Reminds me of Goya's Clothed and Naked Maja paintings. Two paintings each depict a woman reclining on a couch.
In one painting she is clothed and in the other, nude. Nobody knows why Goya painted them.
Click to expand...
Because they were there.
 
A man who threw a large traffic cone from a car in Shrewsbury – hitting a woman and breaking her leg in four places – has avoided an immediate jail sentence.

Shrewsbury Crown Court heard that what started out as a prank led to “two years of hell” for the injured pedestrian Barbara Bates.

On Thursday school teacher Carl Rogers, 31, from Sutton Road, Shrewsbury, was given a 20-month jail sentence, suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work over the next 12 months when he appeared at Shrewsbury Crown Court yesterday. He had admitted causing grievous bodily harm, without intent, to Mrs Bates in September 2020 at an earlier hearing.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2023/03/24/injury-hell-after-shrewsbury-traffic-cone-jape/
 
Rogers hasn't got off scot-free. He has the suspended sentence for a start: any more funny business and it's back to court.
He also has to pay £2000 compensation and there would have been separate costs and a Victim Charge which aren't mentioned.

There is also the Unpaid Work Order of a hefty 250 hours. That's done in 4 hour sessions so he'll have his Saturday afternoons taken up for a year sorting charity shop donations or helping deliver donated furniture or whatever.

The car driver was also in trouble: 150 hours' unpaid work for dangerous driving, and one assumes there'd be licence points, costs etc.

This incident was a drunken prank, not a targeted attack. Both men would certainly have gone to prison if they'd injured the pedestrian deliberately. It's the intent or lack of it that makes the difference.

Have to say that this sort of thing is why I no longer give drunks a lift home. More trouble than they're worth.
 
He's an adult - he can drink as much as he wants ... as long as it doesn't lead to criminal behaviour.
What baffles me is that a grown adult - one with a responsible job so one assumes he's fairly educated - indulges in such a stupid act as a 'prank'. You'd expect that from a drunken teen or 20-something manbaby. Traffic cones might be made of plastic but they're not light or soft. It might not've been a targeted attack but it was incredibly irresponsible.
 
maximus otter said:
You sound surprised.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Well I am not really.

I don't really get the "Well I was drunk so it's okay" excuse. Maybe that is what the law says but I can't agree with it. It would excuse pretty much any behaviour. Battered someone to death? Well I only meant to give them a light tap but I was drunk. And so on.
 
Min Bannister said:
Well I am not really.

I don't really get the "Well I was drunk so it's okay" excuse. Maybe that is what the law says but I can't agree with it. It would excuse pretty much any behaviour. Battered someone to death? Well I only meant to give them a light tap but I was drunk. And so on.
Click to expand...
maximus otter said:
"Well I was drunk so it's okay" isn't an excuse in law. If anything, it should be regarded as an aggravating factor. ("Should" being the operative word there...)

maximus otter
Click to expand...
It seemed to work quite well for Spike Milligan though.

Major; What's your excuse this time Milligan?
Spike; Er, pissed Sir.
Major; Oh well, fair enough.
 
My history teacher had a glass of clear liquid on his desk.

Water, I am sure.

But he also smoked a pipe.
 
Stormkhan said:
He's an adult - he can drink as much as he wants ... as long as it doesn't lead to criminal behaviour.
What baffles me is that a grown adult - one with a responsible job so one assumes he's fairly educated - indulges in such a stupid act as a 'prank'. You'd expect that from a drunken teen or 20-something manbaby. Traffic cones might be made of plastic but they're not light or soft. It might not've been a targeted attack but it was incredibly irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Yup, he's a grown man, he knows how dangerous it is to throw things out of cars. If he finds himself acting like this after a beer or seven it's time to start on the lemonade.

Absolutely everyone who's been drunk in public has woken up next day with shame and regret. We grow up and learn our lesson.
People who don't come will to grief one way or another.
Min Bannister said:
I don't really get the "Well I was drunk so it's okay" excuse. Maybe that is what the law says but I can't agree with it. It would excuse pretty much any behaviour. Battered someone to death? Well I only meant to give them a light tap but I was drunk. And so on.
Click to expand...
Being drunk is no an excuse in law because people can choose to get drunk or not to. It's called 'voluntary intoxication'.
If they get drunk and start a fight or whatever they're still legally responsible for their actions.

It might indeed be true that they'd never do such a thing when sober, in which case they should stay off the drink. Simples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top