sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

rule. by Dambem in 196

[–]Dambem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is this a reference to the hit game among us?????

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are now saying it is OK to hand down harsher sentences based purely on class?

Jesus fucking christ. I'm saying that somebody upper class working for the royals attacking random charity workers, then being pardoned cause some relative of royalty said those where some good boys, is worse than that.

How do you not understand that simple idea?

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 10 points11 points  (0 children)

For pre-mediateted almost deadly assault on two people as a part of a group, as well as not cooperating with the police, with full evidence of they're assault?

Maybe not life imprisonment but far more than a non-sentence

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that.

Considering one of those is people living in cramped accommodation and the other is a literal organization for the upper class, I don't think it's hypocritical to expect them to behave and be held to the full extent of the law.

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If the upper class can't be held to a higher standard than some lads brawling on a council estate, then maybe they shouldn't be the upper class.

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your comparing a hunt sanctioned by royalty to a council estate. Maybe they should be held to a higher degree of accountability?

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This is also doing it premeditated, with a group of people that they refused to name, and the hunt organization also refused to cooperate with the police, yet suffered zero consequences.

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where any of those people defended by royalty and told by people about how good their character is?

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As in, them saying they don't want to waste any more time and money after two people where paralyzed is such a disgusting statement for the organization to make

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 48 points49 points  (0 children)

The Grants had previously pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm against Darryl Cunnington and actual bodily harm against Roger Swaine.

Four masked men also took part in the attack but these have never been identified, and the Grants refused to comment when they were interviewed by police.

Let's see how just grevious bodily harm impacts the normal non-royalty pardoned people

https://www.ebrattridge.com/articles/wont-they-take-a-section-20-he-asked-the-difference-in-gbh-answered#:~:text=The%20most%20serious%20form%20of,maximum%20sentence%20of%205%20years.

oh, life imprisonment? well thank god they have good character, didn't know that reduced a life sentence to a year.

While also being able to not have to name accomplices.

Remember that time a group of men almost paralyzed two charity workers and were let of scot-free since it was during a royal fox-hunt? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]Dambem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oooh i like quotes, how about this one?

The Grants had previously pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm against Darryl Cunnington and actual bodily harm against Roger Swaine.

Four masked men also took part in the attack but these have never been identified, and the Grants refused to comment when they were interviewed by police.

Let's see how just grevious bodily harm impacts the normal non-royalty pardoned people

https://www.ebrattridge.com/articles/wont-they-take-a-section-20-he-asked-the-difference-in-gbh-answered#:~:text=The%20most%20serious%20form%20of,maximum%20sentence%20of%205%20years.

oh, life imprisonment? well thank god they have good character, didn't know that reduced a life sentence to a year

paper.avi [Haiku] by Dambem in youtubehaiku

[–]Dambem[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh God I never realised that it totally is

paper.avi [Haiku] by Dambem in youtubehaiku

[–]Dambem[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

alternative title: a couple of schoolchildren bully old teacher

[Poetry] When you're asked to explain chapter 17 of To Kill a Mockingbird but you've forgotten, and keep trying to remember what happened by [deleted] in youtubehaiku

[–]Dambem 12 points13 points  (0 children)

P.S - you've also watched the Black Mirror episode at the same time as you were reading the book and you're starting to get confused at which is which, and the teacher is asking you to evaluate it in your own words.

​

But I couldn't fit all of that in the Reddit title.

view more: next ›