you couldnt make this up

Narj · 12 May 2010 at 21:59

PJM315 said:
I think that it's disgusting he had bare legs @ that time of day.

Yeah FFS get a pair of decent tights, man!

Felix Da Housecat · 12 May 2010 at 22:04

PianoBasher said:
Yeah FFS get a pair of decent tights, man!

Yeah and put some lippy on

We have standards you know.

Indy500 · 12 May 2010 at 22:10

Collectivism knows no bounds. Am I supposed to believe cross-dressing is now a criminal act? We really do have some serious problems with our law enforcement...

Take this other recent example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

The issue is not if he "abused or insulted" anyone but if he has a right to speak what he believes even if others claim they are abused or insulted. If he had said that homosexuality was ordained by God, he would have "abused and insulted" many people, but would not be imprisoned – nor should he be. Such is the selective nature of justice under our current system...

Cosimo · 12 May 2010 at 22:56

His ban is hilarious.

mavers · 12 May 2010 at 23:00

Fortunately no pictures in the article!

Strife212 · 12 May 2010 at 23:00

Theres one in the thread though

mavers · 12 May 2010 at 23:26

I dont know how i missed that first time round.. but that is just wrong! What has been seen cannot been unseen! :eek:

PJM315 · 13 May 2010 at 00:29

I think he's a fake, my hair is much longer & I have an MX518.

ethan · 13 May 2010 at 00:34

PJM315 said:
I think that it's disgusting he had bare legs @ that time of day.

It's not just his legs I am worried about lol look at his face :eek:

Looks like a burka wouldn't go amiss

jas72 · 13 May 2010 at 00:42

sr4470 said:
Collectivism knows no bounds. Am I supposed to believe cross-dressing is now a criminal act? We really do have some serious problems with our law enforcement...

Take this other recent example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

The issue is not if he "abused or insulted" anyone but if he has a right to speak what he believes even if others claim they are abused or insulted. If he had said that homosexuality was ordained by God, he would have "abused and insulted" many people, but would not be imprisoned – nor should he be. Such is the selective nature of justice under our current system...

Erm I wouldn't like him hanging around my child's school to be honest. Even if he's safe enough he clearly has a screw loose doing it or is it some sort of protest?

^TANK^ · 13 May 2010 at 01:00

Settleddown said:
Hahaha I bet its that Platinum guy you lot alway rip into!

twist3d0n3 · 13 May 2010 at 01:02

bugger i knew this'd get out

PardonTheWait · 13 May 2010 at 01:26

I like how he can still do it at lunchtime if he likes

Indy500 · 13 May 2010 at 01:48

jas72 said:
Erm I wouldn't like him hanging around my child's school to be honest. Even if he's safe enough he clearly has a screw loose doing it or is it some sort of protest?

You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

^TANK^ · 13 May 2010 at 01:58

sr4470 said:
You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

I bet I don't fall into the 10% category

?

mavers · 13 May 2010 at 02:11

sr4470 said:
You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

I agree with the statement where does it end. But there is something inappropriate about an old man wearing a school girls outfit and then hanging around a primary school.

Lightnix · 13 May 2010 at 02:22

sr4470 said:
You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

I think dressing as a school girl, as a man of a certain age, whilst waiting outside a school is a little suspect. I think 'likely to cause distress or alarm' is appropriate; if I were responsible for the welfare of some children and saw that waiting for them I'd be, to say the least, somewhat alarmed.

"andy" · 13 May 2010 at 02:29

reminds me of this. lols

PJM315 · 13 May 2010 at 02:32

sr4470 said:
You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

You are being monitored.

Davy644 · 13 May 2010 at 02:32

sr4470 said:
You think he's loitering with intent? Or do you just not like him? Behaviour "likely to cause distress or alarm" is a vague statement at best. Do you want to fall foul of it as well? Where does it end?

I don't like 90% of the OcUK forum population, but that doesn't mean I have the right to restrict their movements or what they wear.

Yes
No
Oh Yes
Ok I know older people suffer memory laps etc, But Whats with the Skirt?
Simple ... He is just plain perverted ,, Cart him off