Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

SOME Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

FTFY.

Fair enough. Guess which protesters this legislation is aimed at.

All of them, that's the point.

It is only the ones that cause serious harm that will find themselves tried by indictment. The low level nuisance cases will be tried summarily and will notice no difference than if they were being prosecuted under common law.

I don't trust the government to implement this in that manner.

They seem intent on stamping out dissent and criticism (see attempts to strangle the BBC).

This is the epitome of cancel culture. Where is the outrage from the right?

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

Then what's the bloody problem?

I work/commute into London and was affected by the protests, in that I had to detour round them on my bike, but I fully supported their right to protest and climate change is a worthy cause.

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

Then what's the bloody problem?

I work/commute into London and was affected by the protests, in that I had to detour round them on my bike, but I fully supported their right to protest and climate change is a worthy cause.

I too support their right to protest, whatever the cause and whether I an sympathetic to it or not.
I don't accept their conviction (not the criminal ones) to a cause give them the right to trump the rights of others to lead their normal lives.

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

Then what's the bloody problem?

I work/commute into London and was affected by the protests, in that I had to detour round them on my bike, but I fully supported their right to protest and climate change is a worthy cause.

I too support their right to protest, whatever the cause and whether I an sympathetic to it or not.
I don't accept their conviction (not the criminal ones) to a cause give them the right to trump the rights of others to lead their normal lives.

A normal life is a high polluting one that will inevitably lead to an increase in average temperatures to life as we know it. Living a normal life is the one sure fire way of the end of people leading a normal life.

Well yes quite.
But if you support their right to protest my life, do you support my right to lead it?

ballysmate said:

Life in the fast lane baby!

If you believe that, I have this bridge you may be interested in.

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

ballysmate said:

elbowloh said:

kingstongraham said:

ballysmate said:

kingstongraham said:

So is it not needed for reasonable stuff that nobody could argue with, or is it?

Its whole point is to stifle protest. It's worded in a way that means the police can legally stop almost any protest from going ahead.

No, not at all.
The police can process someone for the offence of nuisance under the new statute, the same as they could process someone under common law.
The difference in the way the offences are prosecuted will now be dependant on the result of the nuisance behaviour and not the behaviour itself.

An analogy could be the throwing of fireworks in the street. If you do it, you could get a fixed penalty of £80 or a fine of up to £5000.
If you were to throw a firework in the High St at 4 am you may expect a different result than throwing the same firework in the High Street at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon . You would reasonably therefore expect a different punishment would you not?

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. But trying to show how the level of punishment can be dependant more on the consequence of the act than the act itself.

There are other parts of the bill, designed to stifle protest, above the extension of the nuisance.

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”."

That's the government's description, by the way, so the most sympathetic view of it.

So it basically gives the HS the power to say, that person's pissing me off, i'll silence them (through an SI)?

The bit about activities of an organisation would have prevented the anti-fracking protests i assume.

It's a serious erosion of the right to protest. You can protest, so long as to do it quietly and invisibly...and therefore ineffectively.

Parliament can reject or accept SIs btw
How would you go about mitigating the impact ot the demonstrations that gridlocked London or do you see any restrictions as being an erosion of your liberty? Are liberties being infringed already, enough for you to want to scrap existing powers?
How about the liberty of millions of people to go about their lives rather than being prevented by a tiny minority?
How do you balance that?

You could have just policed them properly.

Pretty sure the police can remove people obstructing a highway as it is and they can certainly remove people from train stations that are causing a disturbance.

This is much greater than stopping gridlock. It's to curb the right to protest

Protesters superglue themselves to objects, link hands through wastepipes, padlock themselves or fill the pipe with concrete so that they have to be cut free.
It's not always a case of just carting them away.

Will this law stop that? As the justice minister admitted, harsher sentencing is not a deterrent, the way you police is.

Context.

"Chris Philp, the minister responsible for sentencing, said that detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than the length of jail sentences."

Of course. The length of sentence is meaningless if you don't get caught.

If you superglue yourself to the road, causing gridlock, I think even the Met stand a chance of catching you.

Has this happened to many of us?

What? getting caught or gluing ourselves to the road?????

Sorry no, have you been caught in gridlock because of a protest?

Occasionally cycling through parliament square was slow because of one thing or another but I don't think I was ever trapped anywhere.

I don't live in London which is the chief target for protests, but I would suggest that if it was slow on a bike, it would be infinitely slower in a car.

Then what's the bloody problem?

I work/commute into London and was affected by the protests, in that I had to detour round them on my bike, but I fully supported their right to protest and climate change is a worthy cause.

I too support their right to protest, whatever the cause and whether I an sympathetic to it or not.
I don't accept their conviction (not the criminal ones) to a cause give them the right to trump the rights of others to lead their normal lives.

kingstongraham said:

It's too much for Theresa May.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1371538154608558087?s=19

pangolin said:

Bally obviously more connected than I thought

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1371573573505200138?s=19

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1371573976703635467?s=19

kingstongraham said:

If I'm seriously annoyed by Mrs Brown's Boys being on TV, can I ask for Brendan O'Carroll to be locked up?

pinno said:

kingstongraham said:

If I'm seriously annoyed by Mrs Brown's Boys being on TV, can I ask for Brendan O'Carroll to be locked up?

He should be locked up. I'll start a petition.