<< DARRYL DOOMS SELF ~ MAIN ~ HIGH AND DRY >>
MIND THE GAP
A gap-toothed fellow faces examination:
Police will force a man accused of violent protest at last year’s G20 conference to undergo a photographic examination of his teeth in an attempt to identify him in file photos.
Daniel Jones, 20, will have his teeth photographed by police later today to confirm that he was the man with a characteristic gap in his front teeth who was hurling abuse at police during the protests in November last year.
He allegedly hurled more than abuse:
Jones is accused of causing $9483 worth of damage to a police brawler van that was stationed on the corner of Flinders Lane and Exhibition Street.
No big deal, according to Dan’s spokeschick:
When asked whether rioting protesters should be held accountable for their actions, Anita told theage.com.au: “We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage.”
During the ‘91 riots in LA, I rememnber the Mercedes and Beemers streaming down out of Bel Air and Beverly Hills, loaded to the dashboards with the rich white folks’ mere “property.”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 03 20 at 10:33 AM • permalinkWhen asked whether rioting protesters should be held accountable for their actions, Anita told theage.com.au: “We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage.”
So if a mob sets fire to the spokeschick’s apartment and burns up all her patchouli, bong collection, macrame wall hangings, and ankle-length muslin skirts, she’s okay with that, then.
Ah, very post-modern. If only us poor slaves to property could have the intellect and advanced dielectic to be able to attain a post-ethical, and very conveniently self-serving, state of social awareness and advancement.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 03 20 at 12:31 PM • permalink‘Anita’ was probably the eye-wateringly fugly bint I saw on TV last night, equating the trashing of a police van with ‘legitimate protest’. More leftist cargo culters: they really do think that no-one pays for these big shiny things, in quite the same way that, say, they pay for their double decaf chai latte. Big shiny brawler van come down from great capitalist gods in sky - you trash ‘im one time, no biggie - white pella him make ‘nother by’m'bye.
So basically the spokeschick is admitting their guilt.
Posted by alien kiwi on 2007 03 20 at 05:36 PM • permalinkDan and Anita probably don’t pay tax at all, so any reparations are not coming out of their pockets. So that’s OK.
But let me get it straight. If, for example, I want to clip Dan and Anita around the ears, it’s not OK. But if I throw a brick through Anita’s front window (assuming she has one, use a cricket bat to bash in her car’s windscreen (again, assuming she has one), twist the handlebars off her bicycle, set fire to her backpack or stomp on her iPOD, that is OK.
Good. Glad that’s sorted.
Police also want to question this chap.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 20 at 07:07 PM • permalinkThis article neglects to publish the spokes-chick’s surname, but I’m guessing it’s Anita Thomasson
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 20 at 07:31 PM • permalinkOne of the revolutionaries is a librarian
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 03 20 at 08:23 PM • permalinkSpokesferal: “We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage.”
Journo: “OK – may I borrow your phone for a sec – mine doesn’t seem to working.”
Spokesferal: “sure –here ‘tis.”
Journo: “Ta, oops, dropped it AND stood on it AND took out SIM card and buggered that too. Sorry, but its only property.”
‘Anita told theage.com.au: “We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage.”’
Here’s the distinction. If you deliberately damage MY property, that’s completely unacceptable. When I respond to your unacceptable act by violently smacking your plug ugly face, that’s totally acceptable.
So, Anita and I are in agreement.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 03 20 at 09:05 PM • permalinkI remember him from Nerds FC, he was put forward by the show (can’t remember if he said it himself) as an anarchist. He tried to argue with the team that they didn’t need a captain as that was elitist or some such blather. He was a petulant, self absorbed individualist. I watched the show praying that a high speed ball would smash him in the face or the stones.
“We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage.”
And the distinction should be ... ?
Posted by Bill Ramey on 2007 03 20 at 11:01 PM • permalinkWe may have the bastard.
That sure looks like a tooth gap to me. Certainly I would convict on the available evidence. Mind you that Nozick book should be enough to invite him to share that spacious cell we saw the other day with someone with a similar view to others’ rights.
What if justice breaks out one day, and every vandal, graffitist, arsonist, etc. will be forced to pay for the damage, down to the last cent?
Sorry, I got carried away…
I mean we can argue on prison sentences, etc., but can never argue of, let’s say, the dollar cost of re-painting a wall because of a vandal spray painted it.Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2007 03 21 at 01:56 AM • permalinkI guarantee you this fuckwit will end up as a teaching academic forever revelling in his G20 conviction, subverting the minds of your children, his gap toothed mug forever attached to the government nipple.
Posted by alien kiwi on 2007 03 21 at 03:08 AM • permalinkI have one question for these cretins:
“Do you have contents insurance?”
If the answer is yes, then they must care about their property more than they are letting on.
It’s no good destroying the property of anarchists that have insurance - find some that don’t and wreck their stuff. That will really hurt.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 03 21 at 05:00 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
That’s injury to a vehicle, and property hurt.