<< CALL FOR VIOLENCE TO END ~ MAIN ~ NO NEED TO KILL HIM NOW >>
THAT’S CLASS
His attacker didn’t omit the possessive apostrophe.
Yes, the prison authorities are stumped as there are no Oxford dons currently incarcerated in that section of the prison.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 02 at 12:18 PM • permalinkSlightly O/T but relevant, more or less.
The new front in the moronocracy campaign of social/cultural degeneration is in the attempt to “normalize” child molestation by using the same organizational alliances, rhetoric and tactics they used to “normalize” the P4 (Peter Puffing Pooter Poker) abomination.
There’s even a PC term for it: “Inter-generational Intimacy”.
I’m very impressed with this prison population—meting out justice in a grammatical way. Sounds like the basis for a Broadway musical.
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 10 02 at 02:30 PM • permalinkDoes this mean that he’s been sentenced twice for the same crime?
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 02 at 04:11 PM • permalinkSorry, andycanuck, while the phrase is grammatically correct, that’s not a complete sentence.
Therefore, he was sentenced only once. ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 02 at 05:17 PM • permalinkMore about prison tattoos. A woman that our company hired from a prison half-way house told us about the first tattoos she got when she got to Purdy (the women’s prison).
(The state’s department of corrections is called the “DOC” by everyone connected to it.)
She got a “D” tattooed on one butt-cheek, and a “C” on the other butt-cheek. That way, when she was told to bend over, the guard would see “DOC” staring back at them.
Posted by David Crawford on 2006 10 02 at 06:01 PM • permalinktriticale, the end of all prisoners have colons.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 02 at 08:40 PM • permalinkHis attacker didn’t omit the possessive apostrophe.
A properly placed apostrophe? That would rule Margo out as a suspect.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 10 02 at 08:57 PM • permalinkWhere are the anti-torture sycophants on this one? Why are incarcerated terrorists to be accorded more protection than our own incarcerated citizens? When the state takes custody of a man, depriving him of his ability to defend himself or even care for himself, it must take responsibility for his safety. Yes, his crime was reprehensible. But he was not sentenced to mutilation. This cavalier attitude toward and passive encouragement of (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) violence within our penal system is immoral and should be a national shame. Instead, we’re proud and arrogant about it. That’s sad.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 10 02 at 09:30 PM • permalinkI think we can rule out as suspects any of the apparently burgeoning number of Muslim converts in prisons as well.
After all, the lord and master to whom they submit with their asses in the air was an avowed and documented paedophile.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 02 at 09:56 PM • permalinknofixedabode:
The only way that prisoners would be kept from harming or manipulating other prisoners (and sometimes guards too) would be to lock them all up in solitary, from the first day until the day of their release, and never let them mix.
And, btw, it is weakness and/or fearfulness and/or dumbassedness that will cause an inmate to be unable to defend himself, not “the state”.
The only way that prisoners would be kept from harming or manipulating other prisoners (and sometimes guards too) would be to lock them all up in solitary, from the first day until the day of their release, and never let them mix.
Works for me.
And, btw, it is weakness and/or fearfulness and/or dumbassedness that will cause an inmate to be unable to defend himself, not “the state”.
Right. One guy can’t fend off a mob because he’s weak/fearful/dumb. Does your reasoning apply to all violent situations, or just lockup? “It’s the victim’s fault!!!” sounds a lot like the reasoning of those whom we’re fighting.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 10 03 at 12:19 AM • permalinkno, my reasoning comes from having most of the male members of my family involved in guarding convicts. Prisons are one of the major “industries” where I live.
In order to be in the sights of a mob an inmate would have to do something dumbass to draw attention to himself.
If a man keeps his mouth shut, minds his own business and “works his own program” then he’ll be just fine. If he’s weak, craven, cowardly, stupid and/or easily manipulated, he’ll get turned out and put to work for other’s profit.
It aint a hella lot different than in the world outside prison.
Sorry to hear that. Maybe someday a compassionate society will act to reverse the damage your family has suffered.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 10 03 at 01:04 AM • permalink#26- that study may have had some validity if the sample rounded up contained mostly chemically-dependants, psycopaths, professional arseholes and perverts, then it might be representative of the general prison population. Not too many whitebread college boys wind up in the hoosegow unless they were dumb enough to be caught fiddling the till/tax or were Nixon staffers, and even then it’s usually off to Club Fed.
I know plenty of screws, and none of them are fucked up- they see they’ve been doing a necessary job of keeping predators and human chancres seperated firstly from the general population and secondly from each other whenever possible; if there’s a bit of close contact and one comes unstuck, stiff shit.
nofixedabode-I show “the Stanford Prison experiment” every semester in my intro to Sociology course. It’s mainly about the way that our role overtakes us, but there are a couple of key points that must be spelled out: those guys did not have the advantage of institutional experience to guide them where a regular prison guard would. They were making it up on the fly and most of what they did was petty BS (making the prisoners do push-ups or humiliating them in some way, anyone who has been to boot camp has seen worse) which broke a couple of the pampered middle class kids who had the role of prisoner because they were not used to not being in control of their lives. I have had to teach classes out at the local prison and it is nothing like Dr. Zimbardo’s experiment, and none of the guys in my classes (your tax dollars at work) were in there for singing too loud in the church choir.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Reminds me of a story relayed to me by a mate at The Courier Mail a few years back. He was listening to police radio and heard a description of a suspect. Apparently they were looking for an escapee who happened to be a mad Brisbane Broncos supporter. So mad, in fact, that he’d decided to tattoo the name of his favourite team on his own forehead. Sad enough, but the stupid git had applied the tattoo whilst looking in teh mirror and ended up walking around with SOCNORB on his face.