this is dildo is loaded... ooh baby
A robber who held up a Leicester bookmaker's with his girlfriend's vibrator has been jailed for five years, the BBC reports. Nicki Jex, 27, of Braunstone, Leicester, concealed the Rampant Rabbit in a carrier bag and, pretending it was a gun, held up Ladbrokes in Narborough Road on 27 December 2006. The manageress handed over £ …
Luckily it wasn't "turned on".
I guess he was firing blanks.
- Or rubber bullets.
...Guy goes into bookies with an evil plan and a dildo. Ends up being shafted by a customer...
He hid his vibrator in a bag, but couldn't escape the long arm of the law...
Had he used it, he could be done for 'assault with batteries'.
This ruling troubles me. Five years stikes me as excessive for inducing fear without assualt. We are increasingly responding to phantoms in our legislation and court-cases, and this is not good for society.
A ruling based upon perception rather than real risk fits right in to our modern "we're very scared" attitude, but is clearly a signpost on the road to serfdom.
The judge appears to be ruling that it wouldn't be much worse if the guy had used a real gun. This is such obvious nonsense, it is hard (for me) to comprehend. Do we want to encourage armed robbery?
@ Tim Wesson
He got five years because he also hadn't paid his council tax. That is why he was robbing the bank. If his council tax was fully paid up he would have gotten community service. :o)
It makes me wonder as to whether, when presenting the evidence, they held the dildo up in court. And, since one judge did not know what a website was (or was it the internet?), whether this presiding judge knew what a dildo was? I can just see it now, the judge asking why it is called a "Rampant Rabbit" when they explain what a dildo is, and when he is fiddling with it he accidentally turns it on. Rumour has it the judge was later seen in the vicinity of the Anne Summers shop in Soho!
...if this fellow had done the same crime in America, the police would have shot him. Probably fifteen or sixteen times. Then, it would come out the guy didn't have a gun in the first place, so a major controversy will erupt over the "police feeling justified, because he had *something* cylindrical in a bag" by which they justified the use of lethal force.
There would then be counter-outcries from the camp who feel the police really *should* be judge, jury, and executioners, and those who occasionally carry cylindrical objects in bags.
Finally, the conclusion of the situation would be that the congress passes laws which give the police power to shoot anyone with an opaque bag, which might contain a weapon, "just in case." The argument will be, "If you're not carrying anything illegal, why should you need a bag that we can't see through?"
Nevertheless, bank robberies will continue to occur, because any actual thief knows they can just as easily hide their guns in their clothes. But, at least we'll all be safe from the pernicious threat of opaque bags and briefcases. God bless the USA.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020