back to article Robber held up bookies with vibrator

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 £ …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Ian Matthews

    Keep back....

    this is dildo is loaded... ooh baby

    Taxi !!!

  2. Adam Wynne

    Hands Up....

    .... or the rabbit gets it!

  3. CharleyBoy

    Terrifying indead!

    Maybe he should have gone for something with a"pump action" instead. :-)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "He was falling into the abyss and that's the root cause of drugs."

    Surely, like the *love* of money being the root of evil, 'the abyss' is the cause of the *abuse* of drugs, rather than actual drugs themselves...?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    i can certainly say..

    ..he felt a right prick.

  6. P. Pod

    Eyewitness statement

    An eye witness said "I thought there was something fishy about him"

  7. Mark

    I for one

    Am grateful they got the DNA from his hat....

  8. cor


    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'.

  9. andy gibson

    The Robber's Name?

    Was he actually called "Nicki"? That's a girls name, I'd say that the weapon was his. No doubt he'll be receiving a substitute for it while in the nick!

  10. Tim Wesson

    Five Years?

    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?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Just as well this didn't happen in the USA, it would have gone worse for him in court. "Held up somewhere with a gun - slap on wrist", doing anything that even hints at that S-E-X thing - lock him up and throw away the key!

  12. Gordon Matson

    Maybe the drugs weren't the motivation...

    maybe he got a buzz from it!

  13. Andy Jones

    Five years?

    @ 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!

  14. Robert Marshall


    maybe he thought it was a recycling bank?

  15. Andy Worth

    Buzzing with excitement!

    Can you just imagine if he'd accidentally turned it on while it was in the bag?

    I might try the same thing but without the bag and see how many people I can get to hit the deck :)

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Au contrair....

    ...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.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022