It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graffiti girl jailed for first offence

page: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
I've not broken the law. I haven't killed, stolen, vandalised or sped in my car. What else can I say?

There's nothing else that you need to type. You've made it clear to everyone reading the thread that it's difficult to take your claims seriously.


Originally posted by noonebutme
In this case with the girl, she may get out and think, "You know what, screw them for imprisoning me, I didn't do anything serious - it's not like I killed someone. I'll show them, now I'll be a serious "

I wouldn't blame her if she took that attitude.

If I got locked up for ANY period of time for something as pissy as drawing on a wall, then my revenge would be ten-fold. Yeah, I'm a petty man. I'm even pettier than the law at times.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I dont know where you people live but in many citys across America graffiti has been embraced as a form of Urban Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by Kryties



Did i say that you will not be an individual. I said laws are not legislated to cater for just YOU, or I, or a girl that just wrote her name on the wall. For individuals. They are Laws. Laws for us all.


And that is EXACTLY what is inherently wrong with the entire system. If the system was designed to review each individual case and base punishment on that, we would not be finding an 18 year old first offender being sent to jail for writing her name on a wall.

Are you serious? Think about your statement. I mean, just think before you move your mouth.
You want a legal system that basis its entire system on catering for individuals. Individuals that commit crimes!
You would need a system like the Medical System that deals with issues presented to it on an Individual basis, this is how it allocates resources and manpower.
A client driven system, think about that.
This is vastly different to the current laws system which has the legislated laws. People break them. On behalf of the citizens of the state, the state enforces these laws and prosecutes and imprisons those it proves have broken such laws. We as tax payers and citizens accept that our taxes will help cover these costs, as well as provide compensation to victims of crime.
So , in your system you are actually asking for more state intervention in the role of the individual within its system. Because in our free society, from a defence perspective, the individual is responsible for retaining its own defense, a defense that is responsible for showing why the idividual should have the courts grace, tolerance and compassion. The state takes the costs of the prosecution. Where the individual is unable to retain a defence, our state provides Legal Aid.
So you want the state to take care of the whole thing. Because currently, and lets use this case, the state wanted and legislated tougher, harsher laws. It legislated these laws last year. This Individual broke the law. She was guilty and sentenced. In your system, like the current, the state would provide a prosecution team, but from here things would change. A defence team would also have to be established for her because we are also providing a review and assessment team. We would have to replace our free society system where an individual retains it own defence because we would need a comprehensive system where quality of service is maintained, although we could have private defence contracted to the state, for this lady. This review and assessment team would then report on what the defence team should do, what avenues and arguements to present that would either show that no finding of guilt be found, or in the event of a guilty verdict, why sentencing and punishment should be reduced or waved. The review team and assessment teams would not report to the Judge. It is the defence teams role to present the Individuals cases.
Now, where a guilty verdict is found, and a sentence given, if an appeal is requested we have to ask questions from a defence perspective. Did the state do everything it could. Do we need another assessment and review. We cannot use the same team as before, we would need a whole new review and assessment. Can you imagine what kind of massive state system you are asking for. How much more of a role of the State.
I am only scratching the surface.
You think society really wants to set up a system that caters for Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Drug Dealers. I think we would have an uprising. I know we would.
Your suggestion, while Ideal for criminals, is one of the stupidest suggestion I have come across. Its typical of reactionaries who attack a system based on one outcome, that suggest change based on one outcome. that insist that there is intrinsic failure evident in the system, by referencing one case, one outcome, in one court.



Obey only because if we don't we get treated like dirt then thrown in a jail cell to rot - regardless whether the law is right or not.
This is absurd. The only reason you don't break the law is because you are afraid of being treated like dirt and thrown in a jail cell. See, it works. LOL.

It is evident that not every person is sentenced for breaking the law. How do you suggest we treat our criminals, I think we do pretty good. They get full medical, phycological, dental cover and service. They get clothed, fed and depending on the severity of crime(ie murderers and rapist etc in maximum, and white collar, petty crimes in minimum) these Criminals also get to earn money, get educated or recieve spiritual and personal council. And those that obey the law, cover the bill. Yeah, we treat 'em real dirty here.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I don't share your philosophy that people who break the law deserve respect, It is of the most importance that thier rights should be respected, but to respect them, sorry. I think you will find it hard to convince in the most liberal of rehabilative and interventionist advocates laughing in your face.

I think in Indonesia they share a cell with six people. Africa and some South American prisons I wouldn't care to even imagine what its like.


Unwillingly, because we are given no other choice.
You coward. Shame on you. Ever heard of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties. Just one group you can get involved with, aid or help. No one is stopping you but yourself. I'll U2U you, I've protested the state govt, twice last year, one wear we got a temporary law revoked during the Papal visit. What about apec, when the council won and now makes it mandatory for our police to wear ID when policing protests, after they arressted 20 people with no personal ID number or names. I haven't been stopped once. Or arrested. Or imprisoned, or treated like dirt.


I wear clothes so I don't blind people with my ugly skinny body.
No, you were conditioned by a society that says you need to wear cloths. You want to protect them from your ugly skinny body because you view you dody as that as there is a generallly agreed standard of decency that is step in our cultural psyche, this is why we have indecency laws. And cultures like the Aboriginals didn't, until europeans arrived.

I drive on the correct side of the road because if I do not, I die.
You drive on the correct side because it is the law. It was made a law when cars became more common, it seems like common sense to you because you have grown up within the system.

I pay taxes because I have no choice, if I do not I am put in jail. I'm not sure what you mean about the rest of the points, they do not seem to make sense in context.
I still owe 2001, and 2004. I was a sub-contractor, part time while i was racing. All my friend in that Industry are behind or don't pay. Some owe 3, 8, one guy 10 years in the buisness without paying any tax. One friend got done. He owed 40,000 dollars when all the numbers were done. He is working, free and paying off his debt. No jail, no draconia, no fear, no hysteria.


Again, unwillingly because I am forced to or go to jail. Jail is another thing I did not ask to be made into law either.
Ok. So the only reason you don't rape, steal, murder, destroy property, assault people is because the laws forces you not to and because you will end up in jail. Ok. Cool.


And these laws should be for the people, by the people - and yet the only people who have a say in our laws are the one's with the fattest wallet.
They are for the people, by the people. Who do you think made these, it was the state parliment. Who did you vote for. If you were disatisfied, did you think about runnung as an independant, or did you support one. Oh, what was that, no. Have you voiced your concern to your local member, who represents you in state parliment and could have voted no against this law in the house, and annouce you displeasure at the laws.


[edit on 4-2-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Are you serious? Think about your statement. I mean, just think before you move your mouth.


I actually typed it.


You want a legal system that basis its entire system on catering for individuals. Individuals that commit crimes!


Not catering. You asked if I had any alternate suggestions to the law and I was providing one. Of course it would have to be well scrutinised before being put into action, but just think: if the system was designed to look at individuals cases and judge punishment based on that, we wouldn't see our prisons filled with non-violent offenders whose only crime was smoking a bit of weed, or writing her name on a wall.

Incidentally, I personally think it's a crime to make me read the rest of that thesis you wrote. But then again, that's just my opinion, my wallet isn't big enough to change that law.....



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Ok to the people who say the 3 months is correct. Should she be guarantedd her safety inside said prison? As in does it matter if she gets raped, bashed, stabbed or whatever? Is that part of prison, part of the punishment? Should she be housed with convicted murderers doing 20 yrs?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
There's nothing else that you need to type. You've made it clear to everyone reading the thread that it's difficult to take your claims seriously.


Fair enough. But honestly, I really don't care.


If I got locked up for ANY period of time for something as pissy as drawing on a wall, then my revenge would be ten-fold. Yeah, I'm a petty man. I'm even pettier than the law at times.


Nice. How wonderfully inspiring.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Good work. The only reason graffiti still continues is that its not considered a crime at all most times... "But all I did was write my 'nickname'! I didn't kill no one or rob them...

Sure that's a reason, but honestly if I owned that cafe and some silly 18 year old girl wrote on my wall, I would not stand for it. Theres things called 'laws' from a reason, and not just to let pests get away with small things, so they can keep on continuing and thinking their immune to the laws. Boo hoo for Cheyene Back... Someone who honestly was taught the right lesson.

Anyway, justice prevailed for once... Now if only this great justice could be sentenced to other crimes and the time served calculated to a real honest degree then maybe crime would not be as bad a problem as it is.

Btw just a speculation but this girl would of been one of the biggest B***hes you could meet and would probably yell at a granny in order to get her way... I mean writing on a wall, not giving a care in the would about the consequences until they actually happened? Pure speculation.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
This thread is just going to keep going around in circles.

For: Yay, we punished an 18 year old first offender with 3 months in an adult prison! She deserves everything she gets even though the Cafe owner even said it was too harsh! This will solve ALL our problems! Lock every first time offender up for the most minor of crimes, feed the (almost privatised) prison system as much taxpayer money as we can, kick em out on the streets a few months later and wonder why they keep reoffending! Good times



Against: This sentence was too harsh - particularly for a first time offender given the nature of the so-called 'crime'. In this instance, the offender should have been warned sternly that reoffending will incur a harsher penalty, fined $200 and be made to clean up the writing on the cafe wall. Further to this, to combat the more widespread problem of graffiti, convene a thinktank to nut out what is causing the problem, and underlying issues and how they can be resolved without unnecessarily jailing first time offenders for minor offenses.

Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Chiming in a bit late here . . . but I am simply horrified at the number of people who support this punishment. I cannot comprehend how someone could think putting a bit of paint on a wall without permission deserves a punishment of 90 days in prison and a permanent criminal record.


She was maliciously damaging the property of another person, someone for whom she could obviously care less.

Australians spend millions every year repairing the damage done by these graffiti artistes, and this just sent them a message.

You may not care so much about enforcing civil order, but fortunately some of your fellow Australians do, and I know which group I would put my money on for making Austrlalia a better, safer place to live in.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
She was maliciously damaging


Defacing. Not damaging. And I seriously doubt she was 'maliciously defacing' a wall with a texta. Please refrain from making this out to be worse than it was.


Australians spend millions every year repairing the damage done by these graffiti artistes, and this just sent them a message.


No it won't. Don't you get it? These people will not stop. This is just another heavy-handed tactic to make the general public think they are doing something about it.


You may not care so much about enforcing civil order, but fortunately some of your fellow Australians do, and I know which group I would put my money on for making Austrlalia a better, safer place to live in.


How is it that we don't care about enforcing civil order? Have we not already said that she deserves some form of punishment? We just think that the punishment given to this girl is too harsh and other tactics for dealing with the graffiti problem need to be discussed and implemented.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


You see, you ARE a criminal after all


Welcome to the fraternity bro'



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
...blah blah blah .... basis its entire system on catering for individuals. Individuals that commit crimes! You would need a system like the Medical System that deals with issues presented to it on an Individual basis, this is how it allocates resources and manpower. A client driven system, think about that. This is vastly different to the current laws system which has the legislated laws. People break them. On behalf of the citizens of the state, the state enforces these laws and prosecutes and imprisons those it proves have broken such laws. We as tax payers and citizens accept that our taxes will help cover these costs, as well as provide compensation to victims of crime. So , in your system you are actually asking for more state intervention in the role of the individual .... blah blah blah


... seriously man, you need to lighten up.

It's really not that complicated:

Girl get's caught writing name on cafe wall with a marker.
Girl is asked to apologise, pay some form of penalty that satisfies the offended party (cafe owner), and is publically embarassed in the process of cleaning up her mess (I think the pink overalls are a great idea
)

That's it, nice and simple (and cheap).

Now, if you want to get a bit more 'complex' about a solution, I'm sure many well developed and compassionate souls could offer a plethora of creative ideas that would achieve the intended outcome without the need for a retarded prison system and at far less financial cost than the current ineffective practices.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The Bald Champion
 


I agree .. Throwing her in jail was not the best method used.

How about this... Having her pay the $200 fine, then have to clean up the mess she made. In addition, have the Judge order her to comply with a couple of months of comunity service cleaning up graffiti others have left behind.
Soon she'll realize the painstaking process involved of having to repaint/sandblast or remove by other means. This will also yeild her understanding of how a simple marking or painting of a wall etc, requires so much time and or money to be removed.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 



Originally posted by Kryties
Defacing. Not damaging. And I seriously doubt she was 'maliciously defacing' a wall with a texta. Please refrain from making this out to be worse than it was.


So if I spray paint your car, I'm not damaging it. Get real.



No it won't. Don't you get it? These people will not stop. This is just another heavy-handed tactic to make the general public think they are doing something about it.


So we should stop jailing murderers too, since it plainly doesn't stop murder? Jail deters me from doing some things I would secretly like to do, it will have the same effect on this girl I guarantee you.



How is it that we don't care about enforcing civil order?


Who exactly is "we", my comments were not directed at you. But if you are of the opinion that sending people to jail for minor civil order offences is pointless and draconian, then yes, we differ, because the rigid and strict enforcement of minor offences has been shown to improve social order immensely, New York city would be our prime example of that policy working to great effect.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by Kryties
Defacing. Not damaging.

So if I spray paint your car, I'm not damaging it. Get real.

Strawman argument. She didn't spray a car, she wrote her name on an exterior cafe wall, that was already weathered, with a texta.


Originally posted by Retseh
So we should stop jailing murderers too, since it plainly doesn't stop murder? Jail deters me from doing some things I would secretly like to do, it will have the same effect on this girl I guarantee you.

Another strawman argument. She didn't murder anyone, she wrote on a wall with a texta.

Why do you think that jail is the only effective punishment for a crime? She could have been made to pay for her crime without being sentenced to jail. We've offered common sense solutions in this thread that have been completely ignored in favour of the police-state solution.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I just joined ATS since I was tired of posting Anonymously.

Here are my sentiments with respect to this thread.

I believe having the girl do 3 months in jail is not the best punishment.
I would have made her pay a fine for destruction of private property then make her accountable to remove the damage she caused. I would also expect the judge to give her a couple of months of community service helping remove graffiti in other areas.
This in my opinion would make her realize the effort, money, time and labor required to repair a simple tagging /graffiti job. This would help present a clearer picture of what the person on the other side of the equation has to deal with!


[edit on 4-2-2009 by Beowolfs]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Why do you think that jail is the only effective punishment for a crime? She could have been made to pay for her crime without being sentenced to jail.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by tezzajw]


As I have countless time pointed out, because the state is no longer siding with criminals and is cracking down on this criminal behaviour.


We've offered common sense solutions in this thread that have been completely ignored in favour of the police-state solution.

Any solution would be sentenced via the state, duh, even one that saw a bond, a community service, fine, suspended sentence, which the state has done countless times with these offences. We are not in a police state BTW, just incase you think we are. These laws were legislated, nice try and sensationalising the incident. Do you even know what a police state is? LOL. A police state enforces social, political and economical repression and control. There is no terror here Tezza. Just a graffiti artist coping it hard, for a change. Instead of getting of scott free.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

... seriously man, you need to lighten up.

It's really not that complicated
I am pretty light actually dude, its just that perhaps I actually consider things a great deal more than most. And, it is complicated. My reply was to Kryties opinion that our legal system be based on the Individual. When you make a statement like that, without considering the complexity that public policy would have to overcome, it gets complicated. It would be remiss of me not to highlight ATS member Kryties ignorance in this matter. Given that the free society will be paying for it. The suggestion is one that involves all crime, so while it may be a nice and cosy solution to a girl that graffiti's, it isn't so cosy when we consider it from a systemic and all inclusive perspective.


Girl get's(gets) caught writing name on cafe wall with a marker.
Girl is asked to apologise, pay some form of penalty that satisfies the offended party (cafe owner), and is publically(publicly) embarassed(embarrassed) in the process of cleaning up her mess (I think the pink overalls are a great idea
)

That's it, nice and simple (and cheap).
Yes, in this one case, where its only one girl and one offence. But the thing is. Its costing the state(my state, where i live) hundreds of millions of dollars, resources, and police time and effort. This is why the laws, the ones this girl has felt the full force of, have been legislated. If you read my first reply on this thread I clearly express the opinion that this was harsh. But unlike some, I'm not here to scream with impotent and ignorant outrage but explore the issue, why we have it, to understand it and not be beguiled into a false sense of impending doom at the hands of the state. Which some here would rather have members do.

You know what is cheap, here do the Math. You have a graffiti problem that costs Hundreds of millions of dollars, a police system that receives over 100k complaints in one year about graffiti and vandalism. Jail a girl for 40k over three months, see if it reduces your costs of Hundreds of millions and thousands of hours of police time and effort. Yep, its harsh. But try explaining that to sports clubs that cancel trips because they have to spend money fixing up their club house. Try telling schools, churches, councils and community centres that we need to be compassionate to those that deprive them of the things they need. Yep. pretty simple isn't it. Try explaining why Councils have to enforce a 48 clean graffiti rule on businesses because studies show that the longer graffiti remains(i.e. tags, nicknames, gang logos or tags) the more that graffiti will be added too, so must be removed. That this rule, if not followed, means the council has to clean it and bills businesses. Try telling me I need to be more creative and compassionate, when every other week, my brother and I have to go up to my nephews school and clean the School Signage and community boards. Try explain to me why I need to care about this Girl when my brother(who operates one of Sydney's largest signage companies) has to call me up where I work in town to ask me to look at one of his clients shop fronts to see if the texta marks have baked into the glass yet. Yep, the white and black marker textas they use, if the sun hits them, it leaves a permanent mark on the glass. This means that if the client is lucky and has existing vinyl graphics, maybe part only, or the whole lot of vinyl needs to be replaced, but if its glass, the whole panel. You know what either of those options cost? No, I didn't think so, but it really is that simple.


If you want a simple solution, I mean a dead easy one, one that I knew when I was 10, why not this one. Do not damage or deface someone elses property. How @#%ing simple can you get. Why has no-one thrown that in? Surely once we just say that, people will instantly stop graffit and vandalism.


Now, if you want to get a bit more 'complex' about a solution, I'm sure many well developed and compassionate souls could offer a plethora of creative ideas that would achieve the intended outcome without the need for a retarded prison system and at far less financial cost than the current ineffective practices.
Man, how about first we set up a system that purely deals with looking after victims of crime, Why not assess them, set up facilities where they get all their needs catered for until they can return to a normal life in society! And then see what resources we have left over for the ones that commit crimes. The cold face of reality needs to see the light of day when we would otherwise prefer to dream of a Utopia.
To suggest change, one that incorporates compassion and creativity( who says our system is devoid of that) we would need to deal with individuals who may not extend that same compassion in return, or understanding, or a desire to change. So lets just look at one little aspect shall we, that would worry the many people who consider compassion and creativity as the cornerstone of law enforcement. How do you solve high recidivist behaviour in certain crimes, sexual offenders in certain sub-classes have recidivist rates of 90%. What about the fact that for harsher, more heinous crimes, time served leads to institutionalisation, thus increasing the likely hood of recidivism. So do we trade of by giving a man-slaughterer or an armed robber, a lighter sentence because we are worried they might commit further crimes much later when they are released simply because of the risk of recidivism due to imprisonment? Man I know that is a simple couple of questions.

It is not ok to isolate one case, one person, and one crime and say the laws are out of control, and the whole system sucks. The OP has sensationalised this case, as is his habit, into a simplistic episode of State Tyranny without even trying to understand or even investigate what got us here. The state is siding with councils, buisnesses, police and citizens. That is what the law is for. Its not about wiping the asses of 18 year olds who couldn't give a @#$% about anyone or anything else.
And that is as simple as you can get.

I didn't realise people posted on ATS because they liked the simplification of isolating an incident and then inflate it through they're own propaganda of tyranny by the state. I will deny that ignorance. Everytime. Simple. This is not the first time I have seen the OP do this. I am sure it will not be the last either.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
"You do the crime, you do the time."

That sums it up really...honestly, why the hell do people graffiti anyway? Is anyone here a practitioner of graffiti? Why do it?

Get a computer...get on the internet...post on ATS (you can express your opinions and feelings, and it's legal!
be sure to follow the terms of posting though), or go to the library and read a book. Take those creative senses and apply them to the good of society.

There really is no reason why she did it...so once again, "you do the crime, you do the time."



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
This thread is just going to keep going around in circles.
Only because you obscure and trivialize your opposition in this debate, by write things like this.


For: Yay, we punished an 18 year old first offender with 3 months in an adult prison! She deserves everything she gets even though the Cafe owner even said it was too harsh! This will solve ALL our problems! Lock every first time offender up for the most minor of crimes, feed the (almost privatised) prison system as much taxpayer money as we can, kick em out on the streets a few months later and wonder why they keep reoffending! Good times
.
My arguement is that the state is at its wits end. It is no longer about the individual, but that individuals do not care about the crimes they commit. Hence, a sentence is needed.
Some think she deserved what she got. I think it was harsh, but considering the huge percentage of the population being effected, what are we to do?
Ok, so the Cafe owner thought it was too harsh, are you advocating now that the victim sets the sentence? I'll bet my house that alot more artist will do time. LOL. If thats your arguement.
Can't remember anyone saying lock every one up. I remember saying that with these new laws, example will be made! Until the community realises that this is a serious problem. Look at the case where the Graphic Art student was given a bond, one day after this girl. So your arguement here is asinine.
Can't remember saying all first time offenders should be locked up, can't remember any other posters either(that appeared serious anyway). More Hyperbole!



Against: This sentence was too harsh - particularly for a first time offender given the nature of the so-called 'crime'. In this instance, the offender should have been warned sternly that reoffending will incur a harsher penalty, fined $200 and be made to clean up the writing on the cafe wall. Further to this, to combat the more widespread problem of graffiti, convene a thinktank to nut out what is causing the problem, and underlying issues and how they can be resolved without unnecessarily jailing first time offenders for minor offenses.
Wow. Really, what ground breaking approaches. Look how well that has worked before, so your arguement is that you think these new untested laws will not work so therefor, go back to the old ones. We had a policy of three warnings before a convictions for minors and still do, and all of the above. Now its a newer, harsher sentence, I wonder why, because your solution has/will just stopp graffiti in its tracks? Well, no, it been tested and failed. Epic failure. Think Tank, lol. You think this is a new debate. Lol. Dude, look up the NSW Councils Association. Look at all the minutes. Look at the releases of all Metropolitan Council Meetings, You'll notice that they all developed community based strategies to deal with graffiti. Its been doing it for years, YEARS. With offenders, youth groups, NGO's and the State Govt. Think Tanks, man I almost wet myself when I read that, how do you think we ended up with these sentences Kryties. LOL. Kryties, how about you just start to Think Tank that you may have absolutely no Idea what you are talking about, other than the fact that this sentence upsets you. You have no Idea how we reached the need to legislate these newer tougher laws, other than the insipid excuses that its those "fat wallet peoples". Because, reading your posts, that is all you have Bro.




Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.
Yeah, your on a spin cycle alright.

I'm done here. Thanks for the laughs Tezza and Kryties.
Kryties, maybe you should move to melbourne, that is where Tezza is, safe from those "Fat wallet police state nasty peoples". I have a friend doing her PHD down there, she could use a laugh.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join