A fruitloop 'Karen' gets her just deserts.
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Watchman said:
My wife is Polish, but I'm not leaping to the defence of the Poles in this instance because it just sounds like everyone in this fight acted like a t
t and got what they deserved (kicked out). I don't like pubs at the best of times and my witnessing this type of behaviour when I was younger (and a pub-goer) is one of the reasons.....
My thoughts too. Grotty pub, Grotty customers. Can't handle their booze.t and got what they deserved (kicked out). I don't like pubs at the best of times and my witnessing this type of behaviour when I was younger (and a pub-goer) is one of the reasons.....Choice of video footage is always amusing too. Maybe everyone needs to walk around with a camera on all the time these days
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363095/?ref_=nm_flmg...
JagLover said:
PorkInsider said:
JagLover said:
Just curious about responses like this sometimes.
The woman has lost her job, and her dog too it seems, and now some are joyful that she might be jailed as well. Because clearly she needs to have her life completely destroyed for one "thought crime"
If she'd just thought it she'd probably have got away with it, don't you think?The woman has lost her job, and her dog too it seems, and now some are joyful that she might be jailed as well. Because clearly she needs to have her life completely destroyed for one "thought crime"
I'm surprised at anyone trying to defend what she did. It's indefensible as far as I can see.
What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
ked up - which she tried to do by her actions.So yeah, no sympathy here whatsoever.
and where the f
k is the "thought crime"? Please spell that one out to me.Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 7th July 16:31
A205GTI said:
Feel sorry for her in the fact she lost her job based on the video.
Watch the video, then come back and say the same. If you can legitimately say the same after watching it then I think you need to seek help on your prejudice issues.A205GTI said:
Wonder what the reason for the sacking was
Probably being an untrustworthy Karen.A205GTI said:
I wonder what will be said if she commits suicide after this
"Bye! Shame you couldn't face up to the ridiculous course of action you took"JagLover said:
I'm not defending what she did. Just querying the relish with which some seem to want her life destroyed.
What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
I can see your point. She should be tried for the crime she commited (which I have no sympathy for), and given the appropriate sentence as set down in law. If that's prison time, then so be it. What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
The other stuff does smack of mob rule. I'd not say I feel sorry for her, but it makes me uncomfortable whenever this happens.
crofty1984 said:
JagLover said:
I'm not defending what she did. Just querying the relish with which some seem to want her life destroyed.
What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
I can see your point. She should be tried for the crime she commited (which I have no sympathy for), and given the appropriate sentence as set down in law. If that's prison time, then so be it. What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
The other stuff does smack of mob rule. I'd not say I feel sorry for her, but it makes me uncomfortable whenever this happens.
- She was charged because what she did was illegal.
- Her company sacked her coz it's obvious she can't be trusted (and potentially bringing neg publicity on the company)
- The dog people took the dog back coz she was very clearly treating the thing harshly, needlessly, while lying through her teeth on the phone to the police.
Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 7th July 17:31
HRL said:
anonymoususer said:
She seems quite feisty
Meeting her in a pub at night and going back to hers would be interesting
Just make sure you film it!Meeting her in a pub at night and going back to hers would be interesting
TheJimi said:
crofty1984 said:
JagLover said:
I'm not defending what she did. Just querying the relish with which some seem to want her life destroyed.
What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
I can see your point. She should be tried for the crime she commited (which I have no sympathy for), and given the appropriate sentence as set down in law. If that's prison time, then so be it. What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
The other stuff does smack of mob rule. I'd not say I feel sorry for her, but it makes me uncomfortable whenever this happens.
- She was charged because what she did was illegal.
- Her company sacked her coz it's obvious she can't be trusted (and potentially bringing neg publicity on the company)
- The dog people took the dog back coz she was very clearly treating the thing harshly, needlessly, while lying through her teeth on the phone to the police.
Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
TheJimi said:
- She was charged because what she did was illegal.
TheJimi said:
* Her company sacked her coz it's obvious she can't trusted (and potentially bringing neg publicity on the company)
Hmm we cant really say anything regarding her trustworthiness as an employee, this may be the very first time shes acted this way in public. I am not excusing her in any way it was a stty thing to do, she deserves what the law decides.TheJimi said:
* The dog people took the dog back coz she was very clearly treating the thing harshly, needlessly, while lying through her teeth on the phone to the police.
Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
The mob rule part is this current fashion of kicking them while theyre down, punishment enough if she does time (and she should) but the decision to get her out of her job now thats shes got this kind of notoriety isnt proper I feel.Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
I think shes going to have plenty of "why the hell did i do it?" moments as it is.
It brings us back to the entirely indeterminate length of sentence after being proclaimed guilty in the courts of social media, does she get a lifetime ban on getting a job and has to be supported by the state?
Thats where it goes eventually .
Im not happy with that kind of action, after all even criminals who have paid their dues to society are supposed to get another chance, that cant happen if society is guided by the likes of twitter and pals who are unfortunately a baying mob at times.
Dont Panic said:
TheJimi said:
- She was charged because what she did was illegal.
TheJimi said:
* Her company sacked her coz it's obvious she can't trusted (and potentially bringing neg publicity on the company)
Hmm we cant really say anything regarding her trustworthiness as an employee, this may be the very first time shes acted this way in public. I am not excusing her in any way it was a stty thing to do, she deserves what the law decides.TheJimi said:
* The dog people took the dog back coz she was very clearly treating the thing harshly, needlessly, while lying through her teeth on the phone to the police.
Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
The mob rule part is this current fashion of kicking them while theyre down, punishment enough if she does time (and she should) but the decision to get her out of her job now thats shes got this kind of notoriety isnt proper I feel.Mob rule? Nope. Not seeing it.
I think shes going to have plenty of "why the hell did i do it?" moments as it is.
It brings us back to the entirely indeterminate length of sentence after being proclaimed guilty in the courts of social media, does she get a lifetime ban on getting a job and has to be supported by the state?
Thats where it goes eventually .
Im not happy with that kind of action, after all even criminals who have paid their dues to society are supposed to get another chance, that cant happen if society is guided by the likes of twitter and pals who are unfortunately a baying mob at times.
There appears to be three entities who have acted against her, and all for logical reasons -
1) The police
2) Her employer
3) The dog organisation
Where's the mob rule or influence?
dukeboy749r said:
ben5575 said:
ReallyReallyGood said:
JagLover said:
I'm not defending what she did. Just querying the relish with which some seem to want her life destroyed.
What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
Welcome to social media and mob justice. It's a problem for sure, but IMO this is not the hill I'd fight my battle on.What is an adequate punishment in their eyes?
Losing her job and struggling to get another professional job due to notoriety?
Losing her dog, which was the reason for the dispute?
Driven to suicide?
Several examples/interviews including the woman who made that off the cuff tweet whilst on a flight to Africa from a few years ago. (This one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/pr-e...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07h3hhp/episodes...
I appreciate that Jon Ronson may not fit the PH profile though
The world must have felt liked it just ended for her that day
This one provides a reasonably balanced view - https://uproxx.com/viral/what-happened-to-justine-...
Users of social media ought to heed this advice - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-si...
TheJimi said:
Sorry, but I'm honestly not getting the references to the mob thing.
There appears to be three entities who have acted against her, and all for logical reasons -
1) The police
2) Her employer
3) The dog organisation
Where's the mob rule or influence?
Its the apparent piling in of one on the other to lay in a metaphorical boot or punch after the laws already dealt or is dealing with the offender.There appears to be three entities who have acted against her, and all for logical reasons -
1) The police
2) Her employer
3) The dog organisation
Where's the mob rule or influence?
The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
Dont Panic said:
TheJimi said:
Sorry, but I'm honestly not getting the references to the mob thing.
There appears to be three entities who have acted against her, and all for logical reasons -
1) The police
2) Her employer
3) The dog organisation
Where's the mob rule or influence?
Its the apparent piling in of one on the other to lay in a metaphorical boot or punch after the laws already dealt or is dealing with the offender.There appears to be three entities who have acted against her, and all for logical reasons -
1) The police
2) Her employer
3) The dog organisation
Where's the mob rule or influence?
The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
If I took a dog from a rescue organisation and was shown to be treating the dog as she was in the video, I wouldn't in the slightest be surprised if they came back for it.
I bet anything you like that it's in their terms and conditions when someone takes a dog.
And I bet there's a clause in her employment contract about bringing the company into disrepute.
Mob rule is bad, I agree, but it isn't the case here. It's three organisations acting entirely within their rights.
Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 7th July 18:13
She should be arrested for animal cruelty, a rescue dog as well, which is no better, but i'm sure it has been treated badly already, strangling it, it is clearly in distress.
She is the sort that tells everyone she has a rescue dog, a black square on Instagram, a superficial horrible women who clearly has done this before and finally met her match.
She is the sort that tells everyone she has a rescue dog, a black square on Instagram, a superficial horrible women who clearly has done this before and finally met her match.
Dont Panic said:
Its the apparent piling in of one on the other to lay in a metaphorical boot or punch after the laws already dealt or is dealing with the offender.
The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
They are protective measures aimed at preserving the reputation of the company and the safety of the dog.The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
Dont Panic said:
Its the apparent piling in of one on the other to lay in a metaphorical boot or punch after the laws already dealt or is dealing with the offender.
The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
Isn't that free speech though?The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
I thought you wanted that.
AnotherClarkey said:
Dont Panic said:
Its the apparent piling in of one on the other to lay in a metaphorical boot or punch after the laws already dealt or is dealing with the offender.
The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
They are protective measures aimed at preserving the reputation of the company and the safety of the dog.The law dealing with her and deciding the punishment is enough, theres no need for extra judicial punitive measures to be taken by anyone.
Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 7th July 18:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff