top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 19 hours ago*

You wouldn't and then

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago
    [–] 2 points 21 hours ago

    Dear UK

    I did the in a mocking manner. At the Queen.

    Yes, I am aware of the year, her health and location. I just refuse to recognize Chuck.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 23 hours ago

    I like the one about not taking photos of people in public. That's reserved for private corporations and the government.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    It's true, though. I did once, and I'm looking at 40+ years of jail time.

  • source
  • [–] 92 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] 57 points 1 day ago
    [–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    I ... may have in the past. I'm really sorry though, and I don't intend to do it again!

  • source
  • [+] 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)
    [–] 23 points 1 day ago
    [–] 15 points 1 day ago

    That's good because I cannot even

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Do not carry trees away in a pram

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 23 points 2 days ago (6 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    You should not take photos of people in public?

    Since when did street photography become illegal over here? I know it is much of Europe, but I was under the impression that we worked under the assumption of no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

    Or is it just illegal for assilum seekers to do it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    In principle, targeting someone and taking photos of them should be illegal, under harassment law.
    In practice, this will only apply if you are brown and don't speak very good English.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    So taking photos of people in general is still fine, but going after one person and taking lots of photos of just that person isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    Huh, I apparently have illegal photographs from the late '90s.

    (joking. I assume that having people unintentionally in the frame as I take a picture of some famous building, especially for photos that aren't put anywhere public, is fine since they're not the subject. Then again, Japan has some bonkers rules on that, so I dunno).

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    What a templet hahaha Poor UK I know you all are not all turdz

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    For example, there's Scottish people.

    For now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Mmmm...do not....gurgle...drool...

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago
    [–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I hate that slogan. It's super catchy but also based on an unclean rhyme 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child)

    It could literally be "sort it" instead, like why lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    On 10 September, 1976, dozens of children, including every single pupil from class 3, Scarfolk High School, vanished on their way to school. A police operation was launched but no clues were ever found. The children were pronounced dead the following Monday, a mere three days later.

    Every year thereafter, the police commissioned their sketch artist to draw, in the style of a school photograph, how the missing children might have looked (albeit with their faces removed) had they not disappeared in mysterious circumstances. This was sent to the bereaved parents of class 3 at an exorbitant cost of £31.25.

    In the 1979 class sketch, one parent noticed a small label on one of the faceless figure's clothes that contained a code word only their child could have known.

    Under mounting pressure from parents, the police eventually raided their artist's studio and found 347 children in his cellar where many had been held captive for several years. The police immediately seized and confined the children as evidence in a crime investigation, which, after much dithering, ultimately never went to court leaving the families no choice but to pursue a private prosecution against the kidnapper.

    As the children had already been pronounced dead and the cost of amending the relevant paperwork was high, they were given away as prizes in the Scarfolk police raffle, which helped pay the legal fees of their sketch artist, who, it turns out, was the son of Scarfolk's police commissioner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 1 day ago

    well I'm gonna

    a whole bunch later though. Just try and stop me by

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    But wouldn't reporting it to the police be doing, and then someone would have to report me, and then someone would have to report them, and it just seems like it would be better to not.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›