Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

Mark Thorson > writes:

> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

What's the old bag moaning about? It's quite simple : you can only eat
things purchased IN the cafe. What's so difficult to understand?

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

Smart people gained a cookie, & lost a customer and will now have to repair
their image.

DUH....

Dimitri

On 4/12/2010 3:57 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
people equally slimy?

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

Rather than murdering fools wouldn't the right solution be grow it

locally at a competitive cost and supply work to locals ?

atec7 7 > wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>
> Rather than murdering fools wouldn't the right solution be grow it
>
> locally at a competitive cost and supply work to locals ?
Oops replied to wrong thread

On Apr 12, 1:26*pm, Bogbrush > wrote:
> Mark Thorson > writes:
> > Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>
> What's the old bag moaning about? It's quite simple : you can only eat
> things purchased IN the cafe. What's so difficult to understand?

She's a common criminal and should spend some time in the slammer!

On Apr 12, 12:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398

These cafe owners are idiots. I had people bring in their brown bag
lunches because they were eating with someone who
had popped into their office and said 'let's have lunch'. They
brought in their lunch and the other person bought theirs from me.
The person who brown bagged it would always buy a drink and a dessert
and we would take their brown bag lunch to the kitchen
and plate it properly for them.

You cannot build a good will image in your community by actions as
stupid as these.

They will lose customers....as well they should.

ImStillMags wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>
> These cafe owners are idiots. I had people bring in their brown bag
> lunches because they were eating with someone who
> had popped into their office and said 'let's have lunch'. They
> brought in their lunch and the other person bought theirs from me.
> The person who brown bagged it would always buy a drink and a dessert
> and we would take their brown bag lunch to the kitchen
> and plate it properly for them.
>
> You cannot build a good will image in your community by actions as
> stupid as these.
>
> They will lose customers....as well they should.

Most restaurants don't mind losing customers when they are taking up
space and not buying their food there. They aren't really customers, so
losing them is not a problem.

On 13/04/10 10:59, Dave Smith wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>>
>> These cafe owners are idiots. I had people bring in their brown bag
>> lunches because they were eating with someone who
>> had popped into their office and said 'let's have lunch'. They
>> brought in their lunch and the other person bought theirs from me.
>> The person who brown bagged it would always buy a drink and a dessert
>> and we would take their brown bag lunch to the kitchen
>> and plate it properly for them.
>>
>> You cannot build a good will image in your community by actions as
>> stupid as these.
>>
>> They will lose customers....as well they should.
>
> Most restaurants don't mind losing customers when they are taking up
> space and not buying their food there. They aren't really customers, so
> losing them is not a problem.

Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
daughter had - £20 worth, apparently.

In article >,
Benji Z-Man > wrote:

> On 13/04/10 10:59, Dave Smith wrote:
> > ImStillMags wrote:
> >> On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
> >>
> >> These cafe owners are idiots. I had people bring in their brown bag
> >> lunches because they were eating with someone who
> >> had popped into their office and said 'let's have lunch'. They
> >> brought in their lunch and the other person bought theirs from me.
> >> The person who brown bagged it would always buy a drink and a dessert
> >> and we would take their brown bag lunch to the kitchen
> >> and plate it properly for them.
> >>
> >> You cannot build a good will image in your community by actions as
> >> stupid as these.
> >>
> >> They will lose customers....as well they should.
> >
> > Most restaurants don't mind losing customers when they are taking up
> > space and not buying their food there. They aren't really customers, so
> > losing them is not a problem.
>
> Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
> daughter had - £20 worth, apparently.

Read the article again. I don't know how it works in Australia, but the
article said the VAT tax is different depending on whether a cookie is
purchased in the bakery or the restaurant.

It's even worse in the US, as these taxes are sales taxes, and are
assessed (or not) by the 50 states. The rules are all different, and if
you aren't confused enough, the counties within the states can add on
additional taxes.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 13/04/10 14:51, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> Benji > wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/10 10:59, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> On Apr 12, 12:57 pm, Mark > wrote:
>>>>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>>>>
>>>> These cafe owners are idiots. I had people bring in their brown bag
>>>> lunches because they were eating with someone who
>>>> had popped into their office and said 'let's have lunch'. They
>>>> brought in their lunch and the other person bought theirs from me.
>>>> The person who brown bagged it would always buy a drink and a dessert
>>>> and we would take their brown bag lunch to the kitchen
>>>> and plate it properly for them.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot build a good will image in your community by actions as
>>>> stupid as these.
>>>>
>>>> They will lose customers....as well they should.
>>>
>>> Most restaurants don't mind losing customers when they are taking up
>>> space and not buying their food there. They aren't really customers, so
>>> losing them is not a problem.
>>
>> Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
>> daughter had - £20 worth, apparently.
>
> Read the article again. I don't know how it works in Australia, but the
> article said the VAT tax is different depending on whether a cookie is
> purchased in the bakery or the restaurant.
>
> It's even worse in the US, as these taxes are sales taxes, and are
> assessed (or not) by the 50 states. The rules are all different, and if
> you aren't confused enough, the counties within the states can add on
> additional taxes.
>

Yeah, no here in Oz it's pretty much normal, so long as the food doesn't
seem to put the establishment at risk of OH&S violations.

And you're right, that does sound confusing >_>

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:02:23 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>On 4/12/2010 3:57 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>
>Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
>then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
>people equally slimy?

What faggoty UK courage... they assaulted an 86 year old woman. She
shoulda kung food their cookies with her cane... at 86 I'da made those
UK pansy douchebags sopranos and given their fruitcake butts a good
bamboo ****.

Benji Z-Man wrote:

> Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
> daughter had - £20 worth, apparently.

Which isn't all that much to spend when divvied up between the four of
them in the family. But I can understand how it was forbidden, because
tax (VAT) laws are in place. It doesn't always make common sense, but it
exists.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> What faggoty UK courage... they assaulted an 86 year old woman. She
> shoulda kung food their cookies with her cane... at 86 I'da made those
> UK pansy douchebags sopranos and given their fruitcake butts a good
> bamboo ****.

Sheldon, I see nothing written to suggest she was assaulted. She was
verbally warned about the rules. End of story.

On 14/04/10 02:25, Janet Baraclough wrote:
> Nobody touched her. The police were not informed, no charges were
> brought, she was not brought to justice and is not a criminal.
> Its typical DM hot air hype.
>
> Janet
>

Heh. And yet it's all over our national media here in Oz...

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:02:23 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> On 4/12/2010 3:57 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>
> Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
> then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
> people equally slimy?

what the hell are you talking about?

blake

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:28:33 +1000, atec7 7 wrote:

> atec7 7 > wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>>
>> Rather than murdering fools wouldn't the right solution be grow it
>>
>> locally at a competitive cost and supply work to locals ?
> Oops replied to wrong thread

sampling a little something locally grown?

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:02:23 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > On 4/12/2010 3:57 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> >> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
> >
> > Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
> > then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
> > people equally slimy?
>
> what the hell are you talking about?

Sounds pretty simple to me. In my state, food from the store is not
taxable, food from the restaurant *is* taxable. Lots of times, there is
both a store and a restaurant in the same room. Some times, a store
sells food that is ready to eat (think deli). Sometimes the line gets
fuzzy. Sometimes the tax people will come in, order something, tell the
cashier they are going to eat something there (maybe there's a bench in
front for people who are waiting for a ride), and wait to be charged
tax. If they don't get charged tax, they write the place up.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 14/04/10 05:14, blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:28:33 +1000, atec7 7 wrote:
>
>> atec7 7> wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>>>
>>> Rather than murdering fools wouldn't the right solution be grow it
>>>
>>> locally at a competitive cost and supply work to locals ?
>> Oops replied to wrong thread
>
> sampling a little something locally grown?
>
> your pal,
> blake

No! I agree! We should stop importing old people. Start growing our own!

On Apr 14, 1:22*am, Benji Z-Man > wrote:
> On 14/04/10 02:25, Janet Baraclough wrote:
>
> > * * Nobody touched her. The police were not informed, no charges were
> > brought, *she was not brought to justice and is not a criminal.
> > * * Its typical DM hot air *hype.
>
> > * * Janet
>
> Heh. And yet it's all over our national media here in Oz...

Really? I have seen nothing in the media about it.

JB

On 14/04/10 13:10, Golden One wrote:
> On Apr 14, 1:22 am, Benji > wrote:
>> On 14/04/10 02:25, Janet Baraclough wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody touched her. The police were not informed, no charges were
>>> brought, she was not brought to justice and is not a criminal.
>>> Its typical DM hot air hype.
>>
>>> Janet
>>
>> Heh. And yet it's all over our national media here in Oz...
>
> Really? I have seen nothing in the media about it.
>
> JB

http://tinyurl.com/yehg3k8 - Been in the papers for a couple'a days now.

In article
>,
Golden One > wrote:

> On Apr 14, 1:22*am, Benji Z-Man > wrote:
> > On 14/04/10 02:25, Janet Baraclough wrote:
> >
> > > * * Nobody touched her. The police were not informed, no charges were
> > > brought, *she was not brought to justice and is not a criminal.
> > > * * Its typical DM hot air *hype.
> >
> > > * * Janet
> >
> > Heh. And yet it's all over our national media here in Oz...
>
> Really? I have seen nothing in the media about it.

Hmmmm. Maybe you're watching the right kind of media? I'm sure they
have decent stuff in Oz, but the last half dozen URL that I've seen
posted on this group seemed like pretty sensationalistic stuff.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 14/04/10 15:48, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Golden > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 1:22 am, Benji > wrote:
>>> On 14/04/10 02:25, Janet Baraclough wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody touched her. The police were not informed, no charges were
>>>> brought, she was not brought to justice and is not a criminal.
>>>> Its typical DM hot air hype.
>>>
>>>> Janet
>>>
>>> Heh. And yet it's all over our national media here in Oz...
>>
>> Really? I have seen nothing in the media about it.
>
> Hmmmm. Maybe you're watching the right kind of media? I'm sure they
> have decent stuff in Oz, but the last half dozen URL that I've seen
> posted on this group seemed like pretty sensationalistic stuff.
>

Yep. But that's pretty much the mainstream here.

In news:rec.food.cooking, Janet Baraclough >
posted on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:39:15 +0100 the following:

> The message >
> from Dan Abel > contains these words:
>
> > Read the article again. I don't know how it works in Australia, but the
> > article said the VAT tax is different depending on whether a cookie is
> > purchased in the bakery or the restaurant.
>
> In the UK there's no VAT on food bought direct from stores; but there
> is VAT on food eaten in restaurants .

In Texas, there are no sales taxes on hamburger buns, hamburger meat,
pickles, tomatoes, mayonnaise or lettuce, but if you go into a restaurant
and have those items combined to form a hamburger, there is a sales tax on
that.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, Goomba > posted on Tue, 13
Apr 2010 09:17:23 -0400 the following:

> Benji Z-Man wrote:
>
> > Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
> > daughter had - +AKM-20 worth, apparently.
>
> Which isn't all that much to spend when divvied up between the four of
> them in the family. But I can understand how it was forbidden, because
> tax (VAT) laws are in place. It doesn't always make common sense, but
> it exists.

So we should all just follow any laws they pull out of their asses? If it
gets to the point where law-abiding citizens end up breaking laws
accidentally simply because they didn't know any better, then the laws
have become too nitpicky. What's next? Are they going to require the
wearing of underwear, panties and bras and do strip searches of suspected
offenders?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

+ACI-Damaeus+ACI- +ADw-no-mail+AEA-damaeus.earthlink.invalid+AD4- wrote in message
news:k55bs5hiea1lsqj7942kcvfbr95tg1bers+AEA-4ax.com...

.. What's next? Are they going to require the
+AD4- wearing of underwear, panties and bras and do strip searches of suspected
+AD4- offenders?
+AD4-
+AD4- Damaeus

that's my job.

In news:rec.food.cooking, "skeeter" > posted on Wed, 14
Apr 2010 10:26:57 -0400 the following:

> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > What's next? Are they going to require the wearing of underwear,
> > panties and bras and do strip searches of suspected offenders?
>
> that's my job.

Yes, remember the F.B.I. stickers? Female Body Inspector?

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

On 15/04/10 03:46, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, > posted on Wed, 14
> Apr 2010 10:26:57 -0400 the following:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> What's next? Are they going to require the wearing of underwear,
>>> panties and bras and do strip searches of suspected offenders?
>>
>> that's my job.
>
> Yes, remember the F.B.I. stickers? Female Body Inspector?
>
> Damaeus

Heh. My primary school used to do that - female teachers would take
female students suspected of "inappropriate dressing standards" aside
for an inspection.

Used to be something the boys would all snicker about to incredible
depths...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:39:56 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:02:23 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2010 3:57 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> Unrepentant criminal complains about harsh justice.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265398
>>>
>>> Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
>>> then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
>>> people equally slimy?
>>
>> what the hell are you talking about?
>
> Sounds pretty simple to me. In my state, food from the store is not
> taxable, food from the restaurant *is* taxable. Lots of times, there is
> both a store and a restaurant in the same room. Some times, a store
> sells food that is ready to eat (think deli). Sometimes the line gets
> fuzzy. Sometimes the tax people will come in, order something, tell the
> cashier they are going to eat something there (maybe there's a bench in
> front for people who are waiting for a ride), and wait to be charged
> tax. If they don't get charged tax, they write the place up.

yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:10:49 -0500, Damaeus wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Janet Baraclough >
> posted on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:39:15 +0100 the following:
>
>> The message >
>> from Dan Abel > contains these words:
>>
>>> Read the article again. I don't know how it works in Australia, but the
>>> article said the VAT tax is different depending on whether a cookie is
>>> purchased in the bakery or the restaurant.
>>
>> In the UK there's no VAT on food bought direct from stores; but there
>> is VAT on food eaten in restaurants .
>
> In Texas, there are no sales taxes on hamburger buns, hamburger meat,
> pickles, tomatoes, mayonnaise or lettuce, but if you go into a restaurant
> and have those items combined to form a hamburger, there is a sales tax on
> that.
>
> Damaeus

like many, many other states (except for those so eager to tax the poor
that they tax retail food as well as restaurant food).

blake

On Apr 14, 3:10*am, Damaeus > wrote:

>
> In Texas, there are no sales taxes on hamburger buns, hamburger meat,
> pickles, tomatoes, mayonnaise or lettuce, but if you go into a restaurant
> and have those items combined to form a hamburger, there is a sales tax on
> that.

There is no tax on food in Washington either, but restaurants are
retail establishments and as such you pay retail tax on
the meals you buy in them.

On 15/04/10 08:20, blake murphy wrote:
> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.

Hmm. Well, I know that our local equivalent of your ATF enforcement will
routinely send "undercover investigators" to pubs to make sure that
things are being done properly. Having worked in security, I'd see one
about every other month - and the first notice sometimes (not always,
sometimes they were ****ing obvious) would be their flashing their
official papers to inspect the office areas under escort.

I could imagine the ATO (IRS: Oz) doing the same thing for that.

On Apr 12, 12:57*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> Food Crime on the rise in UK

The French think that British food is a crime in itself.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:39:56 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:02:23 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> >>> Now, in the US the tax people are not above doing just what she did and
> >>> then fining the store for not enforcing the tax law. Are the UK tax
> >>> people equally slimy?
> >>
> >> what the hell are you talking about?
> >
> > Sounds pretty simple to me. In my state, food from the store is not
> > taxable, food from the restaurant *is* taxable. Lots of times, there is
> > both a store and a restaurant in the same room. Some times, a store
> > sells food that is ready to eat (think deli). Sometimes the line gets
> > fuzzy. Sometimes the tax people will come in, order something, tell the
> > cashier they are going to eat something there (maybe there's a bench in
> > front for people who are waiting for a ride), and wait to be charged
> > tax. If they don't get charged tax, they write the place up.
>
> yes, but he made it sound like the u.s. was crawling with tax people doing
> sting operations on grocery stores with cafés. not that i've heard of.

Maybe the US isn't "crawling" with them, but I've run into this twice.
When you are the one getting nailed, it feels pretty slimy.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In news:rec.food.cooking, blake murphy > posted
on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:23:14 -0400 the following:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:10:49 -0500, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > In Texas, there are no sales taxes on hamburger buns, hamburger meat,
> > pickles, tomatoes, mayonnaise or lettuce, but if you go into a
> > restaurant and have those items combined to form a hamburger, there is
> > a sales tax on that.
>
> like many, many other states (except for those so eager to tax the poor
> that they tax retail food as well as restaurant food).

Texas isn't actually too bad. There are no sales taxes on medicine or
groceries (unless it's candy or honey-roasted nuts), and there's no state
income tax.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

In news:rec.food.cooking, Benji Z-Man > posted on Wed,
14 Apr 2010 18:58:27 GMT the following:

> On 15/04/10 03:46, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > Yes, remember the F.B.I. stickers? Female Body Inspector?
>
> Heh. My primary school used to do that - female teachers would take
> female students suspected of "inappropriate dressing standards" aside
> for an inspection.

In primary school? Like for kindergarten and first-graders? LOL!

"Sorry, Missy," said the teacher. "Your mom dressed you too much like a
slut today. You'll have to take those clothes off and put these on, right
now."

> Used to be something the boys would all snicker about to incredible
> depths...

One year in high school, I think at Halloween, the older brother of a
friend of mine went to school dressed up as an indian, and all he wore was
a loincloth. The principal made him go home and change.

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

On 15/04/10 15:21, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Benji > posted on Wed,
> 14 Apr 2010 18:58:27 GMT the following:
>
>> On 15/04/10 03:46, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, remember the F.B.I. stickers? Female Body Inspector?
>>
>> Heh. My primary school used to do that - female teachers would take
>> female students suspected of "inappropriate dressing standards" aside
>> for an inspection.
>
> In primary school? Like for kindergarten and first-graders? LOL!
>
> "Sorry, Missy," said the teacher. "Your mom dressed you too much like a
> slut today. You'll have to take those clothes off and put these on, right
> now."

Heh, more the 7th-year students; and it'd be to check to make sure
they're wearing underwear. Heavens know why, honestly, that they'd care.

>> Used to be something the boys would all snicker about to incredible
>> depths...
>
> One year in high school, I think at Halloween, the older brother of a
> friend of mine went to school dressed up as an indian, and all he wore was
> a loincloth. The principal made him go home and change.

Hee =)

In news:rec.food.cooking, Benji Z-Man > posted on Thu,
15 Apr 2010 06:40:02 GMT the following:

> On 15/04/10 15:21, Damaeus wrote:
> > In news:rec.food.cooking, Benji > posted on
> > Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:58:27 GMT the following:
> >
> > > Heh. My primary school used to do that - female teachers would take
> > > female students suspected of "inappropriate dressing standards"
> > > aside for an inspection.
> >
> > In primary school? Like for kindergarten and first-graders? LOL!
> >
> > "Sorry, Missy," said the teacher. "Your mom dressed you too much like
> > a slut today. You'll have to take those clothes off and put these on,
> > right now."
>
> Heh, more the 7th-year students; and it'd be to check to make sure
> they're wearing underwear. Heavens know why, honestly, that they'd
> care.

My friend and I used to joke about that happening at Wal-Mart as they came
up with more and more rules. They'd have the door greeter check to make
sure all associates were wearing underwear.

As for me, the only reason I wore underwear in school was because of PE.
PE was only required up through the tenth grade, so I haven't worn
underwear since I left the tenth grade. I started hating underwear in
junior high. We never had underwear checks, though. That school sounds
like it has a problem.

I remember this news story from several years back:

http://vlex.com/vid/cornfield-mother...-frye-37537835

Brian Cornfield was enrolled in a behavioral disorder
program at Carl Sandburg High School. Kathy Stacy, a
teacher's aide in that program, found him outside the school
building in violation of school rules on March 7, 1991.
When she reported the infraction to Richard Spencer,
Cornfield's teacher, and Dean Richard Frye, Stacy also
alerted them to her suspicion that Cornfield appeared "too
well-endowed." Another teacher, Joyce Lawler, and teacher's
aide Lori Walsh corroborated Stacy's observation of an
unusual bulge in Cornfield's crotch area. Neither defendant
took any action at that time. The following day Cornfield
was boarding the bus home when Spencer and Frye took him
aside. Spencer himself had observed the unusual bulge in
the crotch area of Cornfield's sweatpants. Believing the
sixteen-year-old Cornfield was "crotching" drugs, Spencer
and Frye asked him to accompany them to Frye's office to
investigate further. When confronted with their suspicion,
Cornfield grew agitated and began yelling obscenities. At
Cornfield's request, Frye telephoned the minor's mother
Janet Lewis to seek consent for a search. She refused.

Spencer and Frye nevertheless proceeded with the search.
Believing a pat down to be excessively intrusive and
ineffective at detecting drugs, they escorted Cornfield to
the boys' locker room to conduct a strip search. After
making certain that no one else was present in the locker
room, they locked the door. Spencer then stood about
fifteen feet from Cornfield, and Frye was standing on the
opposite side, approximately ten to twelve feet away, while
they had him remove his street clothes and put on a gym
uniform. Spencer and Frye visually inspected his naked body
and physically inspected his clothes. Neither man performed
a body cavity search. They found no evidence of drugs or
any other contraband. Afterwards the school bus was
recalled, and it took Cornfield home.


It's been too long ago to be able to find it on the web -- probably twenty
years or more, but I remember another news story about a school where some
junior high kids were strip-searched for drugs, and were made to hold
their butt cheeks apart while jumping up and down with their backs turned
to the principal or whomever was doing the search. The school officials
said it was to see if any drugs would fall out of their behinds. I guess
that was the alternative to doing an actual body cavity search. I wonder
if that's how altar boys are searched in Catholic churches, or in the
Vatican, itself. o.o

Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

On 4/14/2010 6:14 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, Goomba<Goomba38+AEA-comcast.net> posted on Tue, 13
> Apr 2010 09:17:23 -0400 the following:
>
>> Benji Z-Man wrote:
>>
>>> Simple. "Customers must purchase food". The old bag hadn't, but her
>>> daughter had - +AKM-20 worth, apparently.
>>
>> Which isn't all that much to spend when divvied up between the four of
>> them in the family. But I can understand how it was forbidden, because
>> tax (VAT) laws are in place. It doesn't always make common sense, but
>> it exists.
>
> So we should all just follow any laws they pull out of their asses?

If you want to run a business and stay in business then you will enforce
the sales tax. It's that simple.

> If it
> gets to the point where law-abiding citizens end up breaking laws
> accidentally simply because they didn't know any better, then the laws
> have become too nitpicky.

While I agree that it's crazy to expect every person to know all 20 or
so feet of shelf space of the US Code, Code of Federal Regulations, and
state and local laws, we are not talking about some obscure subsection,
we're talking about the sales tax, which +AF8-any+AF8- retail business should
understand.

> What's next? Are they going to require the
> wearing of underwear, panties and bras and do strip searches of suspected
> offenders?

When someone enacts a statute to that effect then it's time to worry
about it.