Before you assume, my ex was not the 'thug', merely a dear chum of said thug.
I'll summarise the story. Three tattoo-laden boys (unemployed) are loitering, swigging cans & enjoying banter. Tanked up couple walk past, a sly look exchanged and alcohol fuelled arguement breaks out. Inked trio beat up (alleged) substance abuser. Injuries are sustained, trio hauled into court. 2 get off with community service & the other receives 27 months imprisonment.
Fair justice?
Lawyers doing their jobs is all.
Aside from knowing these males faces, I couldn't care less about the story. What has really shocked me, is the swiping of Social Media images and slapping on the tabloids virtual pages. Two, even three I can tolerate, but over 12? It's ridiculous.
Reporting is one facet, but has discriminating also leaked into the journalists job description?
Ink, tat, branding, call it what you like. It's a choice. A lifestyle choice. Recall me noting it was an ex? He's the one donning the blue hat.
I was disposed of through a cocktail of lack of tattoos, a hatred of thrash metal, and donning attire more Michelle Obama rather than Anette Johansson (of Shiva, whoever they are). Slight discrimination, but I wasn't going to call Teen Vogue or Mizz about it.
Chrapkowski (above) is spared prison, is jubliant about it and is made out to be an ale-swilling, white power hungry yob. I don't recall as many 'press' (Facebook) images being splashed and dragged through the mud when those involved in the riots were unduely spared sentences.
I sound like I care.
It's more the privicy invasion. Big Brother boundaries being breached. Surely The Daily Mail team have Z-list celebs to chase, you know, those who want a few crummy lines written about them. To tape into their portfolio/scrap book.
Perhaps we reveal too much? Social Media turns anti-social. I predict a riot.
