TTIM: Things That Irk Me

[thisphantomfortress]

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

[MaliMate]

 

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 

I personally didn't watch the program they did on it. From what I heard it was pretty brutal and I agree that torturing the animals and treating them the way they did is fucked up.

 

My issue is where does the line get drawn? I think it's so hard when you're dealing with an animal.

 

I think from what I heard what was shown on TV is definitely over the line but I wouldn't be against live baiting if done in a more humane manner (If possible)

[thisphantomfortress]

 

 

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 

I personally didn't watch the program they did on it. From what I heard it was pretty brutal and I agree that torturing the animals and treating them the way they did is fucked up.

 

My issue is where does the line get drawn? I think it's so hard when you're dealing with an animal.

 

I think from what I heard what was shown on TV is definitely over the line but I wouldn't be against live baiting if done in a more humane manner (If possible)

 

I wouldn't be morally opposed to using dead animals killed humanely either, but I watched the episode and it was pretty horrific using live animals.

[MaliMate]

 

 

 

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 

I personally didn't watch the program they did on it. From what I heard it was pretty brutal and I agree that torturing the animals and treating them the way they did is fucked up.

 

My issue is where does the line get drawn? I think it's so hard when you're dealing with an animal.

 

I think from what I heard what was shown on TV is definitely over the line but I wouldn't be against live baiting if done in a more humane manner (If possible)

 

I wouldn't be morally opposed to using dead animals killed humanely either, but I watched the episode and it was pretty horrific using live animals.

 

So do you feel a pack of lions mauling a Zebra is just as horrific? Or is it only when a human gets involved that animals killing other animals is horrific?

[thisphantomfortress]

 

 

 

 

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 

I personally didn't watch the program they did on it. From what I heard it was pretty brutal and I agree that torturing the animals and treating them the way they did is fucked up.

 

My issue is where does the line get drawn? I think it's so hard when you're dealing with an animal.

 

I think from what I heard what was shown on TV is definitely over the line but I wouldn't be against live baiting if done in a more humane manner (If possible)

 

I wouldn't be morally opposed to using dead animals killed humanely either, but I watched the episode and it was pretty horrific using live animals.

 

So do you feel a pack of lions mauling a Zebra is just as horrific? Or is it only when a human gets involved that animals killing other animals is horrific?

 

The zebra has a chance to escape these animals were tied up and didn't have a chance. It wasn't a "fair fight" if you will. Human intervention tipped the tables against these animals thats what is horrific about it.

[hedaik]

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

[MaliMate]

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

[hedaik]

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

 

I have no idea, but if you're going to tell me its a large % then I'd be questioning why it's been allowed to go on for so long and why the industry didn't have the foresight to realise once its found out by the public what the reaction would be like.

 

Dogs are pretty stupid animals and easy to train, I don't think they require putting other animals in distress/torture to get them to run. 

[MaliMate]

 

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

 

I have no idea, but if you're going to tell me its a large % then I'd be questioning why it's been allowed to go on for so long and why the industry didn't have the foresight to realise once its found out by the public what the reaction would be like.

 

Dogs are pretty stupid animals and easy to train, I don't think they require putting other animals in distress/torture to get them to run. 

 

Of course, but if you're a trainer and you see another trainer constantly winning big prize money and knowing they live bait when you don't, of course you're going to do it. Do you think Lance Armstrong was the first cyclist to dope?

[Hackett]

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

 

Don't see an issue when they're using pests like Rabbits, etc. 

[carlings]

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

20% Surely it's not every owner? I think it's pretty shocking.

[hedaik]

 

 

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

 

I have no idea, but if you're going to tell me its a large % then I'd be questioning why it's been allowed to go on for so long and why the industry didn't have the foresight to realise once its found out by the public what the reaction would be like.

 

Dogs are pretty stupid animals and easy to train, I don't think they require putting other animals in distress/torture to get them to run. 

 

Of course, but if you're a trainer and you see another trainer constantly winning big prize money and knowing they live bait when you don't, of course you're going to do it. Do you think Lance Armstrong was the first cyclist to dope?

 

 

Just because its widespread or been done before doesn't alter my opinion on whether its right or not.

[MaliMate]

 

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

20% Surely it's not every owner? I think it's pretty shocking.

 

Between 1-10% would have never had live bait in their lives before.

[Deviant]

 

Of course the manner in which they've done it in is awful I completely agree with that.

 

It's more that these same people are saying that its not happening and then have been caught doing it. Yea everyone eats animals etc etc but we don't tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 

 tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

 tie them up, chase them and eat them alive.

[kingofhearts]

 

Looks unprofessional as fuck carrying on like a fuckwit on the sidelines. Save that shit for closed doors.

 

Yeah maybe your right:  Jose Mourinho really should catch up with JVS so he learn how to be more of true Professional Footballer Manager.

 

Never said that good coaches don't carry on like fuckwits. Why would it make a difference if JVS carried on on the sidelines or not? How do you not know that behind closed doors, he could be giving the biggest sprays in history to the players? He could also be working relentlessly everyday to try and fix whats going on atm  but i guess because you don't see him smashing chairs on the sidelines in the 90 minutes a week you get to see him he must just be arrogant

 

I'm not saying you have to stand their like a statue and do nothing, celebrate goals, give directions ext. but throwing chairs and beratng officials makes you look like a fuckwit. Watch how muscunt carries on (and all the scumbugs they attract to their supporter base because of it) and yes i know how well his team are doing but is that due to being an asshole or recruiting well?

 

Just naive thinking that throwing around a couple of chairs is going to do anything

[Tesla]

Humans are the dominant species, we do what we fucking want. I'll go slit your puppy dogs throat and watch it choke on it's on blood as it trys to bark for help. Fuck all you left wing scum bags. Rabbits wouldn't hesitate to feed you as live bait if they were the dominant species.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Seriously though, they've obviously done the wrong thing with the live bait, but the people that recorded them and put it all on TV also did the wrong thing by knowing it was going on and not reporting it.

The whole thing is blow out of proportion though, it's really not that big a deal, give them a fine and move on.

[mattyh001]

it really irks me that coaches in the a league dont get sent to the bleachers for they way they act like little brats.

ok, it'd mostly be funny since a certain coach from a certain Geelong club would get his marching orders often, but still ......

there seems to be a few that need to be pulled into line.

Really???

TTIM: That OUR coach doesn't act like Muscunt on the bench, I would love to some Neil Lennon Anger or a Martin O'Neil Jump from JVS.

I would absolutely love to see that. I reckon JVS would throw the best tanties.

For me, it's not about the coach / manager showing support for his players, etc. Its about the FFA stopping the coach / manager acting like a fuck head and unduly influencing the ref. Look at the EPL, do you seriously see them letting Mourinho, Ferguson, etc off when ever they over step the mark?

FWIW I'd love to see JVS get stuck in / show some passion. And would love it even more when he gets sent to the stands. Would at least show he cares

[Pete Heartspur]

Purposely putting any living being in a position where it is stressed, scared and fearing for it's life, regardless of it's position in the food chain is fucking disgraceful, and illegal for a reason. The cunts who are caught doing this should be thrown in jail.

 

Or better yet, be used for live baiting to see how they like it!

 

And if you don't agree, maybe put yourself in the animals shoes and ask yourself how you'd feel in that situation.

[cadete]

 

 

 

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait. 

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

 

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

 

20% Surely it's not every owner? I think it's pretty shocking.

 

Between 1-10% would have never had live bait in their lives before.

 

This - The Syndication Company I am involved with were unaware PPL were still doing this... dog racing has become a very different sport in the last 15 years.

Obviously the shit that used to happen in the carpark in the 80's was fucked as was the footage.

 

But the same PPL that get always get on TV to go mad about Dog Racing in general know so little about the sport they actually think Greyhounds are vicious dogs because their owners make them wear muzzles (They purely do this because the dog was trained to wear one when they raced so for many of them it makes them more relaxed).

 

FFS your more likely to get bitten by basically any other breed of dog than a fucken Greyhound - Thats a simple fact.

 

Also PPL think all slow Greyhounds get put to death - When there is actually a waiting list these days to adopt a Greyhound because what great pets that make because they are docile spend most their time sleeping and dont even need a lot of space so they make great apartment dogs.

 

And whilst we are at it another stat whilst we are at... over 80% of retired racehorses in Australia are not killed eiher but rehoused that's an official stat.

 

Also if the same PPL who always campaign against Jump Racing actually knew anything about nags (I doubt any have actually smelt a horse) then they should be complaining about horses being raced too young in this country as two year olds at Sunny Rosehill who break down because they are not fully mature yet to race not fucken ten year old plodders prolonging their careers in the Winter Mud at Sandown. 

[hedaik]

Why torture animals when you don't have to? Doesn't seem like its a requirement for the sport considering other dogs race fine without live bait.

What do you think the approximate % is of racing dogs who don't get fed live bait at some point in their lives?

Bearing in mind I know alot of people in the Greyhound industry, interested to see what others think.

20% Surely it's not every owner? I think it's pretty shocking.

Between 1-10% would have never had live bait in their lives before.

This - The Syndication Company I am involved with were unaware PPL were still doing this... dog racing has become a very different sport in the last 15 years.

Obviously the shit that used to happen in the carpark in the 80's was fucked as was the footage.

But the same PPL that get always get on TV to go mad about Dog Racing in general know so little about the sport they actually think Greyhounds are vicious dogs because their owners make them wear muzzles (They purely do this because the dog was trained to wear one when they raced so for many of them it makes them more relaxed).

FFS your more likely to get bitten by basically any other breed of dog than a fucken Greyhound - Thats a simple fact.

Also PPL think all slow Greyhounds get put to death - When there is actually a waiting list these days to adopt a Greyhound because what great pets that make because they are docile spend most their time sleeping and dont even need a lot of space so they make great apartment dogs.

And whilst we are at it another stat whilst we are at... over 80% of retired racehorses in Australia are not killed eiher but rehoused that's an official stat.

Also if the same PPL who always campaign against Jump Racing actually knew anything about nags (I doubt any have actually smelt a horse) then they should be complaining about horses being raced too young in this country as two year olds at Sunny Rosehill who break down because they are not fully mature yet to race not fucken ten year old plodders prolonging their careers in the Winter Mud at Sandown.

Think you misread malimates post

[carlings]

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

[perthheart]

TTIM; The cruelty of the Jewish God to make cheese and ham clearly the best filling for bagels.

TTDIM; Everything else but the lack of cheese and ham in the Jewish bakeries in Balaclava

[Young Polak]

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

[hedaik]

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not? In public is fair game, just can't photograph people where privacy is expected such as their home or public toilet

So don't get any funny ideas when I sell my Melburnians photos for a million dollars

Edited February 20, 2015 by hedaik

[thisphantomfortress]

 

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

 

No privacy laws as such in Australia, best chance is at equity for a breach of confidence and without boring you, sitting on the street crying isn't something that would be considered confidential information of importance.

Edited February 20, 2015 by thisphantomfortress

[jw1739]

 

 

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

 

No privacy laws as such in Australia, best chance is at equity for a breach of confidence and without boring you, sitting on the street crying isn't something that would be considered confidential information of importance.

 

It may have been a public place, and if so in general in Australia there are no laws preventing the taking of the image. The issue is the subsequent use of the image. Publishing the photograph in a newspaper that is sold, or using the photograph on television, especially a commercial channel, would in my view constitute commercial use. I quote:

" a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. "

 

http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Photography/TakingPhotos.asp

 

There are also other sources that say the same.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jw1739

[hedaik]

 

 

 

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

 

No privacy laws as such in Australia, best chance is at equity for a breach of confidence and without boring you, sitting on the street crying isn't something that would be considered confidential information of importance.

 

It may have been a public place, and if so in general in Australia there are no laws preventing the taking of the image. The issue is the subsequent use of the image. Publishing the photograph in a newspaper that is sold, or using the photograph on television, especially a commercial channel, would in my view constitute commercial use. I quote:

" a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. "

 

http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Photography/TakingPhotos.asp

 

There are also other sources that say the same.

 

 

I would have thought if that were true then the paparazzi wouldn't exist

 

I don't really know the technical aspects of the law, but the gist I got from it when I looked into it ages ago was that you just can't use members of the public for marketing/advertising....rather than just selling and using the image as is. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by hedaik

[KSK_47]

 

 

 

 

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

 

No privacy laws as such in Australia, best chance is at equity for a breach of confidence and without boring you, sitting on the street crying isn't something that would be considered confidential information of importance.

 

It may have been a public place, and if so in general in Australia there are no laws preventing the taking of the image. The issue is the subsequent use of the image. Publishing the photograph in a newspaper that is sold, or using the photograph on television, especially a commercial channel, would in my view constitute commercial use. I quote:

" a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. "

 

http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Photography/TakingPhotos.asp

 

There are also other sources that say the same.

 

 

I would have thought if that were true then the paparazzi wouldn't exist

 

I don't really know the technical aspects of the law, but the gist I got from it when I looked into it ages ago was that you just can't use members of the public for marketing/advertising....rather than just selling and using the image as is. 

 

 

As far as I understand the law its that you cant use someones image for commercial use without their permission. You can take it, you can publish it (unless its shows them in an unflattering light which is a grey area, but it usually refers to skirts blowing up in the wind or someone picking their nose etc so I would say this fits that description also), etc but you cant make money off it, which they clearly have. I'm with Cadete. Its sickening.

 

As for the scum of the earth paparazzi, I think there is some type of law where you can get around it if the person is of public interest, which usually refers to a celebrity or sportsperson, but this might be why they are able to do it.

 

Either way its horrible.

[KSK_47]

Not quite the same, but it reminds me of this image taken during the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake which stirred a lot of debate about the ethics of photojournalism and press photographers. 

 

[jw1739]

 

 

 

 

 

TTIM: I'm a bit late on this one, but in regards to the poor lady who got run over and died near Southern Cross earlier in the week.

 

What really irks me is that fact the media published photos of the boyfriend moments after he had learned of the death of his girlfriend. Pictured sitting alone right near the body by himself and obviously devastated. Really made my blood boil that mainstream media caption photos with tag lines such as "the moment the boyfriend learns of the death". I can guarantee that he wouldn't have given permission for those photos to be taken. I know it's a public place or whatever but have some fucking respect.

im no law person so if someone could help me out here,

although its a public place, but if there is a media outlet using a picture of the bloke without his permission, can he file a lawsuit against them? whether they are generating revenue partially from this or not?

 

No privacy laws as such in Australia, best chance is at equity for a breach of confidence and without boring you, sitting on the street crying isn't something that would be considered confidential information of importance.

 

It may have been a public place, and if so in general in Australia there are no laws preventing the taking of the image. The issue is the subsequent use of the image. Publishing the photograph in a newspaper that is sold, or using the photograph on television, especially a commercial channel, would in my view constitute commercial use. I quote:

" a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. "

 

http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Photography/TakingPhotos.asp

 

There are also other sources that say the same.

 

 

I would have thought if that were true then the paparazzi wouldn't exist

 

I don't really know the technical aspects of the law, but the gist I got from it when I looked into it ages ago was that you just can't use members of the public for marketing/advertising....rather than just selling and using the image as is. 

 

 

As far as I understand the law its that you cant use someones image for commercial use without their permission. You can take it, you can publish it (unless its shows them in an unflattering light which is a grey area, but it usually refers to skirts blowing up in the wind or someone picking their nose etc so I would say this fits that description also), etc but you cant make money off it, which they clearly have. I'm with Cadete. Its sickening.

 

As for the scum of the earth paparazzi, I think there is some type of law where you can get around it if the person is of public interest, which usually refers to a celebrity or sportsperson, but this might be why they are able to do it.

 

Either way its horrible.

 

They get away with it by claiming that it is "in the public interest." As soon as you hear a journo use this phrase you can be pretty sure that what they are doing is actually illegal.

[KD.]

TTIM: the sensitivity of people on this forum. Ffs it's a public forum!!

[n i k o]

Who?

[Nate]

TTIM: this guy

[thisphantomfortress]

TTIM: this guy

 

That is ruthless

[Pete Heartspur]

Must be getting a cut of the sales!

Edited February 24, 2015 by Pete Heartspur

[Pigs 2]

Tinder has limited the amount of like you get per a day so they can try to flog tinder premium or whatever it is.

[kingofhearts]

People who go to music concerts, and hold up there phones recording the two hour set. Is it not enough to just take a photo or two and enjoy the moment ffs?

[thisphantomfortress]

People who go to music concerts, and hold up there phones recording the two hour set. Is it not enough to just take a photo or two and enjoy the moment ffs?

 

This, this a thousand times this. My missus and I had a big fight about this a year or so ago. She didn't like me telling her off for doing it.

[sheepdog]

People who go to music concerts, and hold up there phones recording the two hour set. Is it not enough to just take a photo or two and enjoy the moment ffs?

 

This, this a thousand times this. My missus and I had a big fight about this a year or so ago. She didn't like me telling her off for doing it. A quick punch to her groin would have saved you the big fight part.