Originally Posted by andybigbro (Post 7628584)

I don't think he should have been excluded, it doesn't seem like it was his choice. He's a young boy and won't know exactly what the film is about. It wouldn't be fair to exclude him based on his mothers actions. The school could have taken certain items off him and flagged him off as a different character from a book that wears a suit a lot like Atticus Finch or something.

His mother on the other hand is an idiot.

Originally Posted by Josy (Post 7628585)

The school suggested to the mother that the kid said he was James Bond instead..she obviously refused because he was still excluded.

Originally Posted by BBfanUSA (Post 7628591)

I think it was right for him to be excluded. This is kinda disturbing to be honest.

Originally Posted by waterhog (Post 7628363)

i think they need to lighten up a bit - what about freedom of expression ? not everything we like is always expressed but as a free country we have to take it.

Originally Posted by Locke. (Post 7628850)

The mother should be fired. Can't be having a teacher that chooses that trash as the source of her childs costume teaching kids.

Originally Posted by arista (Post 7628884)

Now the mother
is on BBCNewsHD


whatever next RTHD

Originally Posted by JoshBB (Post 7628901)

Just saw it. how ridiculous.. if you wouldn't let your child read the book or watch the movie, then why is it okay for him to pretend to be the character (a rapist)?

Originally Posted by Vanessa (Post 7629357)

:suspect: how does he even know about it? has he read the books?

Originally Posted by JoshBB (Post 7628875)

I don't think total freedom of expression is a good thing. What if a man said he was going to blow up london, and we arrest him? Do we scream freedom of speech then?

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 7629365)

If you overlook the content, the literature level is about right for an 11 year old.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7629368)

It's all down to context and intention. If you are obviously not serious or trying to incite anything then it's generally fine. Like if I was to say that I'd quite like to meet Arista, climb down on all fours like a dog, pull down his pants and have a deep generous sniff of his butthole, I'd probably not go to jail. For example.

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock (Post 7628380)

11 Shades of Grey.:evilgrin::joker:


Please don't ban me?

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 7629386)

Well thank you for that mental image. I'm off to gouge out my mind's eye.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7629423)

Is that what they're calling it these days??

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 7629423)

Is that what they're calling it these days??

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 7629698)

This mercenary bitch of a mother has cynically plotted this whole incident for the same reason that prostitutes,strippers and ugly women with huge breasts who run 'Grown Up Nursery' businesses (where warped adult men dress as babies in nappies and sleep in oversize cots) go on Jeremy Kyle - to acquire huge free publicity as Cherie has said.

This ambitious 'mother' is publicising her son as a 'boxer and actor', putting him very firmly in the public eye in the most effective way - by being deliberately 'controversial'.

The sad thing is, that in this warped fecked up society - it will work, and the little prat will probably become rich and famous. :shrug: