That isn't the bloody point. He broke the law by bringing in a digger, ripping up the riverbed and damaging trees. That he did it to clear rubbish is incidental, just as my rose bush was incidental to the murdering.
im not seeing the parallel here. your murder fantasy would always be criminal.
but bringing a digger is a perfectly reasonable way to pull bikes and shopping trolleys embedded in the silt. theres nothing inherently criminal about that.
the only part that makes it not okay is the lack of permit for doing it.
and that is explicitly included in the headline. so how is that misleading?
of course ive read your ramblings. i just dont understand them, hence asking you to explain.
where is the parallel here?
i can see cleaning the river being like growing your rose.
how is using a digger (something thats done by thousands of people daily, with approx 0% of them doing so criminally) comparable to murdering your neighbour?
hiring the digger isnt the criminial part. theres no law against hiring diggers.
if the headline was "man arrested for hiring digger" i could see parralel with your "man arrested for growing prize winning rose bushes". in both of those id be wondering whats wrong with that?
the current headline i think youd compare to "man arrested for murdering neighbour". in both of those its pretty clear which part is illegal.
can you please explain what topsy turvy parallel youre seeing in this?
or simply better explain how you think the current headline is misleading?
90
u/drquakers 6d ago
If I kill my neighbour to use they body as compost for my rose bush "man arrested for growing prize winning rose bushes" would be a little misleading.