26 February 2009

Culture Jamming goes too far with drug laced lollies at MacDonalds?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
138

The Canberra Times reports that two 16 year old girls from Palmerston and Harrison have been charged with acts endangering health after allegedly leaving lollies in the kiddie pit at Gungahlin Maccas.

    “Police allege that the two girls concealed over-the-counter, non-prescription tablets one a mild stimulant and the other a pain-killing medication inside soft lollies and deliberately left them in the children’s play area.”

The kids who took them are reportedly unharmed.

Join the conversation

138
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Americanberran6:14 pm 01 Mar 09

At least they didn’t leave peanuts lying around.
*forgets the quoter’s name*

True, mate, but they did find a potentially-dangerous tomato up Ronny’s wazzoo.. just waiting to be retrieved.

Pommy bastard5:49 pm 01 Mar 09

sepi said :

I can read them. Keep on trying PB – you’ll get there. 🙂

I have no desire to become like you and Jim who consistently post things which you claim other people have allegedly posted, but then are totally unable to substantiate.

It’s cheating, unworthy and underhand.

Thank you for making my point for me.

If they did this to my daughter those girls would be dead already. You have to be completely evil to even think about harming a young child. Absolutely disgusting and i am horrified that people can even defend what these morons did. There is never any excuse for this sort of actions.

Jim Jones said :

Just as bad is the lack of perspective demonstrated by the trolls here (PsydFX, Gobbo, etc.) who assume that, because someone isn’t yelling to the death penalty, that they condone criminal behaviour: the ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’ kind of bollocks.

WTF?

Lack of perspective? What we have here is your inability to read, which you display on RA regularly.

Show me where I have made any of the statements that support these girls receiving the death penalty – you can’t. I still stand by my suggested punishment of naming the girls, and making them listen to the stories of drink spiked rape victims – you know to put their crime into some kind of context that they may be able to understand.

Also, you talk about us having this ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’ mentality, but clearly that is your mentality as is demonstrated by your constant attacks against PB in every post he comments in.

I can read them. Keep on trying PB – you’ll get there. 🙂

Pommy bastard10:38 am 01 Mar 09

Another person not privy to the invisible writings which only Jim can read?

Jim Jones said :

Just as bad is the lack of perspective demonstrated by the trolls here (PsydFX, Gobbo, etc.) who assume that, because someone isn’t yelling to the death penalty, that they condone criminal behaviour: the ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’ kind of bollocks.

And naturally you were going to provide an example of me calling for the death penalty the next time you posted. Or even my “if your not with me your agin me” kind of bollocks.

Let go of you past disagreements with me Jimbo and concentrate on the issue at hand.

I have not extolled the position you ascribe to me. If anyone is wearing a troll hat, it would be you. So please, don’t go and repeatedly make stuff up to bolster you weak position.

Thank you.

At the end of the day I’m just glad that the little kids were ok.

I hope those girls never do anything like this again, whether by a conviction and sentence or the help of an effective counselor with real runs on the board, or both. I have seen some wonderful stories of what can be done by counselors.

There is a group I know of that works with homeless men and their families to deal with all sorts of issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol dependency and mental health issues. The life-changing results that can be achieved with counseling are so much more worthwhile than locking them up and letting them out to do it all again.

When you can deal with a destructive issue in a person’s life, everybody wins – the former partner, the kids, society and even the person themself.

That is why I am such a strong supporter of counseling. I have seen people that get through tough, debilitating issues in their own lives and even go on to help other people in similar situations.

I know it doesn’t always work, but when it does society is so much better off.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy8:15 pm 27 Feb 09

I think VY, it is always a shame that society does these whole pendulum swings instead of just trying to get the balance right in the middle ground.

You’re right, and I suspect it’s due to the wide range of opinion out in the general community.

That said, I still think those girls knew right from wrong.

I think VY, it is always a shame that society does these whole pendulum swings instead of just trying to get the balance right in the middle ground.

I understand and share your concerns in relation to the court judgments not reflecting community standards.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy8:00 pm 27 Feb 09

No I didn’t. What I said was “Teenagers are notoriously bad for connecting their actions to possible repercussions”, and then provided evidence for the assertion. That is completely different.

So what point are you really getting at here? Teens know right from wrong but don’t care? If the teens are not connecting their actions to the possible repercussions, what does right and wrong even mean?? You said in post #122 that “of course the girls knew what they were doing was wrong”, but in post #48 you said “‘Knowing the difference between right and wrong’ is a particularly glib and uninsightful thing to say”. What are you getting at? I ‘m just a tad confused at what your point is.

I understand you get cranky when people call for harsh or violent punishment, but I’ll reiterate what I said earlie. If you’re willing to try to understand what motivates 16 year olds to do something like like, why can’t you try to understand why a whole cross section of the community wants to see some solid punishment dished out? I think it would be fair to say that many on the community think the punishments being dished out by the courts in Canberra is light on, and not reflective of community standards for the crimes being committed.

No, perhaps you were right, PB. For some people living is the harshest punishment of all.

Pommy bastard6:51 pm 27 Feb 09

I agree with you there Granny. However, to “throw the book” at someone normally is interpreted as “to give the harshest punishment available,” which I wholeheartedly concur these girls should receive.

tom-tom said :

if they are found guilty i hope they get the book thrown at them.

Why not?

“The book” doesn’t prescribe capital or corporal punishment, and takes into account the age of the offender and the severity of the crime. After many hundred years of hard won reforms “the book” includes many checks and balances that make our nation the envy of so many others.

Pommy bastard6:17 pm 27 Feb 09

Jim Jones said :

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

you made the argument that teens don’t typically know right from wrong,

No I didn’t. What I said was “Teenagers are notoriously bad for connecting their actions to possible repercussions”, and then provided evidence for the assertion. That is completely different.

So they knew what they were doing was wrong, therefore the malice which I and others have argued for is right. Good, I’m glad that’s cleared up.

Of course the girls knew what they were doing was wrong, and of course they should be pulled up for it. That goes without saying. What myself (and others) are complaining about is the brutally primitive, unthinkingly bloodthirsty nature of the screaming for vengeance.

What punishment, if any, do you think would be appropriate Jim? Seeing as these kids endangered the life of innocent toddlers?

I don’t get depressed by the fact that people get worked up about crime – it’s this stupid ‘hang em high’ attitude, which, frankly, GB has analysed better than anyone.

Maybe people are sick and tired of the swing since the 80’s to the other extreme, the “empathising” and the “rehabilitation,” and the mollycoddling of thugs and others in the hope that they will realise their evil ways and become flower power hippies. Maybe it’s people like you Jim, who, by denying retribution, are responsible for the cries for blood.

Just as bad is the lack of perspective demonstrated by the trolls here (PsydFX, Gobbo, etc.) who assume that, because someone isn’t yelling to the death penalty, that they condone criminal behaviour: the ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’ kind of bollocks.

They have argued your points Jim, not lied about what you have said, like you lie about what they have said.

Quote me where they have claimed, or indicated, ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’

Whatever. As fnaah has pointed out – at least there are people willing to step forward and argue against the crap that PB and his lot spit out on a regular basis.

You aren’t Jim, you repeatedly make up stuff, and resort to personal ad hominems, you are defined by your deceitfulness, you also post crap like your “youtube” link above.

so at best these girls are idiot 16 year olds who were completely indifferent to the fact their actions could have killed a toddler and at worst are evil malicious brats who deliberately tried to hurt a toddler, does anybody else think that which ever of these two options is correct is largely irrelevant? they still undertook an action which could have killed a small child.

if they are found guilty i hope they get the book thrown at them.

(also does anybody else find PB’s ability to throw something out there and have the same few people charge in head first everytime just slightly amusing?)

So Jimbo,
anyone who doesn’t agree with your opion is a troll or just talks crap?

I don’t agree with PB on this but i definitely don’t agree with you either.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Also, I stick to my original position – these girls knew exactly what they were doing. If it were my child I’d be calling for harsh punishment to deter others from trying something similar. (And Jimbo, don’t go reading anything special into the term ‘harsh punishment’, it means only what it says).

+1

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

you made the argument that teens don’t typically know right from wrong,

No I didn’t. What I said was “Teenagers are notoriously bad for connecting their actions to possible repercussions”, and then provided evidence for the assertion. That is completely different.

Of course the girls knew what they were doing was wrong, and of course they should be pulled up for it. That goes without saying. What myself (and others) are complaining about is the brutally primitive, unthinkingly bloodthirsty nature of the screaming for vengeance.

I don’t get depressed by the fact that people get worked up about crime – it’s this stupid ‘hang em high’ attitude, which, frankly, GB has analysed better than anyone.

Just as bad is the lack of perspective demonstrated by the trolls here (PsydFX, Gobbo, etc.) who assume that, because someone isn’t yelling to the death penalty, that they condone criminal behaviour: the ‘if you ain’t with us, your against us’ kind of bollocks.

Whatever. As fnaah has pointed out – at least there are people willing to step forward and argue against the crap that PB and his lot spit out on a regular basis.

I didn’t think you were backing off from debate, PB.

I can understand given our history that the mental tone you read my comments in is bound to be hostile. Sometimes it is, I can’t deny that, but not always. It really wasn’t in this case. Even the first bit. The tone I was writing it in was the same as if I was putting the point to one of my friends.

We’re just really not emotionally safe for each other to talk to, I’m afraid. There’s too much water under the bridge. Too many disagreements. Too many misunderstandings. Too much hurt.

I really don’t believe my kids would murder someone either, but they still might. I’m very proud of my children and certainly not wanting to disparage yours or mine. I’m just saying that bad things like that really do happen to good people.

And I am not excusing the behaviour. I am a mum with the most gorgeous little girl. And I have taken her to that very playground many times. I certainly do take this seriously.

No,
it would be a better place to buy them.

Pommy bastard4:55 pm 27 Feb 09

Why, is it a better place to leave adulterated lollies? 😉

If only they’d had a youth centre in Gungahlin ey?

Pommy bastard4:49 pm 27 Feb 09

Granny said :

I’m sorry you took it that way, PB. I was hoping that we could actually just discuss something.

Hey Granny, I was hoping we could to, sorry if you took it as me backing off from debate, I just found your saying my child could murder a bit offensive that’s all.

sepi said :

So given that ‘pushing for’ = inciting, we are all in agreement that your comments are inciting violence.

No, “pushing for” does not equal “inciting”, and by removing it from context you do nothing but diminish your arguement. The “Death Penalty” is not a lynch mob, it is the lawful execution of a criminal. It’s not available in Aus, but that wouldn’t stop me form expressing that I would view it as an apt punishment at any trial.

Disaffected youth is a tough issue. Given we don’t have the death penalty, someone will have to try to think of something else to do with this pair.

Exactly right, spot on, you’ve got it!

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy4:49 pm 27 Feb 09

Jimbo Jones – I was responding to the comments you made toward me in post #48, which were somewhat inflammatory. (moderation??)

Rude comments aside, you made the argument that teens don’t typically know right from wrong, because of the part of their brain that gets used, and because they don’t think of the repercussions of their actions.

You then said that knowing the difference between right from wrong is a particularly uninsightful thing to say. That’s why I responded.

Also, you mentioned in another post (#71) that you found it depressing that people on this forum get so worked up about crime. I agree that this occurs, but how about pointing your idea of ‘understanding the reason why’ towards this problem. Have you ever considered that people get cranky because they feel justice isn’t served, and that sometimes terrible crimes appear to go almost unpunished? I’m not casting an opinion either way here (just so we’re crystal clear), but I find it unsurprising.

Also, I stick to my original position – these girls knew exactly what they were doing. If it were my child I’d be calling for harsh punishment to deter others from trying something similar. (And Jimbo, don’t go reading anything special into the term ‘harsh punishment’, it means only what it says).

So given that ‘pushing for’ = inciting, we are all in agreement that your comments are inciting violence.

Disaffected youth is a tough issue. Given we don’t have the death penalty, someone will have to try to think of something else to do with this pair.

I’m sorry you took it that way, PB. I was hoping that we could actually just discuss something.

Pommy bastard4:41 pm 27 Feb 09

FC said :

“Right, I’ll explain this very slowly, with subtitles and notes, so that people here can understand;
If it had been my toddler (which it was not) they attempted to harm in this way (which they did not), I’d be pushing for them to hang(my reaction would be to want the death penalty for them), with a clear conscience. (I would not find it morally unsupportable.)”

So the dealth penalty doesn’t count as voilence in your book?

It counts as violence, I’ve never denied counts as violence?

crap – I wasn’t going engage anymore.
Just forget I said anything and I’ll just refer to my post no# 77

“Right, I’ll explain this very slowly, with subtitles and notes, so that people here can understand;
If it had been my toddler (which it was not) they attempted to harm in this way (which they did not), I’d be pushing for them to hang(my reaction would be to want the death penalty for them), with a clear conscience. (I would not find it morally unsupportable.)”

So the dealth penalty doesn’t count as voilence in your book?

I still find it hard to believe that people were excusing the behaviour of the 16 year olds and they wouldn’t have realised the consequences of their actions.

What a load of big hooey.

*smiling sweetly* 🙂

Pommy bastard4:03 pm 27 Feb 09

My concern is rather that I think statements of the kind I quoted at #93 constitute lynch mob type behaviour — incitements to violence.

I find them more an open and honest expression of the intial reation to the affront.

However, isn’t it the function of places like this to express and debate these reactions, as we have been, in a place where each of us is free to express and justify or thoughts?

And hasn’t it been amply demonstrated that when challenged on our reactions we have had the chance to contextualise and validate this?

Pommy bastard3:56 pm 27 Feb 09

Granny said :

Calling for sixteen year old girls to be hanged is invisible writing only to you, PB. I don’t know how serious you are or aren’t, but what if somebody took it seriously and did hang one of them? Would that be right? Really? I think everyone would be horrified.

Right, I’ll explain this very slowly, with subtitles and notes, so that people here can understand;
If it had been my toddler (which it was not) they attempted to harm in this way (which they did not), I’d be pushing for them to hang(my reaction would be to want the death penalty for them), with a clear conscience. (I would not find it morally unsupportable.)

I think statements such of those are incitements to violence, whether by individuals or the state.

Well you can choose to use my words as an incitement to violence if you wish, others may be able to read it without that emotive response. It neither calls for a “lynch mob” nor does it incite others to violence, it is the response of a father at some malicious act against an innocent child.

As a person who has children at both ends of the spectrum it is very real to me that it could be my child who was poisoned and it could also be my child doing the poisoning.

Do you really think your child could poison another child? How have you raised them to do that? I’m sure my daughter would slit her own throat before she would do such a thing.

Nobody ever believes that somebody they love is capable of something terrible. We all know them too well and they just wouldn’t do it.

Yet how often have good people been shocked to discover that their well-respected neighbour is a murderer or their husband is a paedophile or their daughter has joined a suicide pact on the internet?

I don’t know, how many?

It could be my children and it could be yours, as much as you hate to believe it. You can try and instil worthwhile values, you can try and give them a loving environment, but at the end of the day they are individuals who make their own choices – who might get in with the wrong crowd, who might be using mind-altering substances or suffering post-traumatic stress from a rape they were too ashamed to tell you about.

Please limit your predictions to your own kids eh? Please don’t generalise to other people’s it’s insulting and without fact.

I just want you to think about “if it happened to my child” from the perspective of the knock on the door by the police officer as well as from the perspective of the kid in the ambulance. There is potentially only a decade of difference between the two.

Now that is a good point, and one for debate. We (I) have only looked at this from the perspective of the injured party. Though I must say I find it impossible to imagine my daughter as one of the malicious bitches.

I’m not particularly concerned about which poster did or did not use the words ‘lynch mob’.

My concern is rather that I think statements of the kind I quoted at #93 constitute lynch mob type behaviour — incitements to violence.

For the reasons I outlined above, and were more eloquently expressed at #104, I think this is something we should all try not to do.

Whipping up an emotional frenzy, or giving licence for people to whip up their own, is not going to help us — particularly when that frenzy is focussed on retribution. The threat to those little kids cannot be fixed by abusing the teenagers. I don’t want those girls to be killed, or buried, or abused, or tortured. I think that anybody who did that, or who contributed to inciting it, should not have a clear conscience.

I really do think we can, and should try to, do better than baying for blood.

Hellspice was the first to offer killing as a solution. But lets all jump on the Bastard, eh?

🙂

*giggles*

Still, they were only16 and we all remember what we were like, eh?

*wink wink*

Calling for sixteen year old girls to be hanged is invisible writing only to you, PB. I don’t know how serious you are or aren’t, but what if somebody took it seriously and did hang one of them? Would that be right? Really? I think everyone would be horrified.

I think statements such of those are incitements to violence, whether by individuals or the state.

As a person who has children at both ends of the spectrum it is very real to me that it could be my child who was poisoned and it could also be my child doing the poisoning.

Nobody ever believes that somebody they love is capable of something terrible. We all know them too well and they just wouldn’t do it.

Yet how often have good people been shocked to discover that their well-respected neighbour is a murderer or their husband is a paedophile or their daughter has joined a suicide pact on the internet?

It could be my children and it could be yours, as much as you hate to believe it. You can try and instil worthwhile values, you can try and give them a loving environment, but at the end of the day they are individuals who make their own choices – who might get in with the wrong crowd, who might be using mind-altering substances or suffering post-traumatic stress from a rape they were too ashamed to tell you about.

I just want you to think about “if it happened to my child” from the perspective of the knock on the door by the police officer as well as from the perspective of the kid in the ambulance. There is potentially only a decade of difference between the two.

Pommy bastard1:42 pm 27 Feb 09

sepi said :

When they KKK had a fun night out, do you think they ran thru the streets shouting
‘let us all form an orderly lynch mob’?

Or did they just scream out ‘string ’em up’?

Or sprayed the town with invisible writings that only those opposed to it could read….

Yep, pretty concerning as we regularly take the kidlets to Maccas for a play, letting them run amok while we have a coffee. In the future I may have to start doing a sweep of the play area first…

I think they shouted “Guess whose Mum’s got a Whirlpool!”

When they KKK had a fun night out, do you think they ran thru the streets shouting
‘let us all form an orderly lynch mob’?

Or did they just scream out ‘string ’em up’?

FC said :

Careful… we could possibly start up the whole “to smack or not to smack” debate!
😉

Let’s go for it.

I say it’s ok – open hand only though!

Careful… we could possibly start up the whole “to smack or not to smack” debate!
😉

Muttsybignuts12:59 pm 27 Feb 09

Gobbo said :

GB said :

Me, If I was the parent of either the 16 year olds or the toddlers, I’d be wanting to smack arse, and smack arse mighty hard.

😉

Me too. I imagine if it was PBs own kid he might not be so keen to draw and quarter but you never know.

On a small tangent, I remember getting the odd smacked arse as a child. Hurt a lot and worked well.

Pommy bastard12:54 pm 27 Feb 09

There are plenty of examples, even just on riotact, of people calling for or extolling vigilante action and extra-legal punishment, including people excited by the possibility that someone might be raped or bashed in jail. These seem to me to often constitute an online lynch mob (in the modern usage of the expression).

There may be plenty of such calls on the RoitAct for “lynch mobs”, but it serves nobody very well if they are used within this thread against people who have not called for them here, or anywhere in fact.

Pommy bastard12:49 pm 27 Feb 09

Jim Jones said :

Jimbo – I disagree that this is about ‘good’ or ‘evil’, and eventually even the statement that we shouldn’t try to empathise with them.

Another fine example of the invisible writing that only he Jim can read. First he’s seen calls for “lynch mobs” here, now he’s seen people saying that there should be no empathy for these girls.

And Jim wonders why people “don’t listen”* to his pearls of wisdom?

GB said :

And yes, they have been called evil in this thread:

• “Two words – evil bitches.”
• “These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.”

answered by “Disagree.” (maybe that writer was imprecise and meant they aren’t evil and aren’t stupid).

From my reading of that final quote, PB was calling them malicious, not evil or stupid. Hence “There is no stupidity in the intent, nor the action, just pure malice.”

Of course then every thing was blown out of proportion by some posters as his opinion wasn’t theirs … or summat like that. 🙂

Me, If I was the parent of either the 16 year olds or the toddlers, I’d be wanting to smack arse, and smack arse mighty hard.

😉

Hmm. I agree that emotions cannot be wrong – they just exist. Actions (including verbal incitement) based on or excused by those emotions can easily be wrong.

Eg I think it is (morally) wrong (possibly “evil”) to say, here:

• “There isn’t a hole in hell deep enough for these cretins to be buried in”, or
• “they should be made to be lef tin teh care of teh parents who’s kids ate the affected sweets” or
• “If it were my kid who was affected, I’d be baying for blood” or
• “if their extreme stupidity/malice isn’t punished with extereme prejudice” or
• “I’d be pushing for them to hang” or
• “my conscience would be clear” .

These were all said in this thread; and I don’t think I’ve altered the meaning by taking them out of their immediate context.

And yes, they have been called evil in this thread:

• “Two words – evil bitches.”
• “These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.” answered by “Disagree.” (maybe that writer was imprecise and meant they aren’t evil and aren’t stupid).

There are plenty of examples, even just on riotact, of people calling for or extolling vigilante action and extra-legal punishment, including people excited by the possibility that someone might be raped or bashed in jail. These seem to me to often constitute an online lynch mob (in the modern usage of the expression). There are already examples (not on riotact) where an online or SMS lynch mob has produced an actual physical mob which has attacked people. Those people felt they were doing something ok by attacking, egged on by the emotional mob’s words.

I think its worth stopping and thinking about what we really want to happen, rather than just indulging our childish tit-for-tat emotions.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Jimbo – I disagree that this is about ‘good’ or ‘evil’, it’s about right or wrong, which in this case applies directly to intent to harm a defenceless child.

Then why the hell are you arguing?

No one has ever said that what the girls did wasn’t wrong or that they shouldn’t be punished for it. The argument stemmed from the virulent disagreement to Muttsybignuts’ statement that ‘The girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid’ and the following calls for them to be: locked up, buried in a hole, killed, etc. ad nauseum., and eventually even the statement that we shouldn’t try to empathise with them.

That is two seperate quotes.
The first is one poster calling the girls “evil bitches”

The other is PB disagreeing iwht someone saying the girls “aren’t evil, just stupid.”

I would see that as 2 examples.

Auntyem said :

Two words – evil bitches.

Pommy bastard said :

Muttsybignuts said :

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

Disagree.

There is no stupidity in the intent, nor the action, just pure malice.

there you go –

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy11:47 am 27 Feb 09

Jimbo – I disagree that this is about ‘good’ or ‘evil’, it’s about right or wrong, which in this case applies directly to intent to harm a defenceless child.

I do have a kid, and he is learning about right and wrong in clear terms. Making excuses about 16 year olds doing something like this is very poor. Do you really believe believe these girls formed the intent, gathered the ingredients, assembled the items, then planted them and watched with no though of the potential victims?

And you think I’m the one who’s not so bright?

Pommy bastard11:41 am 27 Feb 09

Excellent post GB! Though I still say our intitial emotional reactions are not “wrong” in themslevs, just natural.

I’m still looking for the calls for “lynch mobs”, oh, and for anyone calling these girls “evil”. (What they did has been described as evil, in fact only Jim has posited that they are evil themselves.)

Extreme views on the Internet?

well i never, im shocked and outraged. Oh the humanity.

While I find this incident alarming and scary, I am more distressed by the small but vocal faction here, on talkback radio and elsewhere which jumps to ‘hang-em-high’ at the slightest provocation. Eg:

Pommy bastard said :

If it were my toddler (which it obviously is not) , the emotions which would be invoked in me by the evil act of these two kids, potentially threatening my child’s life, would be strong enough for me to want them dead, and my conscience would be clear.

And that’s the problem. Your (anticipated) emotions are just that: emotions. And ranting about emotions can be a good way for some people to get over them.

However, your deliberate choice to allow yourself to kill someone, and use your emotions as an excuse, seems to me an act of evil, as defined in #1 in the quote above.

And that is what is wrong with moral panics: they produce more evil. They make it difficult or impossible to discuss what is the best thing to do (for us all, practically and ethically). Instead, people allow themselves to feel justified in killing, bashing, harassing or humiliating the target people. It is the same logic that permits assault (verbal or physical) when its ‘justified’ by ‘road rage’ — ie “i feel angry, so I’m allowed to do anything I like”.

Fortunately, most people seem to recognise that our initial emotional response — perhaps wanting to kill someone — is almost always not the best course of action. In places where this breaks down, they tend to get stuck in a cycle of violence. I don’t think that is a good way of living.

These girls were bad, they did something very wrong. We don’t know why – many possible reasons have been canvassed here.

We need to figure out what is the best thing to do to minimise the chance of them doing evil things again; and of others copying them.

Separately from that, we each need to deal with our emotions.

Mashing the two together is unlikely to be effective, either in reducing evil or having us feel better.

But really – saying that you could send teenage girls to the gallows with a clear conscience. That’s just so f@cked up it’s beyond belief.

And I know that not everyone agrees with PB. But the rest of my comment stands – the amount of spittle-flecked hatred and bile that appears *every* time any crime is mentioned just beggers belief.

You’ve got people actually saying that they would be ‘baying for blood’ about it.

And it’s always happening.

Really, it’s just impossible not to find this depressing.

I tend to agree with your first statement, but I don’t find the RiotACT zeitgeist depressing. Keep this in mind: there always seems to be plenty of people willing to engage in heated debate about it to moderate the views of the spittle-flecked loonies, and plenty more people who choose not to comment, so as a community, I’d say RiotACT readers are much less bloodthirsty and single mindedly authoritarian than you make out. 😉

Pommy bastard10:48 am 27 Feb 09

I have not called for, nor argued for, any sort of lynch mob Jim. I have given my personal views and my perspectives. It’s not my fault you have no counter arguments to my points.

I give up. There’s no point attempting to discuss anything with PB, he’s too keen to start a lynch mob to listen to anyone.

Wow. I think that is my first ever comment to go into moderation ..

Good GOD!!!
NOT AT ALL PB!!
You’re responses just drive me up the wall that I couldn’t be bothered ‘getting into it’ with someone ‘like you’!!
but if I must!
OF COURSE I WOULD CALL FOR EMPATHY FOR F*CKS SAKE!
why would I not try to have an “understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives. ” ????

And you’re last point.
you are sure the 16 years olds didn’t even consider this?? (consider that the child might have had pre existing issues etc) but then you would still have a clear conscience about sending two 16 years for them to hang??

WTF?!!

Literature is all about the nuances.

As is life really.

For most of us anyway.

Pommy bastard10:24 am 27 Feb 09

Thanks for the apology FC, sorry I didn’t read it before posting.

Pommy bastard10:22 am 27 Feb 09

In other words, you have no rebuttal for what I have posted, no reply, no answers, so you’ll try to avoid the issue and attack the person instead. Not very PC of you?

What if the report had read; “A two year old child was presumed murdered yesterday after ingesting a handful of lollies poisoned with codeine based over the counter painkillers, and ephedrine based over the counter stimulants, which had been deliberately left in a children’s play area by two 16 year olds “for a laugh”

Call for “empathy” then would we?

Say the toddlers were already on some form of medication. How does anyone know that the innocent stimulant wouldn’t have contra-indications when taken with what the kid was already on?

who is to say that the one taking the painkiller hadn’t already had an appropriate does of kiddy panadol for some other purpose earlier in the day? Who is to say that neither of these toddlers didn’t have an existing kidney or liver issue?

Did the 16 year olds know? I am sure they didn’t even consider it.

apologies for saying you live in your own little world.
It is just so frustrating seeing time after times PB responding to something, twisting it around and completing missing the point of what the other person (often me in that seat) is saying. But all the times it seems to be done from a point of self rightous, intellectual superiority.
I guess the reality is that maybe we are never going to ‘get’ each others positions on things.
Although we both think that we do get the others position and just feel that at own is far more superior and evolved…

I really don’t think anyone need to bother getting involved in this rant.
There seems to be a little world that PB lives in where everything is either black and white, and that he is ALWAYS right.

I don’t think anyway fails to undersant what you are saying, or the meaning of words PB.

I just don’t think you are just never going to get it… *shakes head in dismay*

Pommy bastard10:00 am 27 Feb 09

Jim Jones said :

Nobody is excusing these acts – the girls need a big wake up call. The argument is about whether they were stupid or evil.

Understanding *why* people do things is, in essence, empathy. Dismissing it as ‘evil’ is the exact opposite of that. How does ‘evil’ explain anything? Are they possessed by the devil?

Do the words “crossed a line” mean nothing then Jim? These girls acted in a away which betrayed their humanity. Evil is a well understood word, but seeing as you don’t know what it means;

evil
e?vil
? ?
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Now do you understand the word “evil” Jim?

I can get a kids dictionary for you if you like?

For that matter, do you really believe that a pair of 16 year old girls putting panadol in a lolly wrapper is ‘evil’?

Yes it is Jim. It is potentially life threatening. Do you not understand that doing an action, one which would potentially threaten the life of a small innocent child, for no other reason than a few cheap laughs is “evil”? Are you really that wrapped up in trying to slave everything in a politically correct manner than you have lost all common sense and paternal emotion?

If you could send a pair of 16 year old girls to the gallows, with a clear conscience, then you are clearly the one who is evil and should be locked up.

Again you fail to understand, (Deliberately?) If it were my toddler (which it obviously is not) , the emotions which would be invoked in me by the evil act of these two kids, potentially threatening my child’s life, would be strong enough for me to want them dead, and my conscience would be clear.

I can explain in more simple terms if that is too complex for you.

*funny for someone who claims to have a masters in literature?

All over the counter, tablet medications for headaches come with an advisory that they should not be given to children under the age of 12.

I can buy over the counter, tablet medications that come with warnings not to drink alcohol or drive a vehilce after taking them. I certainly would never give them to a person that was not an adult.

Chances are the tablets these little ‘sky-larkers’ used wasn’t those types of tablets. But their actions were dumb, stupid and I don’t believe anyone should excuse them for not knowing right from wrong due to their age.

I’m aware that poisoning is serious stuff – and should be dealt with seriously.

But really – saying that you could send teenage girls to the gallows with a clear conscience. That’s just so f@cked up it’s beyond belief.

And I know that not everyone agrees with PB. But the rest of my comment stands – the amount of spittle-flecked hatred and bile that appears *every* time any crime is mentioned just beggers belief.

You’ve got people actually saying that they would be ‘baying for blood’ about it.

And it’s always happening.

Really, it’s just impossible not to find this depressing.

JJ it’s most unwise to equate everyone else’s willingness to let PB rant at himself with an agreement about his rants.

Having said that poisoning is serious stuff, one of the oldest and most justified of human taboos. People are going to recoil from it with revulsion.

Honestly, WTF is it with this forum? The whole place has turned into a vicious lynch mob, baying for blood at every given opportunity.

It’s just so god-damn depressing. And it never ends: Every time a crime is mentioned, there are violent calls for vengeance and murder and cutting off hands and prison-rape.

Canberra is a quiet, middle-class town. Where do you get all this hatred and fear from?

Pommy bastard said :

Jim Jones said :

I do have a child – and if she does happen to do something stupid, I’ll take action to see that she learns from her mistakes. I’m not going to brand her as ‘evil’ and demand she be locked up in a prison where conditions should be as harsh as (in)humanly possible like the rest of the brainless lynch mob that seems to inhabit this forum. If you’d do this sort of thing to your child, it should be taken away from you without delay. Anyone calling stupid 16 year old girls ‘evil’ lacks empathy more than any teenager I’ve ever met.

Jim, you obviously place a high regard on “empathising” with these kids. That is your prerogative. However, some of us think that empathising is not sufficient, and that they crossed a line in the sand when they endangered these kids for kicks. The act was evil. It was malicious.

The only empthising which will be of use would be to find out their motivations in order to help prevent more kids doing similar acts. However, doing this does not take away the need for these girls to suffer the consequences of their actions.

For their own sake they should receive sufficient punishment to let them know the utter wrongness of their actions. Also society and especially toddlers should be protected from these kids, by locking them away.

If it had been my toddler they attempted to harm in this way, I’d be pushing for them to hang, with a clear conscience.

Nobody is excusing these acts – the girls need a big wake up call. The argument is about whether they were stupid or evil.

Understanding *why* people do things is, in essence, empathy. Dismissing it as ‘evil’ is the exact opposite of that. How does ‘evil’ explain anything? Are they possessed by the devil?

For that matter, do you really believe that a pair of 16 year old girls putting panadol in a lolly wrapper is ‘evil’?

If you could send a pair of 16 year old girls to the gallows, with a clear conscience, then you are clearly the one who is evil and should be locked up.

Pommy bastard9:23 am 27 Feb 09

Jim Jones said :

I do have a child – and if she does happen to do something stupid, I’ll take action to see that she learns from her mistakes. I’m not going to brand her as ‘evil’ and demand she be locked up in a prison where conditions should be as harsh as (in)humanly possible like the rest of the brainless lynch mob that seems to inhabit this forum. If you’d do this sort of thing to your child, it should be taken away from you without delay. Anyone calling stupid 16 year old girls ‘evil’ lacks empathy more than any teenager I’ve ever met.

Jim, you obviously place a high regard on “empathising” with these kids. That is your prerogative. However, some of us think that empathising is not sufficient, and that they crossed a line in the sand when they endangered these kids for kicks. The act was evil. It was malicious.

The only empthising which will be of use would be to find out their motivations in order to help prevent more kids doing similar acts. However, doing this does not take away the need for these girls to suffer the consequences of their actions.

For their own sake they should receive sufficient punishment to let them know the utter wrongness of their actions. Also society and especially toddlers should be protected from these kids, by locking them away.

If it had been my toddler they attempted to harm in this way, I’d be pushing for them to hang, with a clear conscience.

imhotep said :

Jim Jones said :

(Jim Jones) “I really hope that you don’t have children.”

Well Jim, if you think this kind of thing is excused by brain chemistry, I hope you aren’t a parent.

Where did anyone say that anything was excused by brain chemistry?

Studies on the late development of teenage brains exist and are well documented – this can *explain* a tendency towards lack of empathic direction in teenagers as a whole. If you have evidence that these extensive studies are bogus, please share – I’d be interested in your methodology. Up until now, it seems to have consisted of simplistic scapegoating and moral panics.

I do have a child – and if she does happen to do something stupid, I’ll take action to see that she learns from her mistakes. I’m not going to brand her as ‘evil’ and demand she be locked up in a prison where conditions should be as harsh as (in)humanly possible like the rest of the brainless lynch mob that seems to inhabit this forum. If you’d do this sort of thing to your child, it should be taken away from you without delay. Anyone calling stupid 16 year old girls ‘evil’ lacks empathy more than any teenager I’ve ever met.

Muttsybignuts said :

.
Sure, this pair of idiots may have prayed to Satan for the blueprint to messing up some little kids and then practiced and practiced until they got it right.
Or, they just came up with something that seemed cool and rebellious and did it without thinking. I imagine the latter.

Oh come now.

Surely by the comments in this thread its obvious that this was a premeditated act by a couple of prospective serial killers and this was only the first step in a massive planned program of toddler genocide.

Pommy bastard7:45 am 27 Feb 09

Granny said :

We have differing penalties for differing crimes, or differing levels of violence within the same basic category, and I believe that is as it should be.

It is totally possible that they are nasty, mean, vile, little sods – most bullies are. I believe they need professional help regardless.

Well we can both agree they need professional help, but the professional I think they need to see would be a different one to yours I believe. 😉

Pommy bastard said :

Stating they are “obviously psychologically disturbed,” and have “underlying issues” which their “parents need to get to the bottom of,” and mitigating their actions by stating; “It wouldn’t have been hard for them to stick more dangerous substances in the lollies if it had been really premeditated,” smacks of excuses to me Granny, no offence meant.

It is also just as possible that they are nasty, mean, vile, little sods, who thought that dosing kids up on chemicals would be good for a laugh.

Surprisingly for us, no offence has been taken, PB. I just think that to say they are disturbed is stating the bleeding obvious. I mean to me a murderer is obviously disturbed as well. It’s not an excuse, just a fact.

I also think that there are degrees in crime as well as in anything else. To me, lacing a lolly with a panadol is not as bad as lacing it with ecstasy or cyanide. I also see that as a fact rather than an excuse.

We have differing penalties for differing crimes, or differing levels of violence within the same basic category, and I believe that is as it should be.

It is totally possible that they are nasty, mean, vile, little sods – most bullies are. I believe they need professional help regardless.

Pommy bastard said :

bd84 said :

It sounds more like two stupid teenage girls who thought it would be “funny” and put no thought into their decisions.

I’m sorry, but either you are saying these girls have a learning disability, a below 80 point IQ, or you are saying something else. What, I’m not sure.

Calling the story a “beat up” or the actions “culture jamming,” in no way repudiates the hateful actions of these two.

Well seeing that there is no mention of any of those things in that sentence I am clearly not saying that. I’m saying that they are teenagers, teenagers are not renowned for their ability to make fully thought through decisions at the best of times and often make stupid decisions.

I did not at any stage say their conduct was anything other than utter stupidity, but people writing them off as being ‘disturbed’ or worse at this point is rediculous. However now if the drugs were illicit or if there was more details about the crime such as an intent to harm, then that may be a different story.

Muttsybignuts9:16 pm 26 Feb 09

Pommy bastard said :

bd84 said :

It sounds more like two stupid teenage girls who thought it would be “funny” and put no thought into their decisions.

I’m sorry, but either you are saying these girls have a learning disability, a below 80 point IQ, or you are saying something else. What, I’m not sure.

Calling the story a “beat up” or the actions “culture jamming,” in no way repudiates the hateful actions of these two.

PB, Obviously every single thought and action you have had in your life was precisely calculated with all possible scenarios thoroughly examined for possible consequences and repercussions. Sadly, some of mine have not. Ive had some good ideas, I’ve had some bad ideas, I’ve had some completely shitty ideas that seemed good at the time.
Sure, this pair of idiots may have prayed to Satan for the blueprint to messing up some little kids and then practiced and practiced until they got it right.
Or, they just came up with something that seemed cool and rebellious and did it without thinking. I imagine the latter.

They’ll probably get told they’re very naughty and then sent on some tropical paradise self improvement course funded by the ACT taxpayer.

Pommy bastard8:40 pm 26 Feb 09

Stating they are “obviously psychologically disturbed,” and have “underlying issues” which their “parents need to get to the bottom of,” and mitigating their actions by stating; “It wouldn’t have been hard for them to stick more dangerous substances in the lollies if it had been really premeditated,” smacks of excuses to me Granny, no offence meant.

It is also just as possible that they are nasty, mean, vile, little sods, who thought that dosing kids up on chemicals would be good for a laugh.

Nobody is making excuses for the behavior, PB.

Pommy bastard8:18 pm 26 Feb 09

bd84 said :

It sounds more like two stupid teenage girls who thought it would be “funny” and put no thought into their decisions.

I’m sorry, but either you are saying these girls have a learning disability, a below 80 point IQ, or you are saying something else. What, I’m not sure.

Calling the story a “beat up” or the actions “culture jamming,” in no way repudiates the hateful actions of these two.

So over the counter non-prescription “drugs” then, so i’m guessing it was panadol or something similar. Judging by the hype around the story, sounds like a beat-up, not excusing that they’re absolute idiots, but there are no indications that the girls maliciously intended the children harm. It sounds more like two stupid teenage girls who thought it would be “funny” and put no thought into their decisions. Dealt with by youth diversion orders will probably frighten the living daylights out of them. One hopes their parents took them home and gave them a boot up the bum for it too.

They had lollies that a tablet could be inserted into to disguise it. You’d need to have purchased the ‘right’ type of lolly in order to be able to do it.

Of course they may have been partial to whatever confectionery they used …

Pommy bastard7:45 pm 26 Feb 09

Any other excuses for this act of malicious complete disregard for children’s health?

I think it’s pretty obvious that they are psychologically disturbed.

I think it’s important that there are consequences for behaviour, and it’s also important for their parents to get to the bottom of the underlying issues. There must be some. Most teenagers don’t go around doing stuff like that. The minority will do things like start fires deliberately or assault other teenagers.

I am glad that they didn’t use other more harmful drugs, and wonder if this was more attention-seeking behaviour or a cry for help than an intention to do real malice. It wouldn’t have been hard for them to stick more dangerous substances in the lollies if it had been really premeditated.

I remember being sixteen. I certainly would have realised the consequences of such actions should I have ever attempted them.

I can’t believe that anyone is using the age of 16 to be too young to not ‘realise’ what they were doing.

If that is the case, then perhaps the age of gaining a licence should be raised until we are not so notoriously bad for connecting our actions to possible repercussions?

I knew the difference by that age and I know my girl does as well. She hasn’t even reached that age yet.

Whatever they put in the lollies, they would have known it was the wrong thing to do. They were going for cheap laughs. Perhaps they preferred making their attacks from a distance instead of up close and personal like a “Slap Happy” phone vid. Hence something they could sit back, watch and giggle about? Who knows. But they knew what they were doing wasn’t appropriate, I am certain of that.

Gungahlin Al6:42 pm 26 Feb 09

FC said :

granny – I think the children that ate the lollies were toddlers.. so children that required constant supervision (especially outside of the home where you are not in control of the environment as you would in your own home) I am not suggesting that people need to be watching their childrens every movement 24 hours a day until they are 18 years old, but certainly if you are out in public with children (who are still of that age that they would pick somethign up frmo the ground and eat it straight away) – its not too much to expect these children to be constantly supervised.

I have worked with young children for years and I have had them pick up items while we were out and about from the ground etc, however I intervene before they have been able to ingest or otherwise play with this things.

So FC we should climb right through the playground equipment before letting our children use it?? Reality check please. And you really haven’t spent enough time around toddlers if you don’t realise how quickly they can get something from the ground into their mouth.

Pommy bastard5:57 pm 26 Feb 09

Muttsybignuts said :

I suspect they wouldn’t even know what malice meant. It would just be a stupid prank that seemed funny at the time. Most 16 year olds don’t think 5 minutes into the future let alone the consequences of their actions.

Hogwash, there can be no “not thinking” about drugging lollies and leaving them for kids. It is an act of malice which they would KNOW could have severe consequences.

Jim Jones said :

Does nobody remember what it was like to be 16?

I do. I don’t remember it being about trying to drug toddlers for kicks though.

Jim Jones said :

Teenagers are notoriously bad for connecting their actions to possible repercussions.

Lets hope these two get a lession in repercussions that they will never ever forget then.

There are even well established biological explanations why this is so (to simplify matters – teenagers tend to think with the back of their brain, not taking into account bhow their actions may affect those around them).

So how come drugging lollies for toddlers isn’t a common thing then? There is no excuse for what these two did. And if their extreme stupidity/malice isn’t punished with extereme prejudice, then the wrong message is goingt o go out to other teenagers.

“Knowing the difference between right and wrong” is a particularly glib and uninsightful thing to say. Did you never drink when you were underage? Wasn’t that ‘wrong’? Doesn’t that make you ‘evil’?

Doing something to yourself is slightly different to drugging toddlers.

imhotep said :

Jim Jones said :

(Jim Jones) “I really hope that you don’t have children.”

Well Jim, if you think this kind of thing is excused by brain chemistry, I hope you aren’t a parent.

+1

Jim Jones said :

(Jim Jones) “I really hope that you don’t have children.”

Well Jim, if you think this kind of thing is excused by brain chemistry, I hope you aren’t a parent.

Jim Jones said :

“Knowing the difference between right and wrong” is a particularly glib and uninsightful thing to say. Did you never drink when you were underage? Wasn’t that ‘wrong’? Doesn’t that make you ‘evil’?

What a crap example. The lines of right and wrong in that example are blurred because on the whole, drinking is a socially acceptable practice of the greater population. It is not socially acceptable anywhere to go around spiking peoples food or drinks with substances that can be harmful.

I honestly think that a suitable punishment for these bitches would be having there names published and then having to spend a couple of days listening to stories of the unfortunate women (and men) who have had their lolly water spiked and then been raped.

Come on VY. I thought you were a bit brighter than that.

Teenagers are notoriously bad for connecting their actions to possible repercussions.

There are even well established biological explanations why this is so (to simplify matters – teenagers tend to think with the back of their brain, not taking into account bhow their actions may affect those around them).

“Knowing the difference between right and wrong” is a particularly glib and uninsightful thing to say. Did you never drink when you were underage? Wasn’t that ‘wrong’? Doesn’t that make you ‘evil’?

I really hope that you don’t have children.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy4:02 pm 26 Feb 09

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

At 16 you know the difference between right and wrong, whether you choose to admit it or not. These girls are nasty bitches. They may also be stupid, but that has nothing to do with what they did.

Oh, yeah!!

: )

Muttsybignuts said :

Pommy bastard said :

Muttsybignuts said :

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

Disagree.

There is no stupidity in the intent, nor the action, just pure malice.

I suspect they wouldn’t even know what malice meant. It would just be a stupid prank that seemed funny at the time. Most 16 year olds don’t think 5 minutes into the future let alone the consequences of their actions.

Troof.

Does nobody remember what it was like to be 16?

Muttsybignuts3:51 pm 26 Feb 09

Granny said :

You first, Muttsybignuts!

: o

LOL
No, sadly it is more like that Australian use of irony where small men are called “big fella” and red heads are called “bluey”. Hence, no Kambah pool for me.
Yours sincerely
muttsysmallnuts

Muttsybignuts3:49 pm 26 Feb 09

Pommy bastard said :

Muttsybignuts said :

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

Disagree.

There is no stupidity in the intent, nor the action, just pure malice.

I suspect they wouldn’t even know what malice meant. It would just be a stupid prank that seemed funny at the time. Most 16 year olds don’t think 5 minutes into the future let alone the consequences of their actions.

You first, Muttsybignuts!

: o

Pommy bastard3:35 pm 26 Feb 09

Muttsybignuts said :

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

Disagree.

There is no stupidity in the intent, nor the action, just pure malice.

Muttsybignuts3:30 pm 26 Feb 09

Granny said :

I’m all for lots of roaming, and the wilder and freer the better!

Kambah pool it is then!

I’m all for lots of roaming, and the wilder and freer the better!

FC said :

I think if they were ‘evil’ they probably would have used something like a poisen, razer blade, something of that nature.

Yep.

It’s definitely in the upper eschalons of stupidity though – deliberately making the things look like lollies is particularly stupid and nasty. But really what we have is a ‘mild stimulant’ and ‘pain-killing medication’, which is most likely to be a panadol and a no-doze or something of that ilk. A pain in the ass, but not particularly life-threatening.

The worst thing about it is probably that the parents who are affected will be less likely to let their children roam wild and free.

And we should all strive to let our children roam wild and free because, as a great man once said: ‘Let your children roam wild and free’.

Yeah if they move the play areas they will lose a hell of a lot of business.

I can see it now, McDonnalds will want to remove all their play areas to cover their backsides.

nah, they’ll ban girls from the store.

I think if they were ‘evil’ they probably would have used something like a poisen, razer blade, something of that nature.

Why not, because they didn’t use major drugs?

Muttsybignuts said :

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

Agreed.

Muttsybignuts2:38 pm 26 Feb 09

These girls aren’t evil. Just really stupid.

LMAO I love my dog like my child; but I sell the grandkids! =-D

that should be “too true”

bahaha!! to true poptop.

And when your dog gets pregnant you can sell their kids 😉

The significant difference is – when you lock your dog in the backyard for the weekend and have a friend drop by to feed it, nobody rings The Authorities.

Dogs are quicker to house train too.

Easier said than done FC.

And I know I’ve really gotta stop comparing human children to my hairy, four legged child. It drives my friends with kids insane 😉

poptop – yeah I’m not a parent.

granny – I think the children that ate the lollies were toddlers.. so children that required constant supervision (especially outside of the home where you are not in control of the environment as you would in your own home) I am not suggesting that people need to be watching their childrens every movement 24 hours a day until they are 18 years old, but certainly if you are out in public with children (who are still of that age that they would pick somethign up frmo the ground and eat it straight away) – its not too much to expect these children to be constantly supervised.

I have worked with young children for years and I have had them pick up items while we were out and about from the ground etc, however I intervene before they have been able to ingest or otherwise play with this things.

I mean my dog would like to eat vomit (I’m guessing) if there was some on the footpath – however when take him out he is either on a lead or being watched so that when I see him sniffing around something that appears to be suspect I call him over and then go check out what it is..

I would be so devastated to find out that one of my daughters did something like that. I would suspect some pretty heavy issues and would want them to see somebody for professional help. Why they did it is actually really important.

The whole thing is horrific – especially so close to home. If I wasn’t boycotting Gungahlin Maccas it could have been my little girl ingesting those pills. It’s just another thing that we now have to warn our kids about whilst at the same time trying to give them the impression that the world is actually not such a bad place.

I agree with poptop that anybody thinking you can or should micro-manage your kids to that level hasn’t had them, but would say that it is also unreasonable to expect that of the parents of a teenager.

You really have no control over what they’re doing on the way home from school and no reason to suspect it would be something of that nature. Should they not be allowed to go places with their friends?

You can’t lock them in a tower for five years. You just have to hope that the values you have instilled in them from the beginning will preclude this sort of behaviour.

Gungahlin Al1:45 pm 26 Feb 09

We all do dumb things as kids and teenagers, but this is just disgusting.

Our kids (who occasionally frequent that McD playground) received a serious talking to about accepting things from anyone or picking anything up.

But what can you say when they ask why these girls did it? There really just isn’t a logical answer to that one…

I can tell you’re not a parent FC.

Or did you mean the parents of the 16 year old “children” should have supervised?

In no way excusing what these girls did.

But have parents ever heard of SUPERVISING their children? to prevent them from eating random lollies from playgrounds??

Two words – evil bitches.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy1:19 pm 26 Feb 09

If it were my kid who was affected, I’d be baying for blood.

Lock them up.

Squil said :

LSD would have been a better choice. Easier to conceal too.

Wake up idiot!!

Kids can only tolerate much lower doses of non-prescription drugs tho. So even apparently harmless pills could damage the liver of a toddler.

I imagine (I hope) they were only playing around and thought it would be funny or something. But stupid ideas like this could have bad consequences.

Is it just me or is there a certain irony in a story about kids mistakenly eating something they thought would be yummy but was in fact harmeful to their health while at MCDONALDS?!

The girls are stupid and immature and as for punishment, they should be made to be lef tin teh care of teh parents who’s kids ate the affected sweets.

Hellspice – what I am getting at is I wonder what their intentions were, as if harm was their primary goal, I imagine they would have chosen different (stronger) drugs. Maybe prescription drugs or something. or some type of poisen even.

Sensationalist headline much, Jb?

FC said :

At 16 they would surely know that the “mild stimilant” and “pain-killing meds” wouldn’t do much damage to children of the age to be playing at Macca’s equipment.

yeah they were practising doctors and knew the kids wouldnt have an allergic reaction and end up munted for life

I doubt that a couple of bored, stoned and malicious under-age truants are “using existing media such as billboards, bus-ads, posters, and other ads to comment on those very media themselves or on society in general, using the original medium’s communication method”.

Perhaps if we arm them with spray paint and a few Banksy stencils they would leave the chiddlers alone?

Pommy bastard10:47 am 26 Feb 09

There isn’t a hole in hell deep enough for these cretins to be buried in.

Wow that is so strange. I wonder what the intent of the girls was.
At 16 they would surely know that the “mild stimilant” and “pain-killing meds” wouldn’t do much damage to children of the age to be playing at Macca’s equipment.
I’ll be interested to see how this one plays out – and how it came to the attention of the police. If the children had aleady eaten some of the lollies, how did their parents find out they were poisened – I guess they may have been a lot of them there. But then unless the girls were watching at the time it would mean that someone must have seen them leaving the lollies there (perhaps McDonalds staff?))
and if this is the case then I guess why weren’t the lollies removed before a child had a chance to eat them.
It will be interesting to see how they go about prosecuting these two girls.

I dare say that because of their age they will be easier to prosecute as they will probably cave and admit guilt.

LSD would have been a better choice. Easier to conceal too.

I can see it now, McDonnalds will want to remove all their play areas to cover their backsides.

Where did these two girls get the idea that trying to make children sick is OK ? Makes you wonder where this will lead to in the future.

If they’re into this shit at 16, imagine what they’ll be like at 21!

At least they didn’t leave peanuts lying around.

“mild stimulant” and “pain-killing medication” – so, a No-Doz and a Nurofen or Panadol, perhaps? Given the tolerance to caffeine you’d likely find in a kid who eats at maccas, the no-doz wouldn’t be an issue.

It’s still horrifying though.

bring back the death penalty !!

Primal said :

I never realised “Culture Jamming” was now an acceptable interpretation of “doing something incredibly f***ing stupid”.

Some would argue it always was.

I never realised “Culture Jamming” was now an acceptable interpretation of “doing something incredibly f***ing stupid”.

Bloody hell…what horrid little bitches.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.