I was shocked, SHOCKED to discover that the law applies to me.
Bespeckled thespiatrix Lindsay Lohan has been sentenced to 90 days' jail for repeatedly violating her 2007 probation for two drink driving raps. The "stunned" actress turned on the waterworks as Beverly Hills Superior Court Judge Marsha Revel slapped her with some proper hard time. In 2007, Lohan served a gruelling 84 minutes …
I was shocked, SHOCKED to discover that the law applies to me.
Slightly reminiscent of the way in which the politicians reacted during the expenses scandal - well said ^_^
It's a pity she wasn't given a proper prison sentence the first time around. Anyone who drives under the influence of drink (or drugs) should be locked up for a year for the first offence, and at least three years and a lifetime driving ban for a second offence.
one more time and its the third strike. no ?
...says it all, really.
You should go to prison forever for that. Why Oh Why do people always ask what the IT angle is in goddamn Bootnotes, the non-IT section of the site? I may have to kill you. Where's my tea, dammit?
Sarah, are you sure you're not just getting trolled?
IT Angle? Not necessary; its fun bootnotes. I thought the OP referring to 'it' (IT) people like SParis (Spare Us) Hilton? And other IT socialites?
Perhaps we need a Socially Homogenised IT person icon? (because lets face it, most of the so called social IT people are homogeneously terrible).
Why not remove the icon? And replace it with a Playmobil one.
Is there a way of disabling Bootnotes (or other sections if necessary) from appearing in the list of stuff shown?
I seem to recall a few days back you asking us not to draw ridiculous comparisons between mildly annoying IT incidents and real life horrific events (Apple and Nazis I think were mentioned).
So now you're proposing lifetime prison for asking questions... Pot / kettle, glass houses / stones etc...
Also : Threatening murder could well get you investigated by Cheshire police (or whoever thought a slightly jokey tweet was an actual terrorist threat against an airport and fined that poor idiot)
Don't encourage us! Or, live with the consequences.
Especially the ones who, after ten effing years of Bootnotes, insist on clicking on headlines with little evident IT interest, then whining like children because the content doesn't meet their particular standards.
For the record, it's a big red kill button (marked "ODFO") which appears in the El Reg comments moderation interface. Once pressed, it asks: "Do you really want to cast this tiresome, sanctimonious little prick into the fires of hell?"
If you respond "yes", a virtual console appears with two touchscreen thumb print readers. Two authorised individuals must present their biometric credentials simultaneously, after which the offending commentard is banished from Vulture Central and removed from our Xmas card list.
The confirmation screen advises: "Commentard terminated. Return to moderation or pour stiff drink?"
That's pretty technological if you ask me. Maybe it's got an IP address so we can all watch her alcohol levels on a website?
I'm just glad to see Mr. Haines' takes greater care writing his rants than his articles.
Yes, it's called "reading". I know the text is slightly smaller, but it is directly above the heading you've just read. I'm assuming you're clicking on article headings as your brain parses them, as opposed to some sort of random link mashing process.
"I'm just glad to see Mr. Haines' takes greater care writing his rants than his articles."
Rogue apostrophe there - my finger is hovering over the ODFO button as we speak...
I got very very scared and wondered just what this "disablement" consisted of. Banishment seems ok, compared with some of the "snooker ball in sock" treatments I envisioned..
But carry on. I would even go so far as to replacing the "stop" icon with an "odfo" equivalent for us mere mortals to enjoy.
PS - removing the "where's the IT angle" icon wouldn't even slightly deter these commentards, I'd imagine.
my christmas card seems to be missing....
You could do with some vodka in that tea :)
My drink seems to be missing.
Shouldn't that read "Return to moderation AND pour stiff drink?"
This is what I get for actually working. I miss out on the good threads.
While the ability to show/hide individual sections/authors etc would be a cool feature, you can also use the alternate method: don't use the front page of the site. Use the individual sections. Or set up different RSS feeds per section, rather than using the global RSS feed. Then you just don't add bootnotes.
In the meantime, I’d not anger the lady Bee. Between her and Lester there’s two thumbs available for commenttard termi*kzert*
All I asked was if there was a way of not showing Bootnotes in the main list, I thought it was a reasonable request, no need to go all wrist slashing, emo teenager like.
Geeze, you need to switch to decaf matey.
Well, I do have Reg as a RSS in the Firefox toolbar, but no, that wasn't where I meant, I meant when I go to El'Reg homepage, have a customisable selection of what I want to see more of, shown, and what I couldn't give a flying fart about not shown.
It's not unreasonable, it's not a purposeful slight on the obviously delicate frame of minded contributors, just a personal preference, no need for all the OTT fanboi ninja routine.
I saw this briefly in the Metro this morning and refused to read it as it wouldn't compare to the brilliant journalism that would be applied by you guys. I've refused to read anything else this morning.
Should point out that she hasn't broken her 84 minutes record yet though - she could well be let go after 20 minutes again!
That is all.
... They fit monitoring tags to your ankles in the US that check for drinking? Fucking Hell!
Stop - because the US gets scarier everyday and the UK gov. always follows.
The Uk gubbermint already puts electronic tags on certain offenders to monitor their location remotely. These anklets do the same thing but record the level of alcohol in the wearers skin and sweat.
see title deduct yourself !
Yeah that one shocked me when I first heard about it only a few weeks ago. Its called SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring). It works by "estimates the blood alcohol content of the wearer by measuring the ethanol concentration of their perspiration" ... when I first heard about it I was like, WTF?! ... so its location tracking and Alcohol Monitoring.
Its shocking how far Big Brother technology is going and we don't even get to hear about some of it until its a high profile case (and I'm interested in technology so I look out for new technology) so it makes me wonder how many non-technical people are failing to see even just a small fraction of what is increasingly happening.
Its getting very Orwellian.
Plus stopping people drinking is failing to stop *why* they drink (and people like Lohan don't just drink for fun, its to stop herself thinking about things she doesn't want to think about). When people are this badly messed up by their troubling thoughts, they need serious professional help otherwise they will end up killing themselves with drink. So all this Orwellian crap is just so wrong, plus it won't stop her seeking out drugs to do the same effect and then they will bring out even more Orwellian bio monitoring technology to catch drugs etc... and still its failing to actually help the person. (Unfortunately the people like her often don't help themselves as they try to stay away from help as they try to stay away from thinking about what they don't want to think about). So sadly their behaviour is a vicious circle.
Here's the link:
What happens if, as is wont to happen 'round here, some bastard spills his beer down your leg and into your shoes while trying to limbo under your chair?  Will you automagically be transferred to prison for externally applied ethanol...?
0: Yeah, it's a kinda weird 'hood...
She did not have to wear that booze anklet - she could have just gone straight to jail - she had that choice.
About professional help: maybe that's why the court wanted her to attend alcohol education classes. Now the court are really helping her because she will be attending those classes in jail, without the distractions of well paid work, film festivals and the like.
She was ordered to undergo councilling and attend AA meetings. She basically didnt do that by missing 9 appointments in 6 months. That is why she is going to jail...
She was let off when a large number of normal people woudl have been imprisoned. She was ordered to stop drinking and to go and talk to the people that can help her with her other issues. She didnt.
So right now, my sympathy levels for her are at about the same as her blood alcohol levels will be for the next 90 days...
Its cheaper to employ a SCRAM than it is to incarcerate an individual. It also allows the courts to put a step in place between a first warning and a more severe jail time.
The point of the monitor is to give the individual a chance to show that they are capable of reform prior to heading to jail/prison.
This isn't Orwellian, but that our government is looking for a cheaper solution to a problem. You can refuse the SCRAM, but the alternative is jail time. What would you do?
>>"The point of the monitor is to give the individual a chance to show that they are capable of reform prior to heading to jail/prison.
But she wasn't convicted of being drunk and incapable, or drunk and disorderly, but of driving while under the influence.
The difference between her and most law-abiding citizens is not that she drank, but that she decided to drive after she had drunk. That seems to be the thing that most needs changing.
Is the abstinence from alcohol supposed to be treatment, or part of the punishment, or what?
Unless someone is going to be ordered to be abstinent for life, isn't it a bit hypocritical of them to go to AA meetings when it's highly likely that their abstinence is temporary, and not their own choice?
"Hi, I'm Lindsay, and it will be 6 months and 2 days until I have my next drink."
I love a happy ending
Can we now refer to her as the
"Besheckled thespiatrix ...."
... that she's got a lot of money. Which she probably has. Carry on!
Sorry the news shocked me so much I contracted irritable vowel syndrome - should have read
About time these celebrities paid for their crimes like the rest of us would have to.
Now, about that numpty Pete Doherty...
Yep, this story fits right in with the mantra of "The Register". Oh I forgot, LL is wearing a techy device so I guess IT qualifies her as fodder for this site. Works for me.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough. She'll serve three weeks if that much and she'll be segregated from other inmates. What a piece of work.
Pasis because even she knows to stay away from LL. Or at least out of sight.
Remember how they pathetically pampered that one instead of sending her ass to jail? I do:
like her crimes are really serious!
Unlike those of the poor misunderstood corrupt Wall St and City bankers that shafted the economy. They are the main reason why kids wont be getting that new school building, your hospital wont be getting that much needed MRI scanner and sqaddies in Afghanistan wont be getting the kit they desperately need.
But thats OK because they have locked up Lindsay which makes me feel much better. Isn't it great to see justice in action.
Whilst i agree that bankers should be sent to porridge (with perhaps a few drawn and quartered for educational (and entertainment) purposes), saying that she didnt deserve to go to Jail is bollocks.
She drove under the influence not onced but twice! She put the lives of a lot of other people at severe risk. Hell the first time she was so drunk or high she drove into a hedge! She deserved a pinstriped jump suit the first time but she was given a suspended sentence with a whole bunch of rules to follow. She's broken those rules so now she goes to the big house. Justice for her crimes is served.
Just because someone else committed a different crime doesnt make her crime any better.
The two crimes are soooooo far apart. Most parents would tell you that a child is priceless if under threat from a DUI driver.
And while there are bankers who have some responsibility for the cash, let's not forget that £750BN of the £950BN UK defecit has been caused by the mismangement by the Labour administration.
Not that I particularly care about LL. But a reality check is long overdue for most celebs. Worth learning that "I was trying to do what you asked" doesn't cut it with the law - you either do it or you don't, and if you don't then you'd better clear your calendar for a bit.
Do or do not, there is no try.
Yogie somebody or other