If I broke both legs, I would ask doctors to set the bones a little bit further apart than they used to be, so that when they healed, I would be taller. It wouldn't work if they only extended one leg, of course, so if I had to stay in hospital while one leg healed, I would almost certainly ask them to break the other one too.

I've never broken a bone in my life despite being in many situations where it should have happened, so I have some abnormal bone density and I suppose if you tried I'd just beat the shit out of you to the point I could restrain you.

>I'd probably have to move out and live with my parents for at least a year.

Bones don't take that long to heal - you'd be laid up for no more than eight weeks even if it was a fairly bad break. If you only broke one leg you should be able to get around fairly well on crutches. You'd be entitled to statutory sick pay and housing benefit, so even if you had to move in with your parents for a bit you should still be able to cover your rent.

I'd rather break both my legs than both my arms. A mate of mine fell off a wall when he was drunk and his mum had to wipe his arse for six weeks. Best thing that ever happened to him TBH, it was the wake-up call he needed to sort his fucking life out.

"That's not a threat", he said, while posting the accompanying image.

I was crippled for about a year when i tore most of the ligaments in one of my knees clean in half. It was a interesting lesson in what one takes for granted.

What was intersting as a counter point is how much nicer everyone else was to me. It was like I stepped through a portal into another world where people would go out their way for me. I wonder if that is how the world is to pretty girls all the time.

>>442889
Just protecting the place, mate. Wouldn't want anything to happen to this place when Purps is hosting off his work sever would we.

>>442890
Did you make up a story to impress the girls?

>>442895

Didn't need to. It was a rock climbing accident.

might have left out the part where it was a indoor gym in Hackney though

>>442889

If I posted an image with the words "I will poison you and consume your corpse to commit the most unique suicide via cannibalism", would you actually feel threatened by it?

Because that would be silly.

>>442932
Hypothetically, if I wanted to commit the most unique suicide, I would headbutt a landmine.
>Quick and painless
>Theatrical and visually impressive
>No external assistance required
>Hard to get wrong, as long as you're holding the landmine in your hands and smash it into your head like a dinner plate
>Extremely macho headbutt, wow, so brave
>One less landmine in the world, meaning I simultaneously get to save a Cambodian child

>>442957
My (hypothetical) choice is buying an illegal handgun and blowing my brains out. There are less risky ways to kill yourself and ones much easier but it takes sufficient effort to acquire an illegal firearm that I'd be sure of my action.

The challenge will be in convincing the Mancunian drug dealer that I merely want to own such a weapon for ideological reasons and ensuring it's of a sufficient calibre to do the job rather than cripple me. This is one of those thoughts nobody ever talks about because everyone would react badly but one with a safeguard where fucking it up would potentially lead to one of my hells as a deterrent.

Sorry to further derail, but I've always remembered the impractical advice of renting a convertible, top down, then rig some sort of device to decapitate you after supergluing your hand to your head. Piano wire along the road at head height was suggested but I don't see how that wouldn't also tear your arm off, ruining the effect.

Ultimately the goal is to be driving down the street with your decapitated head being held in your hand.

>>442961

That's a bash.org quote that someone's turned into a car thing for whatever reason autophiles do what they do.
http://bash.org/?488793

>>442962
Ahh, yeah I couldn't remember where I'd read it. Odd punt on the autophile thing but all I remembered was an element of speed had to be involved. Forgot it was from falling.

I watched this mad film once where this young lad who's an enbalmer rigs up an elaborate machine so he can take out most of his organs and begin to preserve himself before this mechanical arm swings around to cut off his arm and behead him. It was magnificently grim.

>>442963
There's an episode of The Simpsons where Snake tries to decapitate Homer using wire when he's driving. Instead, it cuts off Milhouse's dad's arm. I assume that's what you're thinking of, because it's certainly what I thought of.

>Malian woman gives birth to nine babies
https://www.reuters.com/article/mali-nonuplets/malian-woman-gives-birth-to-nine-babies-idUSL1N2MR2ST

How fucked would you be if you found yourself with nine babies? I don't even know where to begin with that kind of challenge, presumably you can't keep some and put others up for adoption but I imagine state and family support can only stretch so far. Do they even have council houses big enough?

>>443592
I don't think they have council houses in Mali.

I'm not saying I regret having children, but I think my life would be a lot better if I didn't have them.

>>443593
>I don't think they have council houses in Mali.

Yeah but we're talking about what if you found out you had 9 kids. That seems like an impossible amount even if you didn't have them all at once, what could you possibly do?

>>443592
>presumably you can't keep some and put others up for adoption
Why not?

>>443594
Keith Mcdonald has at least 15 children.

>>443596
That article says he gets (£68.95+£44.00=£112.95) a week bennies and no other income but of that pays £5 per child, at 15 that's £75 leaving him with £37.95 per week to live on. This seems unlikely.

>>443596
You can only get paid child benefit for two sprogs now.

>>443597
At the time of that image in 2011 he had 10 kids, with the eleventh on the way. The latest I can see is from 2015:

>Mum has Sunderland Shagger’s 16th child

https://www. Please ban me/archives/news/238176/i-fell-for-britains-worst-dad/

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>443602
Get a grip mods, he was on topic.

>>443603
If they're going to ban the Mail, they should really include all online tabloids. But where's the fun in that?

Reading the Daily Mail is valuable, I believe. It tells you a lot about what 'Middle England' is thinking.

It was a ban for linking to The Sun; as bad as The Mail is, I don't think they'd use "Sunderland Shagger" as a subheading.

I was fully expecting that ban. At least we've stopped the mods from their power trip of banning people for simply visiting Mail Online.

The problem with banning specific newspapers is it implies other newspapers are beyond reproach. We can safely assume that the mods believe The Mirror, The Daily Express, The Telegraph, The Times, etc. are all exemplar examples of journalism that should be posted here more, if anything.

It's also insulting to our intelligence, as though .gs is too stupid to not be taken in by any obvious bullshit they print that we need to be protected from it.

>>443606
That's the argument against censorship in any capacity.

>>443606
Just because someone tells you not to eat literal shit doesn't mean you're being forced to eat anything else.

Hypothetically speaking; what would happen if the mods didn't ban links to certain newspapers?

>>443610
It basically meant we'd end up with threads taking the piss out of articles like the one about 'Tiger Wives' from a few years back.

https://www.däilymäil.co.uk/femail/article-6111343/March-Tiger-Wives-Thats-women-ruthlessly-micro-manage-husbands-careers.html

I post in another online community where I fucking wish the moderators would ban Daily Mail links, but they refuse to do so because they are committed to impartial moderation. It was never too bad of a problem here because the Mail is a known quantity to us; your political stance doesn't matter, you still understand that the Mail is some of the most cancerous tabloid brain rot ever committed to print.

The trouble over there however is that Yanks are constantly posting shite from it without a hint of awareness that 99% of what's written in it is outright bollocks. When you try to point this out to them, they don't want to hear it because of confirmation bias. It's really weird actually. They get that Fox News is a reactionary propaganda mouthpeice, they understand Russia Today is not to be trusted, they'd even take the Guardian with a pinch of salt. But the Daily Mail? Totally unbiased and accurate bastion of modern journalism.

>>443610

The site would be a worse place to be. Hypothetically.

>>443613

I come here for the cunt offs. If anything an open door on the mail might spice up my life.

>>443613
That depends on whether you're a snowflake. Hypothetically.

>>443615

Snowflakism comes in many forms, including whinging on the internet that you're not allowed to post links to a shitrag on a three-user imageboard.

>>443618
You seem triggered.

>>443620

It's really embarrassing that you're using these phrases. What happened to just telling me I'm having a teary?

>>443621
Having a teary was always shit. Never a patch on trolled to tears or ape-like fists.

>>443622
Well done, you're a cretinous inchworm.

>>443623
Have a fuckin' whinge there, cuz.

>>443634
n1 m8 dem 2 wont no wot hit em

>>443635
Go and have an angry wank.

>>443636
Bet you'd like that, cuntbubble.

If arseholes and nose holes swapped places, would everyone pick their arsehole when nobody is looking or reach to their bum noseholes?

>>446083
Yes.

>>446083
I do both anyway. The only trouble would be if I got the order mixed up.

>>446095

Have you ever picked your nose with one hand and picked your arsehole with the other at the same time? It's a very odd feeling but I think ultimately it brings you closer to oneness with your own body.

Would you eat something massively revolting if you were promised a six-figure sum of money?

How about a creal bowl full of live, non-venomous spiders. Or eat someone's poo while they are watching. Or rotting meat from a supermarket skip in summer that's crawling with maggots. Would £100,000 in cash, yours to keep, make up for that kind of horror, and possibly a hospital stay for food poisoning?

>>446108

I think you might enjoy the show "Fear Factor" from the olden days. I hear the presenter is doing a radio show now or something.

>>446109
You've got this in my head now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuDxo-fbW9c

>>446108
In some cases yes, but not in all cases. I'd probably lick a scrotum for ten grand to be honest, but I wouldn't eat even one spider for ten times that.

>>446108

I don't think I'd be physically capable of eating live spiders, and I wouldn't do anything that might give me something nasty - I honestly wouldn't eat poorly stored cooked rice for that sort of money.

Boil those spiders up and we have a deal, though.

>>446108
I think you're overestimating how easy it would be to get the spiders into a bowl, let alone eat them from it.

But no, I don't think I would. I humilate myself all under my own steam quite often enough, so I'd probably just physically attack the person "offering" me this gambit and see how far I'd take that. I might kill them, probably not, but I don't know, I'm really not in the mood to be propositioned in this way.

>>446113

That's a good point. I would definitely kill someone for 100k, especially if it was just a "press this button and they die" type deal, but even if it was an actual hitman scenario, I'd give it a good go.

Given the choice between a bowl of spiders and murdering someone, the latter seems preferable, which is probably something I need to examine about myself.

>>446108
Yes. I might balk at being filmed or going through an application process but that's a lot of money and would make a real material difference in my life for what is just a physical dare of limited risk to my own life. I would have to draw the line at anything involving heights though.

If it's one of those Arab princes wanting his Doberman to knot my girlfriend then yeah, I'll join you lads in setting him on fire.

>>446113
That raises another point in this scenario, that I wouldn't trust the person making me an offer. If someone said "here drink my piss lmao" then £4000 right now would be plenty. But I still wouldn't do it, because there's no way I would trust them to actually pay me. They're just playing around to humiliate me. If they think so little of me to make such an offer, they don't respect me enough to pay up when I do it. Any offer like that, honestly, would be seen as an actual offer of zero because it's just a scam and they won't pay me.

>>446108

>>446114
I never said I was attacking them under the assumption I would make any money that way.

>>446123

I know, I just want to put it out there to the millionaires of .gs that I'm willing to kill for them, for the right price.

>>446114

>I would definitely kill someone for 100k, especially if it was just a "press this button and they die" type deal, but even if it was an actual hitman scenario, I'd give it a good go


I guess apart from where you stand morally on just killing an innocent person at random, it depends on how much you value your freedom, and how you figure the likelihood of getting caught and spending if not your entire life in prison, then at least a substantial part of it until early release.

Let's just say at some point you do get caught. Maybe a year or two later. If your main goal is to get back to your 100 grand plus interest when you get out of prison, then that's going to be difficult because your money will probably be taken from you after you're convicted, in accordance with the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act. So your only chance is to hide that money, which also means you won't be able to invest it in a conventional kind of way with an ISA or stocks or property, because even if it wasn't confiscated after your murder trial, it would probably raise red flags under anti-money laundering legislation, and you'd again lose your 100 grand.

So you would have to hide the money somewhere in cash before you go to prison. With an average 2.5 percent UK inflation, after an early release after 15 years, your 100 grand will be equivalent to £69,046 in today's money. Not a good deal.

So the only way realistically to have £100K cash plus interest fifteen years in the future that nobody can take away from you is not killing anybody, and personal savings combined with a highly frugal lifestyle. Suppose you have a net income of somewhere around £25K from your current job. If you move into a bedsit, avoid all but the most necessary expenses for daily food and drink and clothing for 15 years and just do your job day in, day out, your quality of life will still be infinitely higher than being locked up in prison, and you should have no problem putting aside, and investing wisely enough money to end up with more than £100K plus fifteen years' interest.

Failing that, your biggest utility from the money you get for killing somebody will be to spend it all on hookers and cocaine blow through all of it before you get caught.

>>446126
What you so correctly highlight is that it is very easy to commit crimes, but very difficult to launder and access the proceeds. The Financial Services Act, the banks, are doing the work we most often think of the police doing.

>>446126
Can I walk into a bank a drop £9k into my personal account without having anyone locking me up immediately?

I would do that at 10 different banks. Open an account and drop £9k. I would go home and clear it out buying Bitcoin or whatever.

>>446127

In a lot of industries, large cash payments are no longer accepted, because of how much they have traditionally attracted attempts to launder money. You'll probably struggle to find an estate agent who will set up a deal with a seller where you just bring a briefcase full of cash. Likewise if you go to a luxury car dealership. Nobody wants to be an accessory to money laundering, because aside from substantial fines for not complying with the Money Laundering, daft militant wog Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations of 2017, it can mean that you will never sell a house or a luxury car again.

>>446128
No. £9k is way over the limit for Suspicious Activity Reports.

Surely £1000 a month would be okay? Just give yourself a raise. Set up a company and charge the millionaire for unspecified "consultancy services" if you must. Criminals launder money all the time; it cannot possibly be that hard.

On a side note, I recall reading somewhere that real-life hitmen aren't usually James Bond badasses at all, but low-level gangsters from the pub who really are being paid to just take the punishment more than anything else. One of those people, in real life, would probably kill someone for you for a fraction of £100,000.

>>446131

You'd still have a murder investigation hanging over your head regardless of how well you obfuscate the source and the purpose of the £1,000. And then when it all unravels, you will have to answer both for murder and for money laundering.

>>446130
What is the limit? I am sure I could open more bank accounts.

How about I use my savings to buy a literal laundromat? I could launder the money through there, and maybe even keep the shop if it is making me a profit.

>>446126
I've often thought about this in terms of if I found a bag stuffed with cash one day. Obviously I'm not going to prison due to the long cited case of Finder v. Keepers but you'd probably want to avoid any awkward questions anyway.

My reckoning is your strategy is to use the cash to top-up a frugal standard of living. Pay with cash for the hairdresser but make sure you have some hair clippers in the house, do a fair amount of shopping at car boots and sometimes be seen selling stuff so it looks like you're just good at it. Go to charity shops for clothes and actually pay with cash at proper clothes shops.

>>446134

>How about I use my savings to buy a literal laundromat?

Curiously, that is exactly how money laundering first entered the language. None other than Al Capone ran a chain of laundry businesses in 1930s Chicago to launder ill-gotten gains.

>>446134
I'm not going to tell you the legal limit. Sorry. It varies by bank and given the amount of automation we use, it's super easy to spot people flouting the rules, whatever it is. But you're way off at £9k; for most banks, maybe a third of that.

Laundromat is okay, but they don't make enough money - your bank woud be checking that you deposited coins rather than cash. Until recently, minicab companies, takeaway food shops or nail/hair bars were the most common retail ways of laundering money - but everyone pays by contactless/card now, so even if you set one of those busineses up and started paying in lots of pound notes, you would soon attract the attention of any AML team.

>>446134

That's exactly how it's done. Ever wonder why there's some takeaways that don't really seem to have many customers and yet never close?

I knew some people who sold some not legal things back in the day, it's not particularly hard to hide some money if you're patient and clever, but most dealers tend to be neither, and if they are, the money quickly gets out of hand.

There's ways to still stay under the radar, but you inevitably end up having to work with other organised crime elements, and if you ask me, the real risk in that whole game is other people. If there was a way to sell drugs truly solo, I think I'd be doing it.

>>446138

Oh, completely forgot the point of my post, which is that crypto does help, a bit. But not enough to make it foolproof.

>>446134
>How about I use my savings to buy a literal laundromat? I could launder the money through there
Just be careful to use a cold wash otherwise it'll ruin the plastic in the notes.

>>446137
>I'm not going to tell you the legal limit.
Well you're no fun, are you?

There isn't a threshold in the UK, partly because the same regime is used for terror finance as money laundering, and partly to avoid precisely the structuring of payments below such a threshold.

>>446135

Gambling winnings are not subject to tax. Casinos are subject to money laundering regulations, but bookmakers aren't. Unless you do something stupid, it's very hard to prove that you're a money launderer rather than a lucky punter.

>>446137

About a year ago, before we got her finances in order, I had to pay for some things for my grandma, and then take the money back from her by way of visiting the cash machine every day and withdrawing the maximum, which I think was £300 at the time. It was around eight grand, in the end.

Would that have triggered any alarms, do you think? About halfway though, the machine ate my card and money and told me to talk to the manager, which I did and she just explained a receipt or something had made it into the machine and confused it. She never produced the receipt, which I thought was a bit odd at the time but didn't really care. I did wonder briefly if that was some sort of test, but then again I'm quite sure the best way to catch a money launderer is to not tip them off as soon as they've put 3 grand in cash in their account.

I have a friend who worked in casinos for a long time, apparently that's either the best or worst way to launder cash, depending on how you do it.

>>446139
Crypto is all well and good but it's getting harder to find decent ways to get real money in and out of the system unless you're running both a printing scam and a crooked exchange. Many banks now won't even let you buy crypto at all and if you're regularly running something like Monero to Bitcoin to real money through an exchange that's doing KYC and AML properly they're likely to put a stop to it. You could instead use an exchange that doesn't do KYC and AML, but whichever bank you're using will probably SAR that shit if the exchange doesn't go poof and run away with your money and/or coins first.

I always thought selling used cars is probably a great way to launder money, be it opening an actual car dealer or just flipping bangers privately, nobody is ever going to raise an eyebrow at someone buying a Volvo for a few grand in cash, and I doubt there's much suspicious in paying 5 grand for a car that's usually worth 3, say - it's a volatile market. Every car you sell legitimately, you could just add a bit of your dirty money to the sale, right? Some dealers don't even give you a real receipt.

>>446141
>>446142
For a casino, could you not simply buy some chips, randomly roam around the floor for a bit, hang out near busy tables, and then cash out? Surely nobody's going to notice unless they specifically follow you on the CCTV and pay careful attention to the fact that you haven't actually used the chips.

>>446144
Given the current shortage of cars and the knock-on effect that's having on the used car market, now would be an ideal time to do this.

>>446145

>Surely nobody's going to notice unless they specifically follow you on the CCTV and pay careful attention to the fact that you haven't actually used the chips.

It's someone's entire job to do basically that. Casinos are bound by law to report any suspicious activity, and those activities are defined pretty clearly. Most, if not all casinos will already track your gambling anyway, as a matter of business, and if you cash out more than two grand they have to record the circumstances of your winnings. You're always, always being watched in a casino, and everyone who works there knows just how easily they could have charges brought against them if they ignored, or failed to notice, your suspicious activity.

There are definitely ways to use a casino for laundering, but walking the floor with chips that never see a table is the worst possible way of attempting it.

>>446148

The thing is all this very strict and stringent AML regulation stuff is all pretty much hypothetical in reality.

I've worked for the betting arm of a certain major broadcaster, as well as the consumer credit arm of a certain large bank, so I've had a couple of jobs where I was forced to sit through several day's worth of training to get that stuff through my head. What occurred to me both times is that it was an awful lot like 'Elf n Safety laws. They're there to prevent liability, not to prevent it happening.

I'm sure high stakes venues like casinos are a lot more on the ball with it, but I really doubt it has anything to do with facing the wrath of the law. Probably a bit more like that one with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

>>446145

Modern casino chips have RFID tracking tags embedded in them for security purposes. Tracking all their chips all the time allows casinos to instantly detect theft and counterfeit chips. As a side effect, they get vast amounts of data on player activity. Somewhere in the bowels of the back office, a server will know precisely how much you wagered (or didn't wager). If you try that scheme with more than a few hundred pounds worth of chips, you'll instantly trigger an AML report.

>>446149

Tell that to Billy Hills:

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/william-hill-to-pay-gbp6-2m-penalty-package-for-systemic-social

>>446149
>pretty much hypothetical in reality

It absolutely isn't. I work in a bank and get all the same training; I've also worked in an AML/KYC department of a very well known ecommerce site. In that role I was, briefly, personally liable for any financial crime on that site - they chuck the fucking book at you if you mess around.

Look at some of the fines banks have had recently (eg HSBC).

>>446151

KYC, "know your customer", is indeed an important part of AML regulation. In short, you have to not only establish and store personal info on your customer as to their identity and their motivation to spend or keep money with you, but if your customer is a business or a corporation, you also have to work out who owns that company, and who are the beneficiaries of its profits.

And then if you believe you have spotted suspicious activity in dealing with that client, you have to report the attempted money laundering or militant daft woggery financing behind your client's back to UKFIU, who will take it from there. Failure to secretly report suspicious activity can result in substantial fines either against your employer or you as an employee.

It means a lot of additional paperwork, and the larger your company, the more you have to have organisational structures in place that do nothing else all day. As a small business, you will get away with either doing it all yourself or naming one of your four or five employees who will be responsible on top of their usual daily work. But I guess it's for a common good, because any ease of money laundering promotes organised crime, it means lost tax revenue, and it's an unfair advantage towards competitors who stay within the law.

>>446152

Are you telling me Paddy Power has an MI5 dossier on ever Stever, Daz and Gaz who bets there?

>>446162
Yep.

>>446162

Not really. But they keep your name and personal info, and keep tabs on how much money you win or lose.

I'm not sure online casinoes are a good way to launder money though. At least not for the end consumer. The risk of losing large chunks of your illegal money is just too high.

"Real" casinoes, on the other hand, have always been a great way for organised crime to launder its proceeds. Especially in places like pre-revolution Cuba, with a corrupt military government looking the other way and the Mafia itself owning and operating dozens of casinoes up and down the island. There were lorry loads of cash money flown in from the U.S. to be laundered and turned into legitimate profits.

Say you wanted to raise a child to not be bullied or be a bully: Is it just a matter of making sure they have close friends to watch out for each other and to teach them how to behave towards others? Would you send them to summer camps to build independence and self-confidence?

I'd say that it might also be worth thinking about the school but then everyone I've met who went to a good public school described it as a place of horrible bullying and constant fights.

>>446658

Lesson 1: Life isn't fair. It'd be nice if it was, but it isn't. People do bad things and get away with it, people do good things without being rewarded. Your job in life is to try and avoid as much of that unfairness as possible and try to make things fairer when you can. Sometimes you need to push back against unfairness, sometimes you need to just accept it, but you won't always get it right and there will always be consequences.

Lesson 2: Some people are just horrible bastards. They might have a good reason to be a horrible bastard, but they take pleasure in making other people miserable and can't be reasoned with. In your adult life you'll usually be able to avoid horrible bastards most of the time, but in school you're just stuck with them, so treat it as an opportunity to practice dealing with them.

Lesson 3: Getting your head kicked in or getting a massive bollocking isn't the end of the world. The fear is almost always worse than the reality. Fighting for no good reason is stupid, but being willing to fight even if you expect to lose makes you far more powerful than someone who will always back down.

Lesson 4: There is nothing that bastards fear more than solidarity. Help people, help people to help people, bring people together in common purpose and you can do incredible things. When you stick up for other people, you give them the courage to stick up for you. That doesn't mean they always will, some people are just selfish bastards (so learn to spot them), but you can't expect someone to have your back if you don't have theirs.

Lesson 5: Dignity is priceless, but it has a cost. You'll often have to choose between doing the easy thing and the right thing. If you always do the easy thing, you'll turn into a snivelling wretch and you won't be able to look yourself in the mirror. If you always do the right thing, you'll get ground down by life. Do the right thing when you can and the easy thing when you have to. Don't be a martyr and don't confuse dignity with pride.

>>446660
All well and good but how do you teach a child these things.

>>446658
You have to be around for the kid, listen to their concerns and take them seriously as and when they come up. There's no training course you can devise for them that'll be able to account for the events in their life ahead of time.

>>446661

One day at a time. If you're having meaningful conversations about what's happening in their life, there'll be plenty of opportunities to discuss the issues and impart a basic framework of pragmatic morality.

It's not rocket science, but we usually fail to take children seriously. We see their problems as trivial, without considering that the way they deal with those trivial problems will shape them for life. We offer them vacuous platitudes and tell them what we wish was true, because we lack the courage to be honest. We forget how turbulent childhood can be, how momentous small things can seem to a child.

>>446660

There is another lesson that is often overlooked: bullies and bastards DO NOT LIKE FIGHTING. I know, it is counterintuitive but please bear with me. Bullies love to bully, but only towards soft targets. As soon as a bully notices that the target is willing, able, and perhaps eager to hurt him the bully will lose interest and find a softer target. This is valid even in cases when the bully would win: what's the point in going through a fight when there are targets that will take the beating and submit?

This lesson will be very useful in the future: by marking yourself as an "hard target" you will save yourself the vast majority of unwelcome attentions.

>>446664

This is correct. As someone was bullied quite harshly until I flipped and brayed a kid on the bus, I wish my parents had given me one simple lesson. If someone's giving you shit, don't be afraid the thump the cunt straight in the lugs. It all stopped overnight after that, it was a thing to behold.

It's not a very morally complex lesson, but if you want to make sure a kid doesn't get bullies that's the one that actually matters.

Obviously don't teach them it's okay to go throwing their weight around; but the advice teachers and TV shows and prevailing nicey nicey middle class ideals give you are absolutely categorically wrong. Running to the teachers won't get you anywhere a vast majority of the time, but standing up for yourself will stop it before it even begins.

>>446729

Every time I spoke with a child psycho or a school counselor, she always told me to be nice, to smile, and to ignore or appease them. I wonder if it is a way for the professional to legally cover her ass if the child ends up sending the bully to the ER. Probably it is just because psychologists (and women in general) tend to have a soft spot for bullies. Whenever I stood up to bullies I was disciplined harshily, while bullies always got excused and cuddled.

>>446752

>ass
>ER

Tut tut, yanklad.

>>446729
I have a similar story from year 4, where a lass at school was ruthlessly teasing me, so I twatted her in the temple with my forefinger and middle finger in a karate chop fashion. It did not occur to me until much later in life that she might have been flirting with me.

I wonder if there are any instances where a teacher absolutely battered a bully. It must have happened, but I can't think of one. Maybe teachers have a special omerta where they don't report each other. Or maybe they do get reported, and only the Daily Express reports on it to cheer and praise our brave murderous school heroes for defending truth and justice.