A Watery Revenge
A few years ago I worked in an American summer camp as a lifeguard.

Most of the kids I encountered were OK but one of them, Clinton, was an evil, 16 year-old, waste of chromosomes who took great pleasure in bitching, moaning, and winding up members of staff about anything that didn’t go his way.

Every couple of days, we’d take the kids swimming at the nearby lake. Two lifeguards would stand up to their chests/ necks in the water. This was obviously pretty boring and cold and our job was only made even more boring and cold by arsehole kids (like Clinton) swimming around us under the water and ‘accidentally’ splashing our faces by kicking hard as they swam by.

One day, I snapped and could no longer take Clinton’s incessant tomfoolery. As Clinton swam around me for the umpteenth time under the water, I waiting until he was directly in front of me and let go of the contents of my bladder, jetting out a warming piss-cloud of revenge all around the little ball bag. I'm sure that most normal people would have noticed, but so full was he of spiteful malevolence that he missed the tell-tale temperature change.

From then on Clinton couldn't touch me: whenever he tried to provoke a reaction from me, I could smile serenely in the knowledge that I’d had the last laugh with him none the wiser.

P.S. when I told the other camp lifeguards of what I'd done their first reaction was disgust. Their second was to get their own 'watery' revenge on whoever had the audacity to push them too far when swimming.
(jimmy spankhands, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 0:13, 39 replies)

click
I just peed myself as a mark of respect for your tale.
( SteamedCleaner, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 12:37, closed)

So he
really did take the piss out of you.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 12:55, closed)

You get a kick out of pissing on kids, do you?

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 22:43, closed)

you like peeing on kids?

( FIEND, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 22:47, closed)

If I'm reading this right then you are bragging about waving your willy at a child you are meant to be looking after.
Sad times.
( Neptune A dole queue dosser and foul mouthed chav., Mon 7 Feb 2011, 22:52, closed)

How is this not a police matter?
Or, as this is QOTW, you're above the law?
( Jam Master Geordie Hero of B3ta., Mon 7 Feb 2011, 22:53, closed)

As the story is set in America, I'm surprised he's not doing life right now.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 22:53, closed)

I wouldn't be surprised if the courts took the view that pissing on someone is objectively sexual
edit: in fact I went and looked it up.

If your story is true you are guilty of an offence under Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Obviously your offending is made more serious because the victim was a child.

Cases relied upon:
R -v- Bounekhla [2006] EWCA Crim 1217
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:04, closed)

I've no idea what the law is in the United States though
but since this story is a fabrication I don't suppose it matters.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:06, closed)

hahahaha o my god a proper citation
( vladimir, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:06, closed)

I didn't actually find out if pissing is objectively sexual
You've got the touching and the lack of consent, its really just a question of whether the touching was sexual in nature.

Either way he's guilty of an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a less serious offence but with serious aggravating features; the abuse of trust, the age of the victim, the intention to humiliate and degrade and acting out of vengeance.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:15, closed)

I'm pretty sure that pissing on a kid makes you a nonce.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:16, closed)

I'm almost certain that inside
they cut off your balls for pissing on a child.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:21, closed)

and the intention, don't forget the intention is clearly there, it can't be construed as a mistaken wee
I think there's some case or other giving precedent for touching of hair on head or cutting of hair on head of complainant as being sexual... I am sure you're right, dig through enough and there will be a nice A v B to back you up
( vladimir, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:25, closed)

Intention isn't in issue, this was a deliberate act.
I can't remember whether R -v- Heard (no relation to Mykeyboy) said that the intention was specifically sexual or whether any old touching would do.

I think you're getting the situation confused with Sir Igor Judge and Sir Peter Cresswell's baffling comments about haircutting and ABH.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:29, closed)

and I can't be arsed looking it up right now.

( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:30, closed)

This would be better if you were wearing your INTERNETLAWYERMAN costume.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:33, closed)

Not really.
Granted, dropping trou, presenting cock, and golden-showering a passing child might well be deemed inappropriate by many courts. Wetting yourself in the middle of a lake, possibly not quite so much.

By your (for want of a better word) logic, the mere existence of eproctophilia means that anyone farting in public should be summarily convicted of rape.


EDIT: I could only find one reference to the cited case, and whilst I wouldn't describe it as particularly reliable, it said the following: "Here the accused man "surreptitiously brings out his penis and ejaculates on a girl while dancing with her in a club"... he is found NOT GUILTY of sexual assult because there is no actual touching which is necessary for this crime". Nice work with all that 'looking up', then - if this is correct, you found an almost entirely dissimilar case, far worse in nature, which resulted in a 'not guilty' verdict.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:47, closed)

Regina v Samir Bounekhla

No: 200505970/A4

Court of Appeal Criminal Division

27 April 2006
[2006] EWCA Crim 1217
2006 WL 1635034

Before: Lord Justice Pill Mrs Justice Dobbs DBE Mr Justice Underhill

Thursday, 27th April 2006
Representation

* Mr J Hodivalla appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Judgment

Mr Justice Underhill:

1 On 20th September 2005 the appellant, who is aged 36, pleaded guilty at the Sheffield Magistrates' Court to four offences of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

2 The nature of the assault was substantially identical in all four cases. The appellant went to a nightclub and sought out a single woman to dance with. When they were dancing close, he surreptitiously took his penis out of his trousers (he was not wearing underwear) and ejaculated onto her clothing when pressed up against her. In each of the cases it took the victim a little while to realise what had happened and he had left before he was detected. He was arrested when he revisited one of the clubs and was recognised by staff there.

3 When the matter came before the Crown Court in Sheffield, it was appreciated that the first in time of the offences, the subject of count 1, was committed prior to the coming into force of the 2003 Act. It was accordingly treated as an offence of indecent assault which the appellant asked to have taken into consideration.

4 Of the remaining three offences, on counts 3 and 4 His Honour Judge Keen QC sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for public protection pursuant to section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with a minimum term of two and a half years. On count 2, which related to an offence committed prior to the coming into force of section 225, he sentenced the appellant to four years' imprisonment. All three terms were to run concurrently.

5 The appellant appeals against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

6 In his sentencing remarks the judge said this:

“Samir Bounekhla, you are 36 years of age and a person without previous convictions. I take that into account. It is inevitable that you receive a custodial sentence, and I reduce that because of your plea of guilty, which was at the very earliest opportunity.

But it is to be noted that when the police first saw you, you made no comment — as was your right — and that you only admitted these offences as a result of forensic evidence. Coupling the forensic evidence of DNA with the complaints by the four women in question, you plea of guilty was inevitable, and you had little choice but to enter it.

You, over a period of 18 months, on four occasions, deliberately set out to go to nightspots in this city, looking for victims with whom you could achieve an unlawful sexual satisfaction. You prepared yourself by not wearing any undergarments and then exposed your penis and pushed it against each of the women, without their consent, until you ejaculated. You displayed not only depravity, but also cunning and a complete lack of insight into what you were doing.

I have heard about all of your victims. They have been extremely distressed, and one them very badly damaged, as a result of your conduct.”

7 Those remarks succinctly summarise the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case. (We have been told that in fact it was not the appellant's practice ever to wear underwear, so that was not a special act of preparation; but that, even if accepted, is of marginal significance overall). The offences were not isolated. They were planned and premeditated. As the victim impact statements show, which we, like the judge, have seen, it is clear that these offences caused great distress.

8 It is convenient to start with the sentence of imprisonment for public protection. So far as that is concerned, the judge said:

“It is clear to me that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm being occasioned by you by the commission of further offences of this kind. Therefore, in respect of two of these matters I am going to impose … a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. What I am going to say is this: I would have imposed in respect of those matters a sentence of five years' imprisonment. But I am going to take account — as I must — of the early release date. Therefore, you will first become eligible for consideration of parole after two and a half years.”

9 It is not disputed that the judge was entitled to conclude that this was a case where a sentence under section 225 was necessary. Using the usual terminology, what he was doing in the passage quoted was to take a notional determinate term of five years concurrent for these two offences. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, as the judge acknowledged, and he was entitled to a full one third discount accordingly. (We note that in the passage which we quoted earlier the judge referred to the fact that the appellant had little choice but to plead guilty; but if on that account he gave him less than full discount, he was, with respect, wrong to do so.) Thus a notional determinate term of five years represents what would have been a sentence of seven and a half years in the event of conviction following a not guilty plea.

10 Mr Hodivalla, for the appellant, points out that that starting point is substantially in excess of the starting point of five years identified in Millberry [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 142 for an uncomplicated offence of rape, and even more substantially in excess of the starting point of four years for assault by penetration identified by this court in Attorney General's Reference No 104 of 2004 [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 117. He submitted that these offences were patently less serious than either rape or assault by penetration.

11 We accept that submission. The appellant's conduct, serious as it was, cannot in our view be equated with assault, or with assault by penetration. In our view, a starting point of seven and a half years cannot be justified.

12 Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the correct starting point would have been one of four and a half years, which after a full discount for the appellant's plea of guilty would produce a notional determinate sentence of three years and thus a minimum custodial period of 18 months, subject to any days spent in custody.

13 We then turn to count 2, which is the count to which section 225 did not apply. The judge in fact imposed a lower determinate sentence in respect of that count — four years — than the notional determinate sentence in relation to the later counts; no doubt, though he did not spell this out, to take account of the element of repetition which aggravated the later offences. We see nothing wrong with that course in principle, but it seems to us that the more straightforward course for us is to reduce the sentence on count 2 to the same figure as the notional determinate sentence term employed in counts 3 and 4, namely three years.

14 We therefore quash the sentences imposed by the judge and substitute the sentences which we have indicated.

15 We should mention for completeness that the appellant is an Algerian national and that the judge made a recommendation for deportation. That recommendation was not challenged before us.
( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 12:32, closed)

Just to clarify
1. I was winding the OP up
2. the case states the opposite of what you said
3. the Defendant pleaded guilty
4. Fuck off
( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 12:33, closed)

anyway, the point is moot
since this isn't really a sexual offence, just an assault.
As for your example of farting, its a different thing to fart and for people to smell it than it is to extrude liquid from your arse and get it to touch someone else.

A better example would be showering someone with shit without their permission. This again, is clearly an assault.

edit: I've changed my mind after having a think about this. I think Section 3 can be sustained.
( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 12:36, closed)

fair enough, I did freely point out that my source wasn't the most reliable. At least it got the nature of the offence right, which is clearly in an entirely different league to having a crafty slash in a pool. If it's assault, and not a sexual offence, why bring up Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act at all?

Throwing shit at someone would not be a better example, as throwing anything at another person is clearly assault (and a remarkably unpleasant one, in this instance). Urinating into a shared body of water and having it subsequently come into contact with someone else is substantially different from directing a jet of hot piss square into their face. Hence the farting analogy; both include bodily effluvia being released into the immediate enviroment, and subsequently being transported by the surrounding medium and coming into contact with others. So one's gas, one's liquid - that's only really a matter of temperature, anyhow.

I dare say a few of my turds have ended up in the ocean, in some form or another (not deposited directly, I hasten to add). Possibly, some people have swum in/near their watery remnants. If one believes in homeopathy, I've potentially doused a significant portion of the planet with highly diluted, and therefore extremely potent, poo-water. I honestly don't feel like I've done anything terribly wrong, but numberswise, this probably makes me worse than H...

...ah, no, Godwin ain't getting me.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 13:21, closed)

My intial thoughts were I can push for Section 3 with this.
Then I had a few doubts because I couldn't tell if the act is objectively sexual or not.
I've slept on it now and whilst the law is not completely clear, I think you could sustain a charge of Sexual Assault here, particularly given the insufficiency of sentencing available if a lesser offence were substituted.

If I were Defending this, my argument would be that the act was not objectively sexual and therefore needed a sexual motive, however, I think a court might well consider this objectively sexual.

A teacher, deliberately urinating on a child is pretty serious offending and I think Section 3 is appropriate.

My early example of 'showering someone with shit' was someone excreting on someone else, not throwing something, although this is totally irrelevant and both would count.

The only difference between urinating directly onto someone and urinating into water so that it touched them is that in one scenario the other person is aware of it, in our example the offending is if anything, more serious.

As for your turds ending up in the ocean, this is a question of intention. If you went to Blackpool and shat in the water next to a child you too would be guilty of the same offence.

Similarly, farting deliberately on someone is an assault, again the question is one of whether at law farting on someone is objectively sexual, I suspect that a court would almost certainly hold that it wasn't, I think we would all agree that farting is a different thing to urinating, is conducted in different places, has a different impact sociologically if used as the basis of an assault etc.

In conclusion, sorry to confuse you, I was flipflopping because the law isn't clear, but I'm now pushing for Section 3.
( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 15:54, closed)

This has shades of Speckled Jim...

Perhaps I've had a sheltered upbringing, but I don't see such a strong link between urination and sexual gratification. Certainly, I hope the OP didn't go home and rub himself raw over the encounter...

It would certainly be an interesting test case, given the amount of people who, when surveyed, admit to pissing in the pool. As we're handing out charges of sexual assault to kids as young as ten, I fear we may need more prisons. Then again, as the supposed victim was entirely ignorant of the attack, there were no witnesses, and there would be no evidence whatsoever to offer in pursuit of a conviction, perhaps our OP, with his community-spirited warming of public waters, would be OK.

Anyway, you'll be needing your hat:


( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 17:04, closed)

No! There was nothing sexual about this! I am not a paedo!
I appreciate that people are trying to wind me up, but I am starting to get slightly frightened of being nonce-bashed. Thank you all of you.
(jimmy spankhands, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 17:21, closed)

pissing in the pool is different to deliberately pissing on a child in a pool
the most upsetting thing in this example is as I said before, the abuse of trust.

As for evidence, confessions are pretty good.
( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:56, closed)

You seem to be operating under the assumption that he's a teacher, rather than a lifeguard. When I was a lifeguard, I was never given to understand that I was acting in loco parentis; I was merely there to stop the little fuckers from sinking. Admittedly, this did not lead to me pissing on any obnoxious teens - and indeed, if it had, I like to think I'd have done so with a little more panache. Preferably from a diving board.

I digress. If we're drawing distinction between 'pissing on', implying a direct jet, and 'pissing near', with the payloaad carried by the surrounding water - I'm going to go with the former being technically impossible. Presuming he didn't flop out his tackle, the stream would first have had to contend first with a cold-shrivelled weener, possibly bent into a non-optimal weeing configuration, then the material of whatever form of swimming-short he was sporting (which are frequently dual-layered, featuring integrated pants), and lastly, the drag of the surrounding water. Now, I'm no expert on flow dynamics, but I'm guessing that by this point, 'pissing on' has become more or less impossible, the jet having turned into a gently-expanding cloud. I would hazard that 'pissing on' doesn't extend past the inner pant layer. So unless the kid was indulging in Neroesque aquatic dong-nilbbling, which has not thus far been mentioned, the only likely outcome is 'pissing near'.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 18:50, closed)

Yes, basically I wet myself in a lake
and I wanted to be controversial and shocking.

I must say I'm amazed at the amount of time and thought put into some of these replies - clearly B3tans don't do much work. Or, I'm going to receive a large legal bill for all the advice on here.
(jimmy spankhands, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 21:18, closed)

Either way, he's guilty of the attempt.

( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 23:19, closed)

also, to clarify, gratification has nothing to do with it.
If I rubbed my cock on you it could be for a whole range of reasons, some potentially non-sexual (it was itching and I wanted to scratch it on your beard, for example), however, because of the nature of the assault itself it is automatically sexual as the standard is objective rather than my subjective intention.

The issue here is whether a court would hold that a man urinating on someone is inherently sexual and the sort of action designed to be prevented by the Sexual Offences Act.
( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:59, closed)

Also, I'm opposed to the re-introduction of the death penalty.

( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:00, closed)

OK.
So what you are all saying is that I'm in trouble if I ever choose to return to the US.

Surely there's a '... but it was only a bit of (non-sexual) fun!' dispensation in US Law?

And everyone knows that its OK to wee in swimming pools, lakes, the sea etc - even in the vicinity of other people - as long as there's no anti-wee dye present
(jimmy spankhands, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 0:21, closed)

Ewwwww ger...rooooooos
Doesn't surpise me the Yanks thought it was disgusting but well done for educating them.

disclaimer - as long as it wasn't out of the water and part of some weird fantasy ;)
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 12:03, closed)

pissing on children = against the law

( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 12:41, closed)

Meh
It's damn funny though, done in the style of the OP, although I agree pissing on children in other contexts is wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Edit- Wormulus, I was trying to figure out what your sleuthing reminded me of and it finally came to me at 1800, this is comedy gold (sorry for length, links didn't work) -

Jack Black and Silver -

A typical strip begins with Jack visiting Aunt Meg in a new location and assisting her with her latest business or project, usually involving something illegal or immoral such as prostitutes or drug dealing.

Someone causes trouble for them or annoys Jack in some way, leading him to investigate. The "villains" whom Jack investigates are occasionally genuine criminals, but more often well meaning, inoffensive people who happen to have outraged his far right sense of propriety.

Jack usually ends up finding out that what the suspect has done is technically not illegal, but still succeeds in getting the miscreants involved arrested on trivial charges and severely punished, often at the savage hands of the community - his exploits making a mockery of British Justice. For instance, when someone tried to sell a tactical nuclear missile to the IRA the village policeman pointed out that the man was a licensed arms dealer.

Jack then had the arms dealer arrested for having an expired tax disc on the car he was carrying the missile in. In most cases the whole village is utterly corrupt and the 'villain' represents some form of rationality and normality to the reader.

Jack, however, is not always successful despite his best efforts. In the May 2008 issue, Jack discovered that a local shopkeeper had devised an elaborate scheme to steal all the townspeople's toilet paper. This forced them to wipe themselves on the cardboard roll, causing haemorrhoids which led them to buy vast amounts of rubber cushions from his shop. However, in a departure from the other comics, PC Brown tells Jack that technically the suspect has done nothing illegal, and has to let him go. He is then seen in a pub with Jack who is drowning his sorrows, but Brown points out that Jack can't win every time, and vows they will catch the man and "bust his ass" as soon as he slips up.

Other examples of Jack's adventures include:

Uncovering a milk hoarding scam involving asylum seekers.
Exhuming a deceased man's corpse so that he can prove that his child was conceived out of wedlock. (This episode decries sex before marriage as sinful, and has the man's widow ostracised by her parish priest and community on Easter Sunday - in contradiction to other episodes, where prostitution or teenage sex are the basis of Aunt Meg's business.)

Teaming up with a paedophile priest to frame a teacher as a paedophile, because the man is teaching safe sex to teenagers and this is supposedly blasphemous. The teacher is lynched by a mob, and Jack then assists his Aunt in performing illegal abortions.
Getting a charity worker arrested for holding a charity sale on a Sunday and having his guide dog destroyed.

Capturing a downed German fighter pilot and, disappointed at his Aunt's refusal to let him kick the German pilot "In the guts till his arse bleeds", defecting to become a Nazi supporter.

Getting his own aunt arrested for letting himself and his dog sing while she was playing piano without holding an entertainment licence.
Having a professor stripped naked, tarred and covered with old hair clippings before being paraded around in a cart for an hour while

Jack and the community burn down the local museum because the professor believed in evolution and not creationism.

Uncovering an Al-Qaeda cell after finding out that their vegetarian leader reads The Guardian newspaper and not the Daily Mail.

Using an obscure tax law to have a soup kitchen for the homeless closed down at Christmas as it is, in the words of the local vicar, 'rather ruining the Christmas atmos'.(sic)

Discovering a working class council estate in his aunt's idyllic village, and inducing its inhabitants to "move on" by closing down the local Co-Op store (thus removing their supply of cheap lager and cigarettes).

Jack achieved this by tricking the store's owner into selling lottery tickets to underage minors.

Having an impoverished war hero (who has been forced to sell all of his medals to pay the VAT on his heating bills) arrested for copyright fraud (to wit, making photocopies of newspaper articles for his scrapbook).

Discovering that the "chocolate cake" donated by an elderly lady to a church fayre contains less than the minimum chocolate content specified by European law, and should therefore have been called a "chocolate flavoured cake". The old lady is put in a pillory and pelted with Jack's aunt's rock cakes (which she comments she had fortunately overcooked), while onlookers shout obscenities. The local vicar yells "Take that, you cheating bitch!" before hurling a cake at the poor old woman.

Uncovering an elaborate plot to steal books from the public library (by means of a tunnel drilled through several hundred feet of cliff) and sell them at a bookstall on the beach.

Discovering that a "dancing bear" exhibited in a travelling carnival is really Adolf Hitler in disguise. With the 'bear' gone, Jack then dressed the hapless Silver in a tutu and forced the dog to dance at the end of a whip.

Framing the owner of the local video rental shop by planting home made hardcore pornography amongst his stock after discovering that the shopkeeper was feeding Paula Radcliffe laxatives and then sending her to defecate in the garden of his aunt's brothel in order to drive her customers away from the brothel and ease their sexual frustrations by buying the softcore pornography he had to offer.

Upon discovering that Pete Doherty has moved into the area and then wondering why Meg's drug dealing business had not improved considerably, Jack and Silver investigate and find that the boat keeper in the local park is a rival dealer who is supplying Doherty's needs by way of an elaborate scheme involving the park pedal boats, a submarine and a fog machine. Jack and PC Brown then kill the rival dealer and beat up Doherty.

Discovering that a carol singer, who has used his earnings to buy Christmas presents for a local orphanage, has violated Sunday trading laws. (Both he and the orphans are arrested at gunpoint on Christmas morning, while Jack gets to keep all the presents himself.)

Befriending an elderly lady whose only companion is a goldfish, then having her thrown out of her retirement flat for keeping a pet without written permission. The goldfish is summararily executed by one of the local policemen stamping on him.

On finding out Meg (who is a member of the local Council) will have to return a brand new car and a large amount of money that she received as a backhander to allow a toxic waste dump to be built next to a school as the vote will not be unanimous, Jack breaks into the car of the only councillor who has voted against the proposed dump. He then promptly has the man arrested and thrown in prison for not declaring an interest in the issue; his daughter was a pupil at the school. Jack is too young to vote for the proposal, so Silver (who is three years old and therefore 21 in dog years) is appointed as a replacement council member instead to vote on Jack's behalf.

Exposing a Japanese Sumo wrestler of selling Geishas to England for their skill in performing the tea ceremony.
In an attempt to earn money to fund his new animal snaring hobby, Jack attempts to get work as a fruit picker with the local farmer, but upon learning that the wage is only 30p an hour, gets suspicious of a group of gentlemen who are more than happy with the measly wage. Convinced they are foreign, Jack arranges for a cricket match between the fruit pickers and the local police, noting that if they attempt to cheat they cannot possibly be British (more specifically English). During the game, one of the fruit pickers correctly questions a play with the umpire (Jack and PC Brown had purposely arranged this wrongful play) and Jack calls for the men to be arrested (he has rumbled them as no Englishman would ever question the decision of the umpire), to which the fruit pickers attempt to flee (for they are actually members of an East European acting troupe who recently vanished). As the East Europeans are taken away, the farmer points out that with no one to pick it, his fruit will rot. Jack happily responds that he would rather it rot than be picked by a foreigner. This story was purportedly "sponsored" by the Daily Express.

Getting a butcher's store closed down because the butcher is having sex with his meat products. This is supposedly done by all butchers, but the one in question was risking cross contamination by having sex with raw meat and then cooked meat afterwards.

Discovering that Hugh Hefner has been posing as the "Phantom of the Fens", a masked highwayman who regularly holds up Aunt Meg in order to steal the supplies of laboratory rabbits that her farm provides for vivisection purposes. Hefner has killed all the rabbits to use their ears and tails in the costumes for his army of Playboy Bunny girls. He is arrested, while the "bunny girls" are sent off to a factory for experimentation because Meg has no more rabbits left.

When Aunt Meg is not allowed to sell her Nazi memorabilia at the local market because all stallholders must be of German origin, Jack becomes increasingly suspicious of a kindly old toymaker who does not look physically perfect enough to belong to the "Master race". He discovers the man was born in Olbernhau, which did not actually come under German control until ratified under the Treaty of Versailles on June 19, 1919 - a day after the man was born on June 18, when Olbernhau was still part of the former Austria-Hungary. The toymaker is deported and his German dachshund dog destroyed, and the townspeople celebrate by burning the toys that he had charitably given to local orphans.

Exposing a greengrocer's plot to undercut the nearby supermarket's prices by way of a scheme involving electromagnetics and robot "children".

Relocating the action to the Canadian Rockies, Jack and Aunt Meg are happily shooting defenseless animals in the forest and mounting their heads on the wall when Mountie Brown warns the two of a giant bear walking the woods that appears to be impervious to gunfire which caused him to foul himself, he was so scared. When Mountie Brown leaves to go to his grandmother's launderette to clean his soiled clothes, Jack and Aunt Meg go after the bear themselves. They find the bear which is also unharmed by their bullets and approaches the two causing them to shit themselves in fear before backing off. Going to the launderette, Jack and Aunt Meg find some washing machines out of order and a lot of demand for the machine from other hunters suffering the same humiliation as Jack and the others. Doing some investigating, Jack discovers that the bear is actually a robot run by Mountie Brown's grandma from the parts from the broken washing machines (the evidence being that the bear tracks led to a bingo hall, community centre and a wool shop meaning an old woman had to be involved) who was using the scam to drum up business for her launderette. Mountie Brown is unable to arrest her due to her being 93, so instead he just shoots her and mounts her head on Jack's wall.

In one adventure, Jack becomes determined to find out why a youth club leader has been turning over all the local drug dealers to the police. He discovers that this has led the kids at the youth club to fight over the available drugs, causing an increase in knife crime and more business for the village knife grinder (who is actually the youth club leader's wife in disguise.) The two escape on a motorbike but Jack throws a knife at them, which results in them crashing into a fuel depot and the depot exploding. Meg, the village magistrate, sentences their corpses to be posthumously locked up and pilloried in the village stocks.

While performing an errand for Aunt Meg, Jack and Silver pass the mansion of Sir Fred Goodwin and they meet both Sir Fred and his cleaner who is paid only the minimum wage and yet is clearly overworked by him. Sir Fred complains to Jack about her performance at the job ("I know I oversaw the loss of 241 Billion, the biggest loss in UK Corporate history but she hasn't even cleaned under the wheel arches. I mean, come on!") and even took three days off sick with full pay. Jack helpfully suggests he sack her and hire someone else Sir Fred tells Jack he can't because he'd have to give her a redundancy package. Jack decides to investigate, and while bumping into her at the shops peeks inside her bag and then checks out her records at the local medical centre. The next day Jack arrives at Sir Fred's house along with an officer for the Inland Revenue. Jack reveals that the cleaner didn't actually take three days off as she was ill but actually took the days off to have a baby (which she has been hiding in her bag). As a result, she was only entitled to maternity pay instead of the sick pay and therefore defrauded Sir Fred of £40. Sir Fred is given the money back by Inland Revenue, the cleaner is arrested for serious benefit fraud and her baby is taken into care. That night, Sir Fred and Jack celebrate righting the wrong by having a night around the fire which is fuelled by wads of twenty pound notes.

Jack's Nazism has been referred to more than once. He has been seen in one episode to be working on a school homework project entitled 'The Myth of the Holocaust'; whilst in another he is seen leading a sing song round a piano of the Nazism anthem 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me'. Indeed, in the Christmas 1994 issue (no69) he witnesses a Luftwaffe plane crash and wants to cut out the dead pilot's teeth as souvenirs. However, the pilot survives and they take him back to his Aunt Meg's so she can hang him in the back garden. The two quickly bond and the pilot reads Mein Kampf to Jack before bed which convinces him to turn on his Aunt and fly back to Germany and dine with the Führer himself. The Christmas 2007 issue, in which Aunt Meg owns an impressive personal collection of Nazi memorabilia, suggests that she may share his political allegiance.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 13:11, closed)

Godwin's law = invoked

( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:51, closed)

In no way
is my internet personality calling your internet personality a nazi, one of your mock sleuthing posts just reminded me of above viz charcter, mostly his milder exploits.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:23, closed)

So ... just to be clear ...
Pissing on children is WRONG, yes?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:48, closed)

Only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays apparently but i'm not convinced....
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 16:18, closed)