Comments:U2 fan ordered to destroy CDs

Another obnoxious U2 fan
Karma strikes again, I think the property destruction balances out the neighbours having their ears violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.129.118 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The judge didn't go far enough
He should have ordered that all U2 and Cher CDs in existence be destroyed. --+Deprifry+ 19:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Piss poor choice of music, but if the gov wanted too destroy my property their in for a wild time, that's why i love the second amendment making sure criminals and the big brother can't turn me into a victim. --KDP3 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The second amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't let you shoot police. Bart133 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the US second amendment holds much sway in British court

thats gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.92.182 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All U2 CDs deserve to be destroyed.

Clear Violation of Property
What? Karl Wiosna while most definitely a moron, does not deserve to have all his CDs to be destroyed. That's just wrong. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the above sums up my opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.78.44 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He flouted court orders so the judge got creative. But it's still just a special fine so the judge likely considered their value. Plus, their just CDs, not vinyl. Nyarlathotep (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoid sensational titles
You could have reported the same as "man ordered to destroy music collection for playing music too loud". U2 has nothing to do with it and your title is an attempt to get attention.
 * To be fair, other news outlets had similar titles. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. Get a sense of humor, please. I would say the title's appropriate because it immediately conveys, in microcosm, the (pop-culture) irony of the story. Oblivious U2 fan is a stereotype, believe it or not. If "Black man ordered by court to eat bucket of chicken" were to be reported, would you protest against that title? Hopefully not: it adds a specific social dimension (albeit, less tongue-in-cheek, and perhaps more disturbing depending on the circumstances). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.147.167 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article describes the wrong place
This article references Graig in Newport, not the correct Graig in Pontypridd. (A search on Google Maps only delivers the one at Newport - possible source of the confusion?)

The correct Graig is here In Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, as evidenced by the Magistrate being that for the Rhondda and it being within the wards of RCT CBC, not Newport City Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.98.97 (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Guardian source clearly states that it's the Graig in Pontypridd, not Newport. -- Arwel (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A fine would have been more than enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.77.215 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A step in the right direction, now if we can just destroy ALL the U2 cds in the world.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.62 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Open Letter
Who's hijacking whose music now? Thanks Big Brother!

Love,

Special Interest

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED
Keep voting in the ultra liberals, and this is the kind of government we can expect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.201.184 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)