A British KABOOM! The Man In The Tiger Suit

Tony, Tony, Tony. We're so disapointed.

Tony, Tony, Tony. We’re so disappointed.

Pieces of my head are on the ceiling, thanks to the violent cranial explosion caused by this story, a KABOOM! from across the pond. Usually my head isn’t so sensitive to non-American unethical conduct, but this, as you shall soon see, is special.

Andrew Holland, 51, a Welsh bus driver, was accused of owning an extreme porn video featuring a woman having sex with a tiger. He had been arrested and charged over the video, which he claimed friends gave him as a joke. Holland lost his job, was targeted with hate mail from vigilantes, and he suffered a heart attack that he says was caused by the stress of the case.

Then, after inflicting all of this on Holland,  prosecutors  looked at the video closely, and, for the first time, with the sound turned on. Oops. That was no tiger—that was a man in a tiger suit. The big clue was when they they heard the randy tiger,  in the throes of sexual ecstasy, growl out,

“That’s grrrrrrrrrreat!

Yes, just like Tony the Tiger, the Frosted Flakes icon, except that in Great Britain they are called “Frosties.”

The Crown Prosecution Service was forced to drop the case, with proper apologies, of course.

Now Holland is part of an effort to reform Great Britain’s overly repressive prostitution laws. I’m not concerned with that here. My head’s contents is on the ceiling because I have a hard time processing the in formation that any prosecutors, anywhere, could be this  irresponsible, incompetent, reckless and stupid. To state the obvious…

1. What man in a tiger costume looks like a real tiger to anyone but Mister Magoo?

2. Did anyone watch the video? Never mind the sound. It couldn’t possibly have resembled a tiger having sex with a woman.

3. So Holland was arrested and put through the system without anyone watching the horrible, bestial porn he was accused of possessing?

4. Did he inform a lawyer of the rather important tiger suit detail? If not, why not? If so, why wasn’t he out on the street before he lost his job?

5. Wasn’t anyone curious about how a live tiger happens to have sex with a human being?

6. Tigers, I seem to recall, kill and eat humans when they are in close proximity. They don’t get horny.

7. It should not have been necessary to hear the Tony impressionist say the big cat’s famous catch phrase, although it was the punchline of the joke.

No, I don’t understand this story at all.

I suppose, however, that it provides some solace to those who think the U.S. justice system is a mess. It may not be grrrrrrrrrreat, but it sure is better than this.


Pointer and Source: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Facts: Daily Mirror

11 thoughts on “A British KABOOM! The Man In The Tiger Suit

  1. Didn’t you just violate some of your own unethical rationalizations in your last sentence? Rules 1 and 2 perhaps? This story would be funny if a man’s life wasn’t ruined or at least badly damaged for nothing.

    • 1 and 2????? Let’s see…“everybody does it”? What is it that everybody did? Nothing in the post references #1. “They had it coming?” That’s #2, you know, and it involves the rationalization that someone’s unethical conduct justified and made ethical bad conduct towards them. This would apply if, for example, I said that the victim’s possession of the kinky video was bad enough that it excused the unethical conduct by the prosecutor.

      But I didn’t write any of that. So I must conclude…

      1) You are a troll, essentially looking for a cheap “gotcha!” 2.) Didn’t actually read the Rationalizations you accused me of violating, or did read them and are too dim to comprehend what I wrote about them, 3) Did not read far enough, since you are lazy and only interested in gratuitously impugning my integrity, to reach the one Rationalization where you might have a [weak] argument, #22, Comparative virtue.
      4) But there too, you would be misunderstanding what the rationalization means, and what it applies to. If I Had said that the U.S. system was acceptable because the British system was worse, that would be #22. Pointing out that someone who is upset about a particular matter can take solace in the fact that others have even worse examples to cope with is not rationalizing, but stating fact. If someone has second degree burns, and I say, “Well, you can take some solace in the fact that you could have easily gotten 3rd degree burns,” that’s a fact, not a rationalization, which is a lie.

      Stories can be both funny and tragic at the same time—this is one. I don’t think you are smart enough for this blog, Richard. Go away.

      • No, this isn’t too harsh. This ass accuses me of using rationalizations, then identifies two that can’t possibly apply. I don’t mind people who object to anyone making ethical calls on others—they are wrong, but that’s allowed—I do mind them making accusations just to attempt to discredit me, but without taking the time to back them up. First comment, and that’s the attitude? Nope–I don’t have to pull punches with people like this. The second he reappears, if he does, he goes into spam drawer.

  2. Immediately after reading the second paragraph I said to myself, there is no way this sex act is possible.
    A tiger is an aggressive, wild animal.
    That these prosecutors did not come to the same conclusion and then look at the video to see what’s really going on is pathetic.
    Seriously pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.