![]() |
Quote:
And risk his 60+grand a year pension and the chance of being asked back to help out by a sheriff principal at 600 quid a day. Talk about clutching at straws. Incidentally he is also a former lecturer in Scottish Law at Aberdeen University and spent over 10 years as a sheriff at Aberdeen. |
Quote:
Since when did many of our law representatives & such authority figures automatically have integrity. Hardly unheard of that there are ones who do get backhanders - same with those within the policeforce - making out as though it doesn't happen and that they are all innocence personified is sheer and utter folly. Weren't you implying earlier in the thread that the authorities up in the North East were - errr...let's say more driven to reach targets for particular crimes - more interested in figures of another variety ....... which would/could indicate that people are being prosecuted more in that area than further south? Isn't that another way of cooking the books.... |
So you think that it's more likely that he's lying because the Record want him to, as oppose to him merely giving his informed opinion on events?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary. But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh? |
Quote:
I happen to drive - thankfully I don't have to rely on public transport - so your sarcastic snipe was all wasted. Shame. |
IMO, it's a rather dubious article attributed to Charles Gall
The so-called "Sheriff" is not identified nor is it clear which, if any, parts of the article are written by or may be attributed to anyone other than the aforementioned Charles Gall - on the one hand, each of the opposing participants is called "the guy and on the other "the chap" - a strange mix of the colloquial and formal Then there's the weird turns of phrase : Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This sheriff isn't even aware of the situation: since when did an expired ticket come into play? Why on earth would the sheriff state that the conductor would have been within his right to say, "Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”. Sounds like an article full of BS to me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then because the newspapers used different quotes and different stories the student was obviously lying, couldnt stick to the original story etc. Then it was obviously his parents fault for failing to instil proper values in the boy simply because the father backed up the lads story according to the newspapers And all of this from a video that doesnt show the full incident(s) but then after all the venom you managed to heap on the yob, the classic ... Quote:
Is it because he is a student? Incidentally the basic rule of law I referred to in a comment in an earlier post which you so skillfully ignored obviously because it totally undermines all your arguments in this thread and underlines your bias is quite simply: the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I take it you dont think it should apply to drunken gobby students eh? |
Quote:
The supposed sheriff that you quoted claims it was an expired ticket, a quote pulled from a newspaper in which it appeared that it gave your own posts held far more credence than anyone else who doesn't agree with you. For someone who bangs on so often about basic rules: basic rules apply to all things: and it can be helpful to read an article and apply a degree of logic to it: especially when the supposed 'sheriff' doesn't even have the basic background to the story on which he is 'allegedly' making comment on. The article to which you linked and posted here has been shot down in flames. I will heap whatever venom on the yob I wish to. If you find that so distasteful, that's your issue, not mine. |
Quote:
I did apply logic to the article, I pasted it in its entirety without altering it or imposing any opinion of my own in it. After all I wouldnt want you to be able to add any credence to your posts by me incorrectly paraphrasing [that something that journalists often do to quotes from people - I suggest you look it up ;) ] it now would I? Yes you can pour scorn and venom as whomever you like, be wary though the anonymity of the internet isnt real and wont protect you. Wasnt it Hermann Hesse that said "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself" ? |
Quote:
As for your quote: I'm cool with that - seeing as I don't hate the yob - I don't have to hate a person I'm reading about to form an opinion on them. |
Quote:
Why would I threaten you about anonymity when I already know your name, email and your phone numbers, after all you gave them to me. So enough of the half truths and bollocks. Now going back to the questions I asked earlier shouldnt the student be afforded the same respect as the Big man if you are prepared to wait for one court case you should be prepared to wait for another, or do you always side with bullies? |
Quote:
What has my anonymity to do with this thread - or indeed any of my personal details at all. None. Zilch. Nada, Zero. Nowt. Your point is moot. I've given countless posts on this thread why I feel the Big Man should not be punished and why I feel the yob should. If you have free time, you could spent it raking through them - I'm not repeating myselfl |
Quote:
2nd Top Tip of the day Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it a legal defence that will stand up in court. Funny that, quite similar to Mr Pollocks plight, Oh except he intimated to the teacher doing the videoing, he thought it was probably illegal, but hey. (thats paraphrased by the way) ;) Look at that who would ever have though you would get a bogof on TiBB? |
Quote:
Defamation could also be referred to if you were so inclined. ;) My opinions on the yob remain. As do my opinion on the Big Man. |
Quote:
That is posts can be deleted both by the originating user and also by the staff/admin of the site. They can also be cut and posted elsewhere on the internet very quickly. Comment was made in one judges ruling that modern software also allowed the written word to be spoken. Though I am not sure if that comment was set into the precedent. And if you couldnt tell that the warning was a tongue in cheek comment, bearing in mind Sam and his dads speed to talk about claiming compensation etc, totally disregarding the part the lad played in the scenario, then you really do need to see about sorting out your sense of priorities. |
Quote:
I'm don't need to do anything about my priorties - certainly not as far as posting my opinions on a forum. You however should at least try to stick to the main topic of the thread - rather than offering your own opinions on other forum members and derailing the thread. It's not about Libel or Slander. |
Big Man has been charged with assault -and yob has been also reported to the PF but with no charges as yet.
Tory MP commented on BBC regional news are much that he feels the PF may not prosecute - but may issue a warning. His comments seemed to be almost siding / sympathising with the Big Man - rather than him taking the line of ''The correct course is being taken'' This should be interesting .......... I still do not think he'll be prosecuted. Quote:
|
Me going off tangent, add dissembling to the evasions then Pyr. PMSL talk about a little christmas street cheer eh? ;)
Should be amusing to see if Sam does get prosecuted for fare dodging. Should be even more amusing if Pollock gets done for assault. You see the law isnt there to be popular, its to help things run easier and prevent the collapse into anarchy - supposedly. |
Quote:
It is as we both are aware, upto the PF - I certainly wouldn't use the word 'amusing' as a fitting description to this - I find the whole thing unsavory - I am however interested in the outcome, rather than finding any of it amusing. |
Quote:
Main gets prosecuted under section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing, Breach of the Peace basically. The Trespass may just get binned, too easy for him to rig a defence now. Bound to be some other numpty willing to give him a ticket issued that morning to prove his defence. PF's decision is whether its in the public interest to prosecute on an assault to someone who is being very annoying. Would not prosecuting send the wrong message to the general public. After the publicity and debate raised over the incident, should be interesting to see if they release reasons for non prosecution, they normally dont other that not in the public interest. |
Quote:
Quote:
As I say: it will be interesting. |
Quote:
However in Mr Pollocks case, they have determined that he may be guilty of an assault and have charged him as such. Good luck to whichever Depute gets to make the go/no go decisions on those cases pmsl. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.