fatshaft Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 i) You watch too much television - those were instructions on how to come across like a good witness and not a cock. ii) No additional weight would be attached to anything i had to say based on my profession iii) Anything i did have to say would not go in Mr. Pollocks favour iv) The police never asked to speak to me and never issued a call for witnesses. Even if they did i am a non-entity - i didn't see anything that anyone else didn't see, i don't know anything that anyone else doesn't already know. Delusional: Noun, 1. The state of being deluded 2. A false belief or opinion 3. Fatshaft Twat: Noun, 1. That's you that is. Link to comment
dazzy_deff Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 So basically, in conclusion...our big man's mate is a cunt. Link to comment
Broughty Ferry Arab Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Watch this fae 8:00 in :hysterical: :hysterical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IITBWVsj24I&feature=player_detailpage#t=485sAnd there's another wanker right there. Big Man indeed. Brave as f*ck shoving him off! Link to comment
Dynamo Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Fuck me this is still on the go! havent read it but my prediciton from this page - Sam - Still a jakey student nedBig Man - Probably had his collar feltConductor - Still conducting.Our Big Man - patronising twat. Fatshaft - knickers in a twist over fuck all. Link to comment
Jones Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Twat: Noun, 1. That's you that is. You really need to let this one go. Your argument has deteriorated into nothing more than ad hominem abuse, it's now just cluttering up the thread, Link to comment
muttondressedaslamb Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 You really need to let this one go. Your argument has deteriorated into nothing more than ad hominem abuse, it's now just cluttering up the thread, +1 He has a reputation for this. It's all that pent up homo aggression, I feel sorry for him. Was the use of a Latin phrase with hom in it a freudian slip? Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I find it baffling, trespass where exactly? I find it baffling too. There is no law of trespass in Scotland, so his mobile must have ended up a hoor of a distance down the track. Link to comment
Tommy Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I find it baffling too. There is no law of trespass in Scotland, so his mobile must have ended up a hoor of a distance down the track. I thought the only law of trespass in Scotland was the Railways. Link to comment
E-P-K Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access. Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass. Link to comment
Jones Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 +1 He has a reputation for this. It's all that pent up homo aggression, I feel sorry for him. Was the use of a Latin phrase with hom in it a freudian slip? :D TBH I'm not privy to the homo stuff, didn't realise he was a latent bender. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access. Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass. Practically, it is a non-offence. You are not generally charged with "Trespass", unlike England, but can be charged with criminal damage etc should you damage something while somewhere you are not wanted. A breach of the peace can also be used. Link to comment
fatshaft Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 You really need to let this one go. Your argument has deteriorated into nothing more than ad hominem abuse, it's now just cluttering up the thread,Not really, just that Small Man started it, so I tend not to let it go. However it's clear he's been bullied by his boss into not getting involved (I iamgine that's what was on his mind to start the bullying thread), so we'll just leave it. He's probably awa greetin somewhere. Link to comment
chaos_defrost Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 You're a solicitor right? So I'm assuming that your boss is a solicitor right? So you're a witness to either a crime, or preventing someone getting charged with a crime? And your solicitor boss tells you to stay away from it? Quite frankly that's a fucking disgrace. Not saying anything about this particular case but solicitors are absolute scum, up there with bankers. No shame or morals whatsoever. Nothing to do with bringing justice, all about making as much money as they possibly can. When people are going through tough times in their lives, solicitors won't think twice about fucking someone over in order to gain financially even though it makes that person's life 10 times harder. Link to comment
Ke1t Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Not saying anything about this particular case but solicitors are absolute scum, up there with bankers. No shame or morals whatsoever. Nothing to do with bringing justice, all about making as much money as they possibly can. When people are going through tough times in their lives, solicitors won't think twice about fucking someone over in order to gain financially even though it makes that person's life 10 times harder. Market forces. Solicitors are merely the tools of the litigious. Link to comment
The Boofon Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 If Bigman hadn't encouraged the guy doing the filming to post it onto youtube nobody would have been any the wiser about this. Well done Bigman you bellend. Link to comment
looksgoodinred Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 A PASSENGER who achieved internet celebrity after helping eject an alleged fare dodger from a train has been told he will not be prosecuted over the incident. Alan Pollock, 35, from Stirling, was dubbed Link to comment
beer gut Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 A PASSENGER who achieved internet celebrity after helping eject an alleged fare dodger from a train has been told he will not be prosecuted over the incident. Alan Pollock, 35, from Stirling, was dubbed Link to comment
dervish Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Market forces. Solicitors are merely the tools of the litigious. What a ridiculous argument. That's like blaming the pedos rather than the sexy kids! Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Here Here. No jury would have found him guilty so it's the correct decision IMO. I would have, based on the fact he was clearly guilty. But then I'm barred from jury duty. Link to comment
muttondressedaslamb Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Glad to see my taxpaying cash being put to good use. It should never have got this far in the first place. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Glad to see my taxpaying cash being put to good use. It should never have got this far in the first place. I know. Imagine trying to prosecute people for common assault when you have video evidence and at least half a dozen eyewitnesses of them assaulting someone. we should only prosecute cases where there is no hope of a conviction Link to comment
muttondressedaslamb Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I know. Imagine trying to prosecute people for common assault when you have video evidence and at least half a dozen eyewitnesses of them assaulting someone. we should only prosecute cases where there is no hope of a conviction Common assault! Perhaps so, but many people would call it justice. I know for a fact my parents wouldn't have been greeting to the media if it was me in that young twat's shoes. I'd have got a lickin' instead. Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Common assault! Perhaps so, but many people would call it justice. I know for a fact my parents wouldn't have been greeting to the media if it was me in that young twat's shoes. I'd have got a lickin' instead. So you would prefer to foster a culture of vigilante justice on our streets? With lynch mobs and kangaroo courts?Tell me, do you think it was ok for a gang of 5 people to allegedly murder someone for wanting a shot on a trampoline? Good parenting is a completely unrelated issue. Link to comment
Jones Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It all starts with flinging helpless young innocents off trains then before you know it you're murdering someone for wanting a shot on a trampoline. Is that what you want? Cause that's what's gonna happen! Link to comment
vanderark14 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It all starts with flinging helpless young innocents off trains then before you know it you're murdering someone for wanting a shot on a trampoline. Is that what you want? Cause that's what's gonna happen! :laughing: :laughing: Link to comment
Dandyesque Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It all starts with flinging helpless young innocents off trains then before you know it you're murdering someone for wanting a shot on a trampoline. Is that what you want? Cause that's what's gonna happen! You joke...... Link to comment
RUL Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Think it was the right outcome Link to comment
DD1903 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 What ever happened to big man?! Link to comment
Ke1t Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 In Keltland they'd all have been thrown into the cells below Secret Police HQ and tortured to death for all three of them, in their own very particular ways, being cunts. The jobsworth auld fucker. The Wee Ned. The fat 'hardman'. A microcosm of society right fucking there, and EXACTLY why I absolutely fucking hate people. Kill them all. That's what they'd do in Keltland. Link to comment
Stoney Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 What are hoose prices like in Keltland? Quite fancy myself a move. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now