scootz
|
| posted on 22/12/11 at 10:18 AM |
|
|
It won't be a jury trial... just a Sheriff, or even a JP for simple assault in Scotland.
I can understand the police problem... damned if they do and damned if they don't, so they just take the simple route and do it by the letter of
the law. That way they can only be criticised for 'doing their job'.
In Scots Law it's clearly an assault, so going by the letter of the law he will in all likelihood be convicted. It then comes down to
what mood the Sheriff is in on the day! If he's read the mood of the majority right, then the Sheriff will convict him and admonish him with
some wise-words. If the Sheriff is an arse, then he might well clobber him to prove a point of law!
Either way, I just wish the police and the Procurator Fiscal had shown a bit of balls and agreed to record the crime, issue a warning and knock
it on the head. People would most likely have still been up in arms that the Big Man had even been 'warned', but it would have covered
all bases with the minimum of fuss!
PS - Do you guys down south and elsewhere know why he's being called 'The Big Man'??? If not, then check out the link below to the
Scottish comedy 'Chewin The Fat'. The 'Big Man' is a gangster type who sorts people problems! 
Probably NSFW Big Man Link
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 22/12/11 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
Hi Scott.
In 63 years you get about a bit, (Yes, even Bonnie (and not so Bonnie) Scotland.
I have a mate in Plains with whom we stayed for hogmanay many years ago. He's a retired 'R.N. Stoker' and showed me the delights of
'the bells' and first footing 'til 8a.m. Everybody's 'big man' there. As in, "ye wan' a wee chaser
wi' that big man?'
Season's best.
Bob.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/12/11 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
My general point is basically that we live in a society under the rule of law. Most people would agree, once they stop spouting shite about hating the
police, that in fact laws are quite a good thing and without them the country would be ruled by wolves. Deciding to ignore some laws is a slippery
slope, so its right that the official line is that all laws must be enforced. Its just a shame that our system of governance isnt really that
efficient when it comes to correcting or tweaking laws promptly.
Re the big man, i suspect if he had just lifted the lad up and put him on the platform, he would have been in a much better position legally. However,
if it gets to a jury trial, there's a good chance he wont be convicted.
And I suppose these laws don't apply to the gobby youth who was swearing, being generally abusive and refusing to comply with the guards
requests? Obviously this poor little lamb is a victim of society and must be protected at all costs.
Sorry to almost completely disagree with you, but there comes a point where you can't just sit back and let people get away with this sort of
behaviour. Would you be happy if I sat next to your kids on a train using foul language? I suspect not, you'd probably stab me.
[Edited on 22/12/11 by MikeRJ]
Of course the scrote should be charged with a pubilc order offense, or maybe even outraging public decency if they think it would stick. If you reread
my comments, i havent remotely suggested he was in the right. I've said before that the decay in moral values needs tackling, and in the past
ive suggested many simple measures to alleviate the problems that society faces.
If someone was swearing next to my kids, i dont know what id do. I'll cross that bridge if i ever get to it. According to a judge recently,
swearing is ok now because so many people do it.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
T66
|
| posted on 22/12/11 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
Joel
The swearing judgement was with reference to cops, who because of their contact with the great unwashed. Cannot be offended.
|
|
|
