I can accept that maybe you get caught short and its a one off but 30 times on public trains[b said:
Why? Was Napster that someone?[b said:
No, can't confirm anything. Scriven knows about it and Smudger I think[b said:
True - he then offered to give them back to Tilly at full-time. The geezer told Scriv something along the lines of "well you know what it's like, you go to watch the football...and you accidentally sh!t yourself, it happens to everyone" or something like that....[b said:
OK Matt, here is a hypothetical question for you....[b said:Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 24 2006,11:30)]Sadly, he sounds like a deeply disturbed individual. Care in the community? His arse, as Pa Royle would say...
Blimey... I'd steer well clear. He probably smells.[b said:Quote[/b] (Mad Cyril @ Oct. 24 2006,12:08)]OK Matt, here is a hypothetical question for you....
He is caught by the police and shown CCTV footage of his acts that will be shown in court.
We will assume that he is of sane mind.
He is also minted and decides to plead not guilty.
He hires you as his defence lawyer.
My question is: How would you defend this man in court?
[b said:Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 24 2006,12:26)]Blimey... I'd steer well clear. He probably smells.[b said:Quote[/b] (Mad Cyril @ Oct. 24 2006,12:08)]OK Matt, here is a hypothetical question for you....
He is caught by the police and shown CCTV footage of his acts that will be shown in court.
We will assume that he is of sane mind.
He is also minted and decides to plead not guilty.
He hires you as his defence lawyer.
My question is: How would you defend this man in court?
Seriously, I know now't about criminal law. But if he is sane, then presumably his defence would be restitution. He could try something along these lines.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
My Lord, the essence of restitution is that it seeks to restore the parties to the position they were in before a wrong - invariably a breach of contract - has been committed. One of the species of restiution, as established by the House of Lords in Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale is that restitution should seek to act so as to ensure the vindication of the claimant's property rights.
In other words, if something has passed in an unjust manner under a contract, then it is right that it should be returned to the rightful owner.
* * *
And this, clearly, was what the defendant had in mind when dealing with the subject matter of this case: sh*t.
There is absolutely no question that for many years, especially in the South East, Railtrack and the network operators have served the public with enormous quantities of sh*t on our trains and tracks.
There is no doubt that the public has paid extortionate and unjust amounts of money for that sh*t which masqueraded itself as a rail service.
It cannot be disputed that the service to the public of sh*t, for which the public paid mind-boggling amounts of money, amounted to a contract which was at the very least grossly unjust and perhaps even illegal as a matter of law.
In such circumstances, the law of restitution demands that the contract be treated as having been void, that the parties are restored to their original positions, and that the goods which passed under the illegal or unjust instrument be returned to their rightful owner.
Accordingly, someone had to return the sh*t to the network operators. My client took it upon himself to undertake this onerous, dangerous, unpleasant and difficult task. It often required an enormous strain on his part.
And he did this because he is a public minded servant - because someone had to ensure that the proper restitutionary remedies were provided. The only way this could be done was by returning the sh*t to the network operators.
Since the sh*t is handed out by the networks on the trains themselves, it is only right that it should be returned there. With no regard for his own comfort or personal hygiene, my client returned the sh*t, to the network operators, in te venue where the sh*t had first been improperly handed over to the public - and he returned it on behalf of the general public.
My client is no criminal. Instead, he is a loyal public servant who should be rewarded and honoured for his public mindedness and sacrifice (an OBE would suffice). Moreover, the case against him should be dismissed with costs.
Ithangyow.
Messrs Soo, Grabbit & Runn.
Agreed.[b said:Quote[/b] (Slipperduke @ Oct. 24 2006,12:45)][b said:Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 24 2006,12:26)]Blimey... I'd steer well clear. He probably smells.[b said:Quote[/b] (Mad Cyril @ Oct. 24 2006,12:08)]OK Matt, here is a hypothetical question for you....
He is caught by the police and shown CCTV footage of his acts that will be shown in court.
We will assume that he is of sane mind.
He is also minted and decides to plead not guilty.
He hires you as his defence lawyer.
My question is: How would you defend this man in court?
Seriously, I know now't about criminal law. But if he is sane, then presumably his defence would be restitution. He could try something along these lines.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
My Lord, the essence of restitution is that it seeks to restore the parties to the position they were in before a wrong - invariably a breach of contract - has been committed. One of the species of restiution, as established by the House of Lords in Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale is that restitution should seek to act so as to ensure the vindication of the claimant's property rights.
In other words, if something has passed in an unjust manner under a contract, then it is right that it should be returned to the rightful owner.
* * *
And this, clearly, was what the defendant had in mind when dealing with the subject matter of this case: sh*t.
There is absolutely no question that for many years, especially in the South East, Railtrack and the network operators have served the public with enormous quantities of sh*t on our trains and tracks.
There is no doubt that the public has paid extortionate and unjust amounts of money for that sh*t which masqueraded itself as a rail service.
It cannot be disputed that the service to the public of sh*t, for which the public paid mind-boggling amounts of money, amounted to a contract which was at the very least grossly unjust and perhaps even illegal as a matter of law.
In such circumstances, the law of restitution demands that the contract be treated as having been void, that the parties are restored to their original positions, and that the goods which passed under the illegal or unjust instrument be returned to their rightful owner.
Accordingly, someone had to return the sh*t to the network operators. My client took it upon himself to undertake this onerous, dangerous, unpleasant and difficult task. It often required an enormous strain on his part.
And he did this because he is a public minded servant - because someone had to ensure that the proper restitutionary remedies were provided. The only way this could be done was by returning the sh*t to the network operators.
Since the sh*t is handed out by the networks on the trains themselves, it is only right that it should be returned there. With no regard for his own comfort or personal hygiene, my client returned the sh*t, to the network operators, in te venue where the sh*t had first been improperly handed over to the public - and he returned it on behalf of the general public.
My client is no criminal. Instead, he is a loyal public servant who should be rewarded and honoured for his public mindedness and sacrifice (an OBE would suffice). Moreover, the case against him should be dismissed with costs.
Ithangyow.
Messrs Soo, Grabbit & Runn.
If that doesn't get forwarded round the legal world, then there's no justice!
