Worst BA passenger ever?
Dec 7, 2021, 1:55 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: Mucci des Hommes Magiques et Magnifiques
Posts: 19,066
You’re not still playing that card, try the joker. 🤪🤪🤪🤪
Dec 7, 2021, 5:42 pm
#32
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,198
Dec 8, 2021, 10:53 am
#34
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
Dec 8, 2021, 1:03 pm
#37
Join Date: Feb 2009
Programs: Mucci, BA, Hilton.
Posts: 1,158
This happened in the First cabin, and the offending passenger's group was occupying at least three of the seats. I don't know how full it was, but it's plausible that the rest of the seats were either empty, occupied by people who emphatically didn't want to get involved, or were simply unaware because the layout of the seats prevents you from seeing much.
not that it’s remotely important but he was not travelling in a group together with the other two pros. They obviously know each other well from the tours/Ryder cup but they did not specifically fly together. Depart any Sunday night of a large tournament and you’ll find quite a lot of that profession in similar cabins having made separate arrangements. As it happens both tried to help the situation. Horrible situation all around.
Dec 9, 2021, 1:06 am
#40
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,060
IF it is true, it just shows up how unfit for purpose the law is and what leeches lawyers are. They do not defend the innocent they aim to subvert the law to get offenders off, and to protect them from the punishment that society has deemed fit for their misdemeanors. Its why lawyers are despised by general society. They do not exist to serve justice, merely to enrich themselves.
Of course, if its not true, then............you are wrong and lawyers are not pariahs.
Of course, if its not true, then............you are wrong and lawyers are not pariahs.
Dec 9, 2021, 3:06 am
#41
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC, Eurostar
Posts: 3,283
IF it is true, it just shows up how unfit for purpose the law is and what leeches lawyers are. They do not defend the innocent they aim to subvert the law to get offenders off, and to protect them from the punishment that society has deemed fit for their misdemeanors. Its why lawyers are despised by general society. They do not exist to serve justice, merely to enrich themselves.
Of course, if its not true, then............you are wrong and lawyers are not pariahs.
Of course, if its not true, then............you are wrong and lawyers are not pariahs.
Dec 9, 2021, 3:32 am
#43
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,878
He was found not guilty on all three charges. The jury took less than an hour which suggests they didn't struggle to reach those verdicts based on the evidence they were presented with. I find it surprising based on what was reported, but I wasn't there in the trial or in that jury.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...oman-on-flight
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...oman-on-flight
Olesen, of Chelsea in west London, was acquitted on Wednesday of sexual assault, assault by beating and being drunk on an aircraft on 29 July 2019, after the jury deliberated for less than an hour following a three-day trial.
Dec 9, 2021, 3:36 am
#44
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Programs: Sir Ratechaser Seigneur de la Patience d'un Saint (Mucci), BA Silver, Starbucks Gold
Posts: 2,537
So is the question mark in the thread title sufficient defence against a libel action here...?
Not to mention the use of 'alleged' in the OP...
Not to mention the use of 'alleged' in the OP...
Dec 9, 2021, 3:47 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
They do not defend the innocent they aim to subvert the law to get offenders off, and to protect them from the punishment that society has deemed fit for their misdemeanors. Its why lawyers are despised by general society. They do not exist to serve justice, merely to enrich themselves.
As for "justice": In common usage these days, "getting justice" is synonymous with "getting the result that I want". If the case goes the other way, for whatever reason, then "I didn't get justice". As Waterhorse's post shows, the general public first of all decides for itself, on the basis of an incomplete set of facts, whether the person is an offender or is innocent; and only then decrees whether or not the outcome of the case delivered "justice". In many cases, that sort of reasoning overlooks the fact that society has first and foremost decided that no punishment is ever fit, unless and until a fair trial conducted in accordance with all applicable legal principles has proved beyond doubt that the defendant was guilty of a known legal offence.
mike&co is entirely right to say that this man was acquitted at trial, and that should be the end of it.
