I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

And you’re still doing that irritating little quote thing.

I don’t think it’s fair to call someone pompous or self-righteous because they use certain words in a debate.

I personally don’t go out of my way to use “bigger” words but at the same time I don’t seek to use “normal” ones just to avoid the potential of being seen as pompous.

I use the words that I think best capture what I’m trying to say and I won’t make excuses for that. It may be the case that other words aren’t of the right extreme, or are too extreme, for the point being made. I’m also of the view that it’s best to make a point in as few words as possible (that’s not always clear from my very long comments, I know) – usually using one “big” word can mean you don’t have to use three small ones elsewhere.

To be honest I think you criticising someone for using big words is about as constructive as criticising someone’s argument because they mis-spelt a part of it.

@Bock:
For some reason, I also find it irritating to have my words quoted back at me paragraph by paragraph. It’s a lazy and opportunistic way to debate.

When you’re involved in a discussion that features long posts back and forward I find it easiest to break things down like that – it allows you to respond to each point individually rather than just have a long list of disconnected retorts or comments in one confusing chunk.

I fail to see how it’s lazy or opportunistic to take someone’s argument point-by-point.

If he had been a lecturer in civil engineering and designed a building that fell down, would he have been forced to quit?

If someone designed a building that fell down because of a design flaw then I’d imagine people would expect the designer (the person responsible for the flaw) to pay the price, yes.

When I clicked on the thread I thought I would see some manner of cohesive argument – mmmmm – instead it looks like a meeting of the ‘Pedantic Pat’ brigade.

Is what he did wrong? Yes

Should he have done it? Fuck, no.

Did he go to court? Yes

Was he convicted of a crime? Yes

Did he tell the HSE? Yes

Should he have told his employer? Fuck, yes

Should he have retained his position in the role he was in? That would only be for his employers to decide.

Should he have the opportunity to come onto this site and comment on his treatment in the press and other media outlets? Of course – last time I looked we aren’t living in China.

Will some Pedantic Pat come on after me and tear apart every nuance of my choice of words? Probably.

I’m not going to read any more of this thread – it’s boring. (Apologies, Bock)

I’m trying to make sure we talk about the exact offence and determine precisely what the terminology means instead of relying on vague impressions. It doesn’t help if we end up discussing things that aren’t on the conviction document.

“And/or” means “or”. Why didn’t they just say “and”, which would remove any ambiguity? As worded, the document doesn’t categorically state that he restrained the girl’s hands or wrists. It simply allows for the possibility that he did. Don’t blame me for that: I didn’t write it. I just read it.

As regards comparing his actions to unwelcome sexual advances, what makes you think there’s some hidden rhetorical undercurrent in what I say?

All I’m telling you is that I haven’t yet seen enough to convince me one way or the other, and to judge by some of the comments here, neither have many other people, women as well as men.

I’ll be expanding on this in the next post, where hopefully we can get away from Niall McElwee and onto the broader issue of personal behaviour.

In relation to the language, if someone reaches towards or actually grabs a persons head “through violence” towards his exposed penis that is an offence. Named person 2 had Mr. McElwee lay against her whilst holding her hands or wrists again with the lower part of his body exposed. If you can say that the use of the “and/or” in this case may not mean hands or wrists please show me how.

Do you really compare these actions to “unwelcome sexual advances”?

BUT…

For having a wife and child back in Ireland while the events were unfolding I’d give him a good kick in the arse.
Or even 3 months worth of arse kicking.
What an eejit.