punk

Thanks for the replies, I obviously got the date wrong (it was of course the early hours of 23/06/09 - could a moderator change the date in the title please). I'd had a couple of beers last night (which is a rarity in itself, I'm not really a drinker), but even with the benefit of sober hindsight there is nothing I'd have done differently. The police have arranged to take a statement today (they asked if I'd had a drink and so wouldn't take one until today). I'm still as determined as I was last night to see this thing through (even more determined if I'm honest).

One thing I forgot to add: I am a witness (and willing to give a statement) should the victim of the original assault wish to pursue a criminal prosecution against the assailants.

On the way home from the pub a friend suggested we finish the night off at the Leadmill. Not my scene (first time I've been there in 15 years!), but I went anyway. Had a pint there to be polite to my friends. I then went to make my way home but as I was leaving and waiting for a taxi I saw a bouncer (a big, ugly, bald headed dude) walk up to a guy outside and punch him and then call his gang of bouncers to help him drag this dude inside and give the young man a kicking. They grabed him and draged him inside so they could (and I quote) "smack him about a bit". The dude they smacked offered no resistance and was not aggressive towards them! They then took this lad (who was only about 18-21) inside the foyer and hit him several times. I took out my phone and took several pictures of them smacking him about so I could report them to the police. The big, ugly, bald, headed bouncer saw me and ordered the other bouncers to grab me and drag me inside. The word was (from the ugly guy) "he's taken pictures of us, grab him!", which they did. They dragged me inside and hit me a couple of times, twisted my arm behind my back and demanded I delete all the photos of them. It was made clear to me that if I didn't do this I would be eating pavement. They took my phone from me and gave me a choice, the phone gets smashed or we watch you delete the photos you just took of us. I deleted the photos, they held me (and I do mean, restrained me!) as I deleted the photos I'd taken. Before anyone mentions it, yes, I've just given a statement to the police. Here is 2 things the bone head probably doesn't realise: 1) you can undelete things that have been deleted 2) the group of people you decided to intimidate are lawyers The reason I'm posting this is because I want to hear from the lad who the original victim because I am considering a civil claim against the Leadmill.

About 15 years ago one of my friends moved into a brand new built (at the time) one bedroom house in Darnall. In the first couple of weeks he realised he shouldn't have accepted the offer because of minor things (someone shoulder barging him as he walked past, a group shouting abuse after him as he walked past, that kind of thing). A couple of months later he got a knock at the door and was given an ultimatum by a large group of "locals", basically he was told his face didn't fit. He moved out the next day.

That's because the type of user who requires an "unlimited/uncapped" ISP is generally clued up about the ISP market place and therefore would (and should imho) avoid Plusnet like the plague. Plusnet doesn't position itself in that market. You've positioned yourself (as a company) in the light user market. You may or may not do that very well, I have no idea because I download like a SOAB. The OP didn't ask for a light user service, he asked for recommendations for an "unlimited/uncapped" ISP, so I think my comment about Plusnet is/was justified. You're clearly not the ISP for him. Of course...you could prove me wrong, you are an employee of Plusnet and therefore in a position to offer the OP a contractually binding promise that your service is indeed suitable for his ("unlimited/uncapped") needs, should you wish to do so?

Another vote for O2/Be, don't go for Plusnet they traffic shape and have download limits (quite happy to take your money as long as you don't intend to use the service).

I wonder why those attempts have failed? Oh

O2 (or BE, if you can put up with slightly inferior support with the bonus of superiour speed) - without question. Despite the recommendations above I'd Personally avoid Virgin, BT (inc Plusnet), AOL, talk talk, etc. It really depends if you intend to use your connection to its potential or not (if you're not it's kind of pointless paying for it imho).

First (as an aside "ly"; is used to turn a word into an adverb. "First" is already an adverb, hence "ly" not needed.)... no, having read your posts I now don't "expect" (verb/tense?) you to have read anything. However, at the time I had assumed you had done so. Second (see above for "ly".. this could get boring quite quickly so we'll assume I'm correct from now on - something you should have done before posting) as the other guy said above; the intent of the law was/is to stop the sale of media to "underage" consumers by retail outlets. The law has never (as far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected) sought to restrict parent's from exercising their own judgement. Frankly, I don't have time or the patience to lecture you on what (I think) is wrong with the world. Except to say that 12 year olds playing GTA would not be top of my list. But lets put this into some perspective; we now know he wasn't/isn't 12. So now, in hindsight, a few people have posted some "sharing"/"caring" utopian, preaching, patronising, superiour, condescending and self-serving views at the OP when he/she asked a simple technical question. Were the online browny points worth it? Has your "internet cred" been suitably improved by your posts in this thread (or did you end up looking a bit foolish)? Oh wait, You know, I was wrong about you, you're a real hot shot. Can I be just like you and the other bullys heroes in this thread? Riiiiight.. Hey you know what? Littering is, "as far as I'm concerned" is "practically the same" as murder. Those crisp packet dropping arseholes should get life! Muppet

Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to say in my own long winded round-about "aggressive" way

It's a moot point, the Act deals with the supply of certified media. How does that link into your claim regarding getting "the site owners &/or operators in legal trouble"? (edit): Muppet

Me either, but nobody said it was for a 12 year old. Someone asked a simple question and got a moral lecture based on conjecture, which is rather typical of this forum these days. TBH I probably wouldn't have mentioned anything had it not been for "us"/"we". What's that about?

Wow! So let me get this right; The Video Recording Act 1984 makes the "owners/operators" of an Internet forum criminally liable for the discussion (between members) on how to download an 18 certificate add-on for an Xbox 360 game if the original poster doesn't specify the age of her children? Who wrote that law? Nostradamus? .... "a video work is for the purposes of this Act an exempted work if (...) it is a video game." - Video Recordings Act 1984 "Most video games are not, therefore, classified by the British Board of Film Classification; but they may carry an age rating under the voluntary Pan-European Game Information age rating system" - Halsbury's Laws of England. Muppet.

Really? Which law would that be? Muppet

WTF do you think you are? Spokesman for the morality police?