Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel ...... proved it was impossible to happen...
If it's impossible how do they explain his alleged "permanent disfigurement"?
What the heck is a TV programme doing prejudging a case presumably before it's presented in court? Whatever the truth of it this could affect the judgement & makes a nonsense of the law. This used to be illegal but it seems to me it's becoming increasingly common & needs to be stopped. IMHO
Re : Doug - I am pretty sure under English law, unless it could be proved he was flouncing the rules ( I have no idea as I have never been in such a place or more importantly that particular place) and can't say. I am assuming he was abiding by the rules.
I only know what it says in the news item Kevin posted. They must think they have a case or they wouldn't bother suing in the first place. Mind you, people sue for the slightest thing these days.
It seems quite obvious to me that this chap went in the loo for a quick smoke, not for the purpose it was intended for. Nothing unusual in that & it happens all the time. It's quite possible that it was against the rules either to smoke in the loo or to smoke anywhere on the premises. It's also more than likely that he was fully aware of it. I don't think he stands much chance.
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
