19 year old 'fare dodger' thrown off train by passenger after refusing to leave

[arista]

Oh good Idea Arista!


Thanks I voted.


I hope Jack is OK with this Extra Dimension to this Viral YouTube hit.

[Vicky.]

aye right.

So we'll add tourettes to his list of problems.

How's the list doing ....so far he may have:-

Diabetes
Tourettes
Memory problems
Unable to seperate fact from fiction
Oh...and a grazed face (that may have happend on his walk home for all we know)

Any further advances people?
I dont think shasown meant that literally.

His point was more no matter what the circumstances...the bloke had no right to throw him off the train, especially as roughly as he did.

I may be wrong, but thats how it read to me.

[Pyramid*]

Of course he did...he made a point of pretty much telling the other passengers that they should be pissed off by what he said to the lad :laugh:

The vid is the perfect training tool? In what sense? Conflict management...is not escalating situations and then allowing a randomer to get involved.

He made no invite. Other passengers WERE moaning - didn't you hear them?

A training tool for 'What went wrong', 'How should this have been handled', 'What other options would have been available to the employee, "How it affects the Company in the public eye". So yes, a good example of a real live situation that occurred, being put to use for Training.

[Pyramid*]

I dont think shasown meant that literally.

His point was more no matter what the circumstances...the bloke had no right to throw him off the train, especially as roughly as he did.

I may be wrong, but thats how it read to me.

I know he didn't mean it literally.....neither was I meaning it literally.

I was making the point that we could add a plethora of 'things wrong' with the yob, in his defence, if we were so inclined.

[Vicky.]

He made no invite. Other passengers WERE moaning - didn't you hear them?

A training tool for 'What went wrong', 'How should this have been handled', 'What other options would have been available to the employee, "How it affects the Company in the public eye". So yes, a good example of a real live situation that occurred, being put to use for Training.

Yes I did hear them...but he encouraged it with what he was saying, when he SHOULD have been trying to diffuse it all...not wind people up more(with lies such as, we will stay here all day or whatever it was he said...when that wasnt even possible) ;)

Ah I get you now. Yeah that could be done I suppose.

The conductor seriously needs to re-do his training though, if he had any to begin with.

[arista]

He made no invite. Other passengers WERE moaning - didn't you hear them?

A training tool for 'What went wrong', 'How should this have been handled', 'What other options would have been available to the employee, "How it affects the Company in the public eye". So yes, a good example of a real live situation that occurred, being put to use for Training.


There's a Mother with Young Children
suffering the Vile Punks F........ing

[Vicky.]

I know he didn't mean it literally.....neither was I meaning it literally.

I was making the point that we could add a plethora of 'things wrong' with the yob, in his defence, if we were so inclined.

A little bit like many hypothetical situations were brought into it in defense of the 'big man'? Including how it was no different to a bouncer doing their job, or that he could be an off duty copper?

[Pyramid*]

Yes I did hear them...but he encouraged it with what he was saying, when he SHOULD have been trying to diffuse it all...not wind people up more(with lies such as, we will stay here all day or whatever it was he said...when that wasnt even possible) ;)

Ah I get you now. Yeah that could be done I suppose.

The conductor seriously needs to re-do his training though, if he had any to begin with.

I agree - there clearly is a need for retraining, I am not disputing that whatsoever.

But so too does the yob..... needs to be trained in how not to try to get free rides, how to be respectful and how to do as they are told when asked.

A little bit like many hypothetical situations were brought into it in defense of the 'big man'? Including how it was no different to a bouncer doing their job, or that he could be an off duty copper?

A little bit like that exactly and I responding accordingly, with the very same flavour of 'non literal' post.

[Omah]

The Big Man was right to throw the little man off the train

[Vicky.]

I agree - there clearly is a need for retraining, I am not disputing that whatsoever.

But so too does the yob..... needs to be trained in how not to try to get free rides, how to be respectful and how to do as they are told when asked.


We are on the same page then ;)

Except, of course, for the whole 'big man' part :laugh:

[Niamh.]

lmao at the guy being referred to as The Big man :laugh:

[Pyramid*]

Okay...here's a question.

When the big man asks the conductor, "Do you want him off"...... if the conductor had said "I need to phone security"..... I suspect the outcome would have been exactly the same.

The big man would most probably have taken the matter out of the conductor's hands and did what he did anyway.

Would the conductor phoning for security have made any REAL difference, given that passengers were already being held up, already becoming impatient with the abusive little yob?

I don't think it would have made one iota of difference - I believe the same thing would have happened.

[MTVN]

The big man himself

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/14/article-2073929-0F28E8E600000578-891_306x436.jpg

[Niamh.]

Okay...here's a question.

When the big man asks the conductor, "Do you want him off"...... if the conductor had said "I need to phone security"..... I suspect the outcome would have been exactly the same.

The big man would most probably have taken the matter out of the conductor's hands and did what he did anyway.

Would the conductor phoning for security have made any REAL difference, given that passengers were already being held up, already becoming impatient with the abusive little yob?

I don't think it would have made one iota of difference - I believe the same thing would have happened.

Well, if the Conductor had said, no sit down sir, I'll call the police but The Big Man threw him off anyway, then I would imagine, we would only be sitting here complaining about what the Big Man did and not the conductor :)

[Vicky.]

Okay...here's a question.

When the big man asks the conductor, "Do you want him off"...... if the conductor had said "I need to phone security"..... I suspect the outcome would have been exactly the same.

The big man would most probably have taken the matter out of the conductor's hands and did what he did anyway.

Would the conductor phoning for security have made any REAL difference, given that passengers were already being held up, already becoming impatient with the abusive little yob?

I don't think it would have made one iota of difference - I believe the same thing would have happened.
Why do you think that? After all the man was apparently just trying to help the conductor...surely if this was the case he would have respected his wishes...no?

[Vicky.]

Well, if the Conductor had said, no sit down sir, I'll call the police but The Big Man threw him off anyway, then I would imagine, we would only be sitting here complaining about what the Big Man did and not the conductor :)

Yup, good point.

[arista]

The big man himself

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/14/article-2073929-0F28E8E600000578-891_306x436.jpg


Yes Worldwide Hero


I bet he goes on Yank TV
for a exclusive fee

[Roy Mars III]

Yes Worldwide Hero


I bet he goes on Yank TV
for a exclusive fee

Fox News would love him

[Shasown]

Actually it is ..... ;)

Pity you didnt read the whole of the wiki article you posted. (subtle hint there)

[Pyramid*]

We are on the same page then ;)

Except, of course, for the whole 'big man' part :laugh:

Partly;........ :)

lmao at the guy being referred to as The Big man :laugh:

or should that be PTL .... nah, it's definately a real LOL. !!

I think a bit of humour injection was needed on this thread - cool it down a wee bit as it's so easy to get overheated but it's been a great debate when all is said and done.

[Pyramid*]

Well, if the Conductor had said, no sit down sir, I'll call the police but The Big Man threw him off anyway, then I would imagine, we would only be sitting here complaining about what the Big Man did and not the conductor :)

It would have taken the conductor out of the equation for sure but
I wouldn't be complaining about the Big Man... I still think he did what was needed to be done.

[Shasown]

It would have taken the conductor out of the equation for sure but
I wouldn't be complaining about the Big Man... I still think he did what was needed to be done.

Yes it needed to be done - morally, for both yobs education and also for the benefit of all on that train and any other service that may have been delayed.

Legally however it shouldnt have been done. Its interesting to note that if you listen to the video, a lady is heard commenting quite close to the end "there was no need for that"

But the real interesting comment I noted in the Daily Record story was what the person videoing the incident is said to have said.


Teacher Ian Hems, who filmed the incident on his phone, said the Big Man told him: “If I end up in jail, you’ve got to comeand bring me a bag of pickled onion Monster Munch.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/13/police-hunt-for-big-man-who-threw-alleged-fare-dodger-off-scottish-train-86908-23631110/


Sort of an admission its probably against the law what I am going to do now but sod it.

[Niamh.]

It would have taken the conductor out of the equation for sure but
I wouldn't be complaining about the Big Man... I still think he did what was needed to be done.

It may have needed to be done, but not be another passenger, that's the point, he had absolutely no right to put his hands on that boy.

[Pyramid*]

Why do you think that? After all the man was apparently just trying to help the conductor...surely if this was the case he would have respected his wishes...no?

Not so, I said if the conductor explained that he would have to call security (I made no reference to the conductor telling the big man NO I do not want him off.....).

The conductor replying with "I need to call security" is merely a statement that gives no indication as to whether he wants the yob 'off the train' or not - it's a comment that makes his position clear that he has to call security.

Such wording would take the heat off the conductor (boom boom) - but if the Big Man wished to take matters into his own hands - he has not disrespected anyone.

Unfortunately, the conductor replied to a closed question - though in fairness: given the circumstances and that he had a trai full of passengers being held up: I feel for the conductor on this one. Who does he accomodate: a carriage full of paying passengers who are being held up for no good reason: or a little fare dodging gobshi*te?

[Pyramid*]

It may have needed to be done, but not be another passenger, that's the point, he had absolutely no right to put his hands on that boy.

I really wish people would stop referring to this student as a boy.

He is 19. He is an adult. He acted like a petulant spoiled little boy wanting his own way and his childish manner and behaviour was dealt with in an appropriate manner, by an adult. IMO of course, though I am sure you will not agree which is fair does.

[Niamh.]

I really wish people would stop referring to this student as a boy.

He is 19. He is an adult.

Technically speaking maybe, but I would still consider a 19 year old as a boy/girl as they're still teenagers. People still referred to me as a girl when I was well into my 20's, I don't see the issue tbh.

[Omah]

Pity you didnt read the whole of the wiki article you posted. (subtle hint there)

I doubt that you have ..... :joker:

Incidentally, I have been a civil servant (and therefore a public servant) for central and local government and a public servant (and, sometimes, a civil servant) for privately run public (formerly central and local government) services and I have been employed by central and local government services (both publicly and privately run) in positions where I have been neither a public or a civil servant ..... confusin', ain't it ..... :laugh3:

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

somebody should find out where the fat guy lives and egg his windows

[Niamh.]

I really wish people would stop referring to this student as a boy.

He is 19. He is an adult. He acted like a petulant spoiled little boy wanting his own way and his childish manner and behaviour was dealt with in an appropriate manner, by an adult. IMO of course, though I am sure you will not agree which is fair does.

(re quoted as more was added after I replied)

Yes, he did. I absolutely agree with you. And he would have been dealt with by security and/or Police had the conductor done what he was supposed to have done.

[MTVN]

I really wish people would stop referring to this student as a boy.



the boyo.



the boyo

the boyo's



The boyo wasn't assaulted

boyo

:idc:

[Niamh.]

:idc:

:laugh2:

[Omah]

I really wish people would stop referring to this student as a boy.

He is 19. He is an adult. He acted like a petulant spoiled little boy wanting his own way and his childish manner and behaviour was dealt with in an appropriate manner, by an adult. IMO of course, though I am sure you will not agree which is fair does.

Yeah, I'm sure he couldn't have obtained his umpteen pints of lager while still claiming to be a "boy" ..... :joker:

[Pyramid*]

Technically speaking maybe, but I would still consider a 19 year old as a boy/girl as they're still teenagers. People still referred to me as a girl when I was well into my 20's, I don't see the issue tbh.

The issue is : he is technically speaking: he is an adult and not some little boy.

If he's adult enough to go out drinking - he's adult enough to deal with ensuring he has the correct ticket for his journey on public transport, he's adult enough to realise he was in the wrong, he's adult enough to follow instructions and being asked to remove himself from the train when he knew fine well he did not have the correct ticket and he's adult enough not to lie about having the right ticket, when he admitted to his father - he didn't.

[Shasown]

A few other points to note now it is being investigated is that if the conductor had followed Scotrail official policy - ask to pay, offer bill to be sent home etc, then train goes on way with transport police informed.

Not only would the passengers not have been inconvenienced.

Have a go Hero wouldnt be being investigated for a possible assault.

Yob wouldnt be looking at getting away without paying and the possibility of some compo. (And if Mr Pillock{sic} does get prosecuted yob will get something for his war wounds).

In the event of some form of punishment being meted out to Mr Pollock for his intervention the message sent out to other fare dodgers suddenly changes from that of "we the public wont put up with it any longer" to "do it if you want coz if anyone twats you for it you get compo"

[Pyramid*]

:idc:

:hugesmile:

Scottish colloquialism for a cheeky man or one of impudent nature.... :p

[Shasown]

I doubt that you have ..... :joker:

Incidentally, I have been a civil servant (and therefore a public servant) for central and local government and a public servant (and, sometimes, a civil servant) for privately run public (formerly central and local government) services and I have been employed by central and local government services (both publicly and privately run) in positions where I have been neither a public or a civil servant ..... confusin', ain't it ..... :laugh3:

Oh I did read it all and other subsequents links on the page. Thats why I noted your ref was a generic one covering worldworld instances whereas mine was UK specific.

So you were(are) a shiney. Sorry mate, I didnt realise, while you were polishing seats in the public interest i was at the sharp end.

[Pyramid*]

A few other points to note now it is being investigated is that if the conductor had followed Scotrail official policy - ask to pay, offer bill to be sent home etc, then train goes on way with transport police informed.

Not only would the passengers not have been inconvenienced.

Have a go Hero wouldnt be being investigated for a possible assault.

Yob wouldnt be looking at getting away without paying and the possibility of some compo. (And if Mr Pillock{sic} does get prosecuted yob will get something for his war wounds).

In the event of some form of punishment being meted out to Mr Pollock for his intervention the message sent out to other fare dodgers suddenly changes from that of "we the public wont put up with it any longer" to do it if you want coz if anyone twats you for it you get compo"

According to the newspaper report: the conductor did offer him the option of paying.


'We are investigating the incident, which appears to show a person travelling without a valid ticket, refusing to pay for the journey, and swearing at a staff member in full view of customers

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073660/Big-Man-Scotrail-ticket-video-Sam-Main-says-HES-victim.html#ixzz1gWacexa5

I asked you earlier if you believed for one second if the conductor had suggested billing his home address: do you think for one second that the yob would have provided it? I don't need to think twice about that.....I'd bet my house that he would not have done so.

[Omah]

Oh I did read it all and other subsequents links on the page. Thats why I noted your ref was a generic one covering worldworld instances whereas mine was UK specific.

"Civil Service" specific ..... :wink:

[Niamh.]

The issue is : he is technically speaking: he is an adult and not some little boy.

If he's adult enough to go out drinking - he's adult enough to deal with ensuring he has the correct ticket for his journey on public transport, he's adult enough to realise he was in the wrong, he's adult enough to follow instructions and being asked to remove himself from the train when he knew fine well he did not have the correct ticket and he's adult enough not to lie about having the right ticket, when he admitted to his father - he didn't.

I never called him a little boy though or stated he was underage or not an adult, I just referred to him as boy as I would any other 19 year old boy :conf: Infact, here in Cork we refer to just about everyone as "boy" even girls :tongue:

[Shasown]

According to the newspaper report: the conductor did offer him the option of paying.

I asked you earlier if you believed for one second if the conductor had suggested billing his home address: do you think for one second that the yob would have provided it? I don't need to think twice about that.....I'd bet my house that he would not have done so.

Pyr you are still focusing in on the yob's behaviour, everyone admits it was wrong. I am not disagreeing with you on that.

My point is the conductor should have allowed the train to go on its way without further escalation, he should have informed Transport police and then let them deal with the youth. Thats their job not his and certainly not Mr Pollocks.

Whether or not the youth would have provided his home address is open to conjecture, however the conductor's actions were wrong as were Big Mans.

As I said earlier two (in fact three) wrongs dont make a right

[Pyramid*]

It may have needed to be done, but not be another passenger, that's the point, he had absolutely no right to put his hands on that boy.

Technically speaking maybe, but I would still consider a 19 year old as a boy/girl as they're still teenagers. People still referred to me as a girl when I was well into my 20's, I don't see the issue tbh.

I never called him a little boy though or stated he was underage or not an adult, I just referred to him as boy as I would any other 19 year old boy :conf: Infact, here in Cork we refer to just about everyone as "boy" even girls :tongue:

A 19 year old is not a boy. They are an adult.

Boyo - is used as a derogatory term and is used when questioning the respectablity or morale grounding / bad behaviour / etc, of a male person in Scotland - on the other hand can be any age .....from very young cheeky upstarts, to fully grown man in their advancing years :tongue:

[Shasown]

"Civil Service" specific ..... :wink:

Yeah thats why its says "civil servant or public servant" :wink: :wink:

[Pyramid*]

Pyr you are still focusing in on the yob's behaviour, everyone admits it was wrong. I am not disagreeing with you on that.

My point is the conductor should have allowed the train to go on its way without further escalation, he should have informed Transport police and then let them deal with the youth. Thats their job not his and certainly not Mr Pollocks.

Whether or not the youth would have provided his home address is open to conjecture, however the conductor's actions were wrong as were Big Mans.

As I said earlier two (in fact three) wrongs dont make a right

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment re the conductor - I do disagree with you on the Big Man's stance. (Mr Pollock).

[Omah]

Oh I did read it all and other subsequents links on the page.

Oh no, you didn't ..... :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_services

See also
Public value – the equivalent of shareholder value in public management
Public good – a good whose availability is not reduced (non-rivaled) due to the consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded (non-excludable) from using the good
Right to Public Services legislation
CEEP European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest
Customer service
European Community regulation
Infrastructure
New Public Management
Privatization
Public administration
Public ownership
Public policy
Public service broadcasting
Service
VÖWG Austrian Association for Public and Social Economy
Welfare state

Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Public Service Innovation
Municipal Services Project
Public Services International
Public Services International Research Unit
publicservice.co.uk – Public Service News
Daniel Chavez (ed), Beyond the Market: The Future of Public Services, TNI Public Services Yearbook 2005/6, Transnational Institute / Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), February 2006
European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest

Civil service in the executive branch of government
Government agency ·Bureaucracy ·Bureaucrat ·Public administration ·Public services ·Public policy ·Public sector

Terminology
Undersecretary ·Commissioner ·Diplomatic service

International civil services
Australia ·Bangladesh ·Brazil ·Canada ·China ·European Union ·France ·Germany (Beamter) ·Hong Kong ·India ·Ireland ·Italy ·Japan ·Malaysia ·New Zealand ·Nigeria ·Northern Ireland ·Pakistan ·Singapore ·Sri Lanka ·Ukraine ·United Kingdom ·United States

Categories
National civil service commissions ·Government occupations ·Civil service by country

See also: Civil service reform in developing countries ·Imperial examination (Ancient China)

[Shasown]

A 19 year old is not a boy. They are an adult.

Boyo - is used as a derogatory term and is used when questioning the respectablity or morale grounding / bad behaviour / etc, of a male person in Scotland - on the other hand can be any age .....from very young cheeky upstarts, to fully grown man in their advancing years :tongue:

Careful now you could end up on young Sam's "to sue" list

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=15898324&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=official----boyo--is-a-racist-insult--name_page.html

[Niamh.]

It may have needed to be done, but not be another passenger, that's the point, he had absolutely no right to put his hands on that boy.





A 19 year old is not a boy. They are an adult.

Boyo - is used as a derogatory term and is used when questioning the respectablity or morale grounding / bad behaviour / etc, of a male person in Scotland - on the other hand can be any age .....from very young cheeky upstarts, to fully grown man in their advancing years :tongue:

Fine, look at the final point on that list, "boy" is Cork slang, if you're allowed to use Scottish slang, I'm allowed use Corkonian slang :spin:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g186600-c2497/Cork:Ireland:Cork.Slang.html

[Omah]

Oh I did read it all and other subsequents links on the page. Thats why I noted your ref was a generic one covering worldworld instances whereas mine was UK specific.

So you were(are) a shiney. Sorry mate, I didnt realise, while you were polishing seats in the public interest i was at the sharp end.

I have also held positions in the private sector, in the fields of Civil Engineering, Telecommunications, Automotive Manufacture and Information Technology ..... :bouncy:

[Shasown]

Oh no, you didn't ..... :laugh:



Yes I did every single one of them ;)

"One recent innovation, used in the UK increasingly as well as Australia and Canada is public-private partnerships. This involves giving a long lease to private consortia in return for partly funding infrastructure."

[Shasown]

I have also held positions in the private sector, in the fields of Civil Engineering, Telecommunications, Automotive Manufacture and Information Technology ..... :bouncy:


Lovelyyyyy

[Omah]

Yeah thats why its says "civil servant or public servant" :wink: :wink:

I'm sorry - I can no longer help you if you fail to understand the concept of semantics ..... :sad:

[Shasown]

I'm sorry - I can no longer help you if you fail to understand the concept of semantics ..... :sad:

Thats okay you have never really been of much help anyway.

As I said earlier no need to apologise

[Pyramid*]

Careful now you could end up on young Sam's "to sue" list

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=15898324&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=official----boyo--is-a-racist-insult--name_page.html

LOL...... Mabye I should just refer to him as dickhead, that's far more appropriate, all thing considered.


Fine, look at the final point on that list, "boy" is Cork slang, if you're allowed to use Scottish slang, I'm allowed use Corkonian slang :spin:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g186600-c2497/Cork:Ireland:Cork.Slang.html

I understand what you are saying - similar to the word 'lad' being regarded as a younger person when in fact it could and often does, refer to fully grown adults. Just as the word 'Lass' is used in the same manner.

It's just that when I see the word 'boy' used with this type of story: some (and I say some, not all) will focus on it being akin to some 'little boy' - rather than the adult that he actually is. :spin:

[Shasown]

LOL...... Mabye I should just refer to him as dickhead, that's far more appropriate, all thing considered.


Yes it is.

[Niamh.]

LOL...... Mabye I should just refer to him as dickhead, that's far more appropriate, all thing considered.



I understand what you are saying - similar to the word 'lad' being regarded as a younger person when in fact it could and often does, refer to fully grown adults. Just as the word 'Lass' is used in the same manner.

It's just that when I see the word 'boy' used with this type of story: some (and I say some, not all) will focus on it being akin to some 'little boy' - rather than the adult that he actually is. :spin:

Well, his age has been posted numerous times on this thread, I'm sure everyone involved in the discussion is well aware that he's not a little boy. But I will continue to refer to him as Boy as I would any other 19 year old :hugesmile:

[Pyramid*]

Now I know this is a serious debate: would it be utter and wholly inappropriate to post this - seeing as we now all seem to be going around in circles??.....




Only trying to lighten the load a wee bit...... ;)

2syR4On4xDI

[Tom4784]

Exactly, you were remiss in your interpretation.

If you keep grasping at those straws you'll break them.

[arista]

The lad that Filmed it was just on Radio 5

He said after he was removed they all started talking
one bloke was a Lawyer he gave his card to the big man.

Also this went on for 10mins
even before he started his mobile to film it.

[Pyramid*]

Well, his age has been posted numerous times on this thread, I'm sure everyone involved in the discussion is well aware that he's not a little boy. But I will continue to refer to him as Boy as I would any other 19 year old :hugesmile:

Fair comment, I can call him Boyo then :D

[Benjamin]

In my view he is still a boy. He is by no means a young adult if he is still behaving like that.

[Pyramid*]

The lad that Filmed it was just on Radio 5

He said after he was removed they all started talking
one bloke was a Lawyer he gave his card to the big man.

Also this went on for 10mins
even before he started his mobile to film it.

LOL..... never one to miss making a buck or two them lawyers eh.... !!!

I like the final part here: that it went of for 10mins prior to it being filmed.

I'd love to hear the full story.

[Niamh.]

Fair comment, I can call him Boyo then :D

You may :joker:

[Pyramid*]

In my view he is still a boy. He is by no means a young adult if he is still behaving like that.

I agree with you in that he is acting like a boy - but when it suits him, equally, he's happy to act like an adult when he wants to out drinking beers.

[Pyramid*]

You may :joker:

This is meant to be a thread to argue on supposedly....there is far too much agreeing going on here......

*must give myself a good talking to*

[Omah]

The lad that Filmed it was just on Radio 5

He said after he was removed they all started talking
one bloke was a Lawyer he gave his card to the big man.

Also this went on for 10mins
even before he started his mobile to film it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16177725

Mr Main told BBC Radio Scotland's Call Kaye programme: "I was given no time to explain myself. It wasn't even an argument.

"There was a discussion with me trying to explain myself for about a minute and then the conductor started shouting at me," he said.

10 minutes or 1 ?

He also said he was diabetic, had not eaten much all day and had not slept the night before because he had been studying.

The student admitted he had been drinking before the incident, but said he was not drunk.

Diabetic, drinking on an empty stomach - does he even remember what he was doing on the train ?

[Vicky.]

Might have seemed like a minute to the lad, but seemed like 10 to those waiting...I know when Im in a queue in the bank or something im probably only there for 2 mins or so but it feels like half an hour :laugh:

[Jack_]

No problem with the addition of a poll, never thought of adding one myself :p

I sincerely hope anyone that advocates the actions of this 'big man' never has (or already has) children, as teaching them that using violent methods as ways to achieve what you want is right is only going to lead to more violence and more crime. It is never right (unless in self defence) and there are no excuses for it, by agreeing with it you are advocating and promoting actions of violence as something that should be used even more commonly than I assume it already is. Christ...some people just don't understand the repercussions of their quite frankly idiotic views, and it's a real shame as it'll only lead to worse things.

People should not be expected to have to put up verbally abuse in their workplace.

And passengers of a train service should not be expected to be manhandled by fellow passengers who are in no position whatsoever to do so, whichever way you cut it he used physical force to remove him and therefore it is a form of assault.

[Pyramid*]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16177725



10 minutes or 1 ?



Diabetic, drinking on an empty stomach - does he even remember what he was doing on the train ?

Ten minutes or one minute?

Does he even remember what he was doing?

Is he an adult or not?

Did he have one bag or was he laden down with several prior to going in for his exam?

Did he lie to the conductor about having a correct ticket?

Did he lie to his father about not being given his bag?

Did he buy 2 single tickets or did he lie.


So many questions....not enough answers.......

[Pyramid*]

No problem with the addition of a poll, never thought of adding one myself :p

I sincerely hope anyone that advocates the actions of this 'big man' never has (or already has) children, as teaching them that using violent methods as ways to achieve what you want is right is only going to lead to more violence and more crime. It is never right (unless in self defence) and there are no excuses for it, by agreeing with it you are advocating and promoting actions of violence as something that should be used even more commonly than I assume it already is. Christ...some people just don't understand the repercussions of their quite frankly idiotic views, and it's a real shame as it'll only lead to worse things.


And passengers of a train service should not be expected to be manhandled by fellow passengers who are in no position whatsoever to do so, whichever way you cut it he used physical force to remove him and therefore it is a form of assault.

On the contrary Jack, I hope the lesson learned for anyone who has children or intends to have children - is to raise them to have basic morals and values. To raise them to be honest, not to lie, to act responsibly if you have diabetes . To eat before ANY drinking (which is best avoided with diabetes), to be respectful, to not be verbally abusive to those in their workplace and to follow instructions.

[Crimson Dynamo]

There is no debate amongst adults

the little brat got what he deserved and you will too if you come like that in Scotland

[Shasown]

There is no debate amongst adults

the little brat got what he deserved and you will too if you come like that in Scotland

Once again you pop on to post complete and utter drivel.

I have lived in Scotland for a good number of years now and still havent got what i deserve.

Where is the huge lottery win and gorgeous blonde?

Just goes to show Scotland isnt the land of milk and honey you would have us believe it is.

[arista]

There is no debate amongst adults

the little brat got what he deserved and you will too if you come like that in Scotland

Its gone Global

And Now on all UK News

[Jack_]

On the contrary Jack, I hope the lesson learned for anyone who has children or intends to have children - is to raise them to have basic morals and values. To raise them to be honest, not to lie, to act responsibly if you have diabetes . To eat before ANY drinking (which is best avoided with diabetes), to be respectful, to not be verbally abusive to those in their workplace and to follow instructions.

And I have never once disagreed with those basil moral principles either, all children should be raised by parents with that in mind, but also along with the notion that violence and acts of physical force are wrong and should never be used unless in self defence. Anybody that fails to recognise either or both of these isn't fit to be a parent, and I hope they never are one, or aren't one already.

[Pyramid*]

And I have never once disagreed with those basil moral principles either, all children should be raised by parents with that in mind, but also along with the notion that violence and acts of physical force are wrong and should never be used unless in self defence. Anybody that fails to recognise either or both of these isn't fit to be a parent, and I hope they never are one, or aren't one already.

Therefore going by what you have said, the yob's parents are not fit to be parents.

So not only do we have his parents that you regards as bein unfit, we also have the youb as consequence of their bad parenting.....

[Jack_]

Therefore going by what you have said, the yob's parents are not fit to be parents.

Correct.

So not only do we have his parents that you regards as bein unfit, we also have the youb as consequence of their bad parenting.....

And not only that, but we also have the 'big man' and his unfit parents (if they're still alive that is). Works both ways.

[Vicky.]

You cant always blame the parents for kids going bad...so many factors come into it at times :/

[fruit_cake]

the poll is showing a clear majority against Big Man

[Jack_]

You cant always blame the parents for kids going bad...so many factors come into it at times :/

Of course, but it's a large factor and the majority of the time I expect that's where trouble stems from. The family is the primary socialiser, children that grow up in dysfunctional ones stand more of a chance of ending up as criminals than ones that don't. It sounds like a generalisation and whilst there are exceptions to the rule, it is largely true as they haven't properly been educated about norms and values.

[Vicky.]

Of course, but it's a large factor and the majority of the time I expect that's where trouble stems from. The family is the primary socialiser, children that grow up in dysfunctional ones stand more of a chance of ending up as criminals than ones that don't. It sounds like a generalisation and whilst there are exceptions to the rule, it is largely true as they haven't properly been educated about norms and values.

Oh yeah I agree with this.

Just annoys me when its always the parents fault...rather than the youths taking some responsibility for their own actions. Was like that with the riots...everyone blaming the parents :bored: Even of the people who were like 19/20+

[Pyramid*]

Complaint over man who threw 'fare-dodger' off train

Fare-dodger train eviction probed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16143909)

A complaint has been made to police against a passenger who threw a "fare-dodger" off a train after he refused the conductor's request to leave.

Alan Pollock's action against Sam Main on the Edinburgh to Perth train on Friday was filmed by another passenger.

British Transport Police would not confirm who had made the complaint.

Mr Main, a 19-year-old student from Falkirk, claimed he had mistakenly bought the wrong ticket and was hoping to explain it to the conductor.

He told BBC Radio Scotland's Call Kaye programme: "I was given no time to explain myself. It wasn't even an argument.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57325000/jpg/_57325970_sam_main.jpg

A complaint is made to the police about a passenger who threw a suspected "fare-dodger" off a train

"There was a discussion with me trying to explain myself for about a minute and then the conductor started shouting at me," he said.

"I never seen his face, I never seen a man. He never approached me. He never said 'right son get off the train'.

"He grabbed me from behind, threw me to the ground on the train. Then picked me up off the ground on the train. Then threw me to the ground on the platform."

Mr Main told BBC Scotland he had tried to get back on the train to get his bag - which contained his phone, exam notes and headphones - but was prevented from doing so by Mr Pollock.

He also said he was diabetic, had not eaten much all day and had not slept the night before because he had been studying.


"[This] had perhaps quite an adverse effect on my mood and my mannerisms at that time, but still I don't condone the way I spoke to the conductor," he said.

From BBC Scotland News.




Seems the yob needs to get his story straight.

He states he was given 2 single tickets for the same journey in yesterday's reports - that he was SOLD the wrong tickets.

Now he states that he MISTAKENLY bought the wrong ticket. Now, how many times did he argue with the point with the conductor that he had the correct ticket, in fact, didn't he tell him "I've *******ing got it".... yet now he claims he mistakenly bought the wrong ticket.

He was not thrown to the ground. HE tried to punch the Big Man...and during him being spun round & frogmarched out, they stumbled. He was not thrown to the ground on the train at all.

I see he's still going on about the bag that was thrown out to him. He was prevented from getting back on the train again - he was NOT prevented from trying to get his bag, seeing as it had been chucked out along with him.

[Jack_]

Oh yeah I agree with this.

Just annoys me when its always the parents fault...rather than the youths taking some responsibility for their own actions. Was like that with the riots...everyone blaming the parents :bored: Even of the people who were like 19/20+

That's true, I believe the original riots would have stemmed from what was probably the repercussions of a poor upbringing, but I blame opportunists with anonymity amongst a crowd myself for everything else that followed that week.

[arista]

Is the Punk trying to get Big Money ?

[Jack_]

Pyramid, no matter how much the guy may or may not be lying and changing his story, that does not at all justify the actions of Alan Pollock who still assaulted him, it doesn't change anything. I'm afraid lying doesn't mean that gives a regular person the right to use physical force (a power which they don't have) against you in what is a form of assault.

You can accuse the guy of lying all you want, which I'm sure nobody here agrees with (certainly not me before you again accuse me of something I've already clearly stated otherwise of), but that does not justify the actions of the so-called 'big man', however you try to spin this.

[Pyramid*]

You cant always blame the parents for kids going bad...so many factors come into it at times :/

Not least when they are an adult - they should be expected to be able to behave like one and behave responsibly.

From what I'm reading here - this guy was more interested in getting a bevvy down his neck, than attending to his own medical /health needs, or in ensuring he had the correct ticket. More interested in arguing the bit that he had a correct ticket (despite his story changing - if he doesn't regard his actions as being argumentative and there being an argument.

Re his own words below: what did he try to explain exactly? All I see is him arguing with the conductor that he had the correct ticket - which he didn't have - and which he admits in the same interview that he never had in the first place.

So what exactly was he claims he was given no time to explain?


He told BBC Radio Scotland's Call Kaye programme: "I was given no time to explain myself. It wasn't even an argument.

[Pyramid*]

Pyramid, no matter how much the guy may or may not be lying and changing his story, that does not at all justify the actions of Alan Pollock who still assaulted him, it doesn't change anything. I'm afraid lying doesn't mean that gives a regular person the right to use physical force (a power which they don't have) against you in what is a form of assault.

You can accuse the guy of lying all you want, which I'm sure nobody here agrees with (certainly not me before you again accuse me of something I've already clearly stated otherwise of), but that does not justify the actions of the so-called 'big man', however you try to spin this.

I totally disagree - I do not believe he was assaulted.

The amount of lies this yob has told - tells it's own story. He's trying to worm his way out of a situation that was entirely of his own making - and is trying to lay the blame at someone else's door.

[arista]

"the actions of Alan Pollock who still assaulted him"

Yes Jack
but he was clapped and they got moving again.

Are you a Liberal?

[MTVN]

What's your definition of assault Pyramid?

[arista]

I totally disagree - I do not believe he was assaulted.

The amount of lies this yob has told - tells it's own story. He's trying to worm his way out of a situation that was entirely of his own making - and is trying to lay the blame at someone else's door.



Yes I hope he gets the Fine or Time


Punk Scam

[Pyramid*]

Is the Punk trying to get Big Money ?

I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm sure his parents, family & friends,are all very proud of him right now, showing himself up to be not only a liar on several counts, but a fare dodger and a complete idiot - now for all the world to see.

How utterly embarrassing for them all.

[Pyramid*]

What's your definition of assault Pyramid?

It's certainly not being forcibly ejected from a mode of transportation in which you have not paid to travel on, especially after being abusive and failing to produce ticket when said, or failing to leave when requested - which is what we are discussing here.

[Tom4784]

He mainhandled another passenger and caused them harm although he had no right to do so, that's assault simple as.

[Jack_]

I totally disagree - I do not believe he was assaulted.

The amount of lies this yob has told - tells it's own story. He's trying to worm his way out of a situation that was entirely of his own making - and is trying to lay the blame at someone else's door.

He was assaulted. That's not a belief, it's a fact. Using physical force or violence against someone when you have no power to do so, or you are not using it as a form of self defence is against the law and it is a form of assault, a minor one yes but a form of assault nonetheless, and that's the bottom line of it.

There are no excuses for any forms of assault, no matter how little or how large they are. It's illegal (as it should be).

If there is any justice Pollock will be arrested and charged with assault, given an appropriate punishment (compensation and formal apology for starters if you ask me) and banned from all ScotRail services, as I've previously stated. Before you undoubtedly bring it up, likewise after a fair trial, if the guy is found guilty of fare dodging then he should also be forced to compensate and be banned from all ScotRail services. But regardless, Pollock assaulted Main and that issue isn't to be disputed.

[Pyramid*]

He mainhandled another passenger and caused them harm although he had no right to do so, that's assault simple as.

Not in my books it's not.

He was forcibly removed from a train in which he had no right to travel. Simple.

Not Pollock's fault the yob wasn't able to keep his balance or that the yob tried to force his way back onto the train again.

[Pyramid*]

He was assaulted. That's not a belief, it's a fact. Using physical force or violence against someone when you have no power to do so, or you are not using it as a form of self defence is against the law and it is a form of assault, a minor one yes but a form of assault nonetheless, and that's the bottom line of it.

There are no excuses for any forms of assault, no matter how little or how large they are. It's illegal (as it should be).

If there is any justice Pollock will be arrested and charged with assault, given an appropriate punishment (compensation and formal apology for starters if you ask me) and banned from all ScotRail services, as I've previously stated. Before you undoubtedly bring it up, likewise after a fair trial, if the guy is found guilty of fare dodging then he should also be forced to compensate and be banned from all ScotRail services. But regardless, Pollock assaulted Main and that issue isn't to be disputed.

I'll wait to see if the Police charge Mr Pollock.

[MTVN]

It's certainly not being forcibly ejected from a mode of transportation in which you have not paid to travel on, especially after being abusive and failing to produce ticket when said, or failing to leave when requested - which is what we are discussing here.

Not sure the law would disagree with you there, by any legal definition he did commit assault

[Jack_]

"the actions of Alan Pollock who still assaulted him"

Yes Jack
but he was clapped and they got moving again.

Are you a Liberal?

Anyone that clapped someone they've just witnessed assault another passenger is beyond pathetic, and if it were down to me I'd have them all charged with plain idiocy and crimes against morality. An applause from a group of people does not shy away from the fact that the guy was assaulted.

[MTVN]

Anyone that clapped someone they've just witnessed assault another passenger is beyond pathetic, and if it were down to me I'd have them all charged with plain idiocy and crimes against morality. An applause from a group of people does not shy away from the fact that the guy was assaulted.

Crimes against morality? Really? :laugh:

[Pyramid*]

Not sure the law would disagree with you there, by any legal definition he did commit assault

Like I said, let's see if the Police actually charge him and let's see if he is found guilty.


Anyone that clapped someone they've just witnessed assault another passenger is beyond pathetic, and if it were down to me I'd have them all charged with plain idiocy and crimes against morality. An applause from a group of people does not shy away from the fact that the guy was assaulted.

Which is just as well that it's not down to you then eh - seeing as neither of those 2 things you mentioned are crimes. :D

[Jack_]

Crimes against morality? Really? :laugh:

It's morally wrong to assault someone, but it was a joke anyway :p

[Jack_]

Which is just as well that it's not down to you then eh - seeing as neither of those 2 things you mentioned are crimes. :D

The former certainly should be, I've definitely witnessed far too much of it in this thread that's for sure.

[Pyramid*]

The former certainly should be, I've definitely witnessed far too much of it in this thread that's for sure.

Truth of the matter is: they aren't.

[Tom4784]

Pyramid you're going to have to be more specific when you call someone a yob since there's two of them in that video.

[Pyramid*]

Pyramid you're going to have to be more specific when you call someone a yob since there's two of them in that video.

I think the vast majority of fms here know exactly to whom I refer.

[arista]

Anyone that clapped someone they've just witnessed assault another passenger is beyond pathetic, and if it were down to me I'd have them all charged with plain idiocy and crimes against morality. An applause from a group of people does not shy away from the fact that the guy was assaulted.



They wanted to get Home

[fruit_cake]

big man first undermined the ticket inspector and ruined any chance of him solving it peacefully and respectfully. He then assaulted a person without giving him adequate time to defend his case.

:bored:

[Jack_]

I am a moron because I fail to agree with you or fail to see that he was assaulted? Really? It so weakens any argument when one has to resort to personal insults.

I'm finding it difficult to understand how you can 'fail' to see that he was assaulted however, considering under legal definitions I'm confident that he was, and I'm sure you could find such legal definitions. If it's a law there's nothing to 'not see', because of that very reason...it's a law.

The word 'moron' is hardly a personal insult and I'd say you're stretching that definition a bit, but if you really were insulted then I apologise.

EDIT: I used the term in an indirect manner also, if it really is a problem then if a mod tells me I'll (or they can) edit it appropriately, but personally speaking, I don't find that it is.

[arista]

big man first undermined the ticket inspector and ruined any chance of him solving it peacefully and respectfully. He then assaulted a person without giving him adequate time to defend his case.

:bored:


He Asked first
then picked the Scam Punk up

[fruit_cake]

Everyone deserves a chance to respond in a decent manner, and not be assaulted by a random stranger imo.

[Jack_]

They wanted to get Home

I'm often in a rush and there are people in front of me blocking my way by walking incredibly slow, however annoying that is and however much I may think to myself (or joke to a friend) that I should or wish I could just throw them out of the way, I don't. And why? Because surprisingly, it's against the law to do so.

Impatience does not justify assault.

[Josy]

Jack You Stink


You call a Good Older Poster a Moron

And the Mods back you



Stench

Arista stop trying to make it into a big drama, it was being dealt with, so keep to the topic in here instead of having a dig at the mods please.

[Tom4784]

He Asked first
then picked the Scam Punk up

Okay comitting a crime is fine as long as you ask first?

[arista]

Everyone deserves a chance to respond in a decent manner, and not be assaulted by a random stranger imo.


The Lad that Filmed it said on Radio5
it went on for 10mins before the film.


The Punk was Drunk.


You do not have the Full Facts

[arista]

Okay comitting a crime is fine as long as you ask first?


No


Dezzy 10mins before that mobile Film started
the Punk was swearing at all


He was a Drunk Punk
Admit that?

[arista]

Arista stop trying to make it into a big drama, it was being dealt with, so keep to the topic in here instead of having a dig at the mods please.

Thank You Josy.

[arista]

I'm often in a rush and there are people in front of me blocking my way by walking incredibly slow, however annoying that is and however much I may think to myself (or joke to a friend) that I should or wish I could just throw them out of the way, I don't. And why? Because surprisingly, it's against the law to do so.

Impatience does not justify assault.


But again
10mins before the Film Started.


In any Court
This Punk Scammer will also be in trouble

[Tom4784]

No


Dezzy 10mins before that mobile Film started
the Punk was swearing at all


He was a Drunk Punk
Admit that?

So it's okay for a random yob to assault him then? The conductor handled the situation poorly be riling everyone up instead of sticking to procedure. We shouldn't congratulate a fat yob for comittting a needless crime.

People are only on his side because the person he assaulted was a teenager, if he did that to a woman or any other demographic then he'd be Public Enemy Number 1. It's completely hypocritical.

[arista]

the poll is showing a clear majority against Big Man


No the Poll was only added
by a Mod a few hour or so back.

So Give It Time

[arista]

So it's okay for a random yob to assault him then? The conductor handled the situation poorly be riling everyone up instead of sticking to procedure. We shouldn't congratulate a fat yob for comittting a needless crime.

People are only on his side because the person he assaulted was a teenager, if he did that to a woman or any other demographic then he'd be Public Enemy Number 1. It's completely hypocritical.



Maybe another Youth , another time
has pulled a weapon on him.

This is Not a Random thing
thats why Worldwide they like the Big man
as Youths get away with to much

[Pyramid*]

big man first undermined the ticket inspector and ruined any chance of him solving it peacefully and respectfully. He then assaulted a person without giving him adequate time to defend his case.

:bored:

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

[Vicky.]

No


Dezzy 10mins before that mobile Film started
the Punk was swearing at all


He was a Drunk Punk
Admit that?

As has already been stated multiple times on here...I dont think anyone is saying the lad was in the right for the way he spoke to the conductor.

But just because he was rude unnecessarily, does not give people free reign to assault him as they chose. If being rude was worthy of assault...half the people I deal with daily at work would be constantly black and blue.

[arista]

As has already been stated multiple times on here...I dont think anyone is saying the lad was in the right for the way he spoke to the conductor.

But just because he was rude unnecessarily, does not give people free reign to assault him as they chose. If being rude was worthy of assault...half the people I deal with daily at work would be constantly black and blue.



Yes Respect to your Job

But this is a Old Man that does not want to be Stabbed

[Vicky.]

Yes Respect to your Job

But this is a Old Man that does not want to be Stabbed

Well I dont particularly want to be stabbed either. Nor do I assume that just because someone is young and rude, that they are carrying a knife and going to use it on me :crazy:

[Tom4784]

Maybe another Youth , another time
has pulled a weapon on him.

This is Not a Random thing
thats why Worldwide they like the Big man
as Youths get away with to much

So that gives people the right to assault teenagers? One does something bad so they all deserve a lamping? Nice logic.

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

If the conductor followed procedure then a situation wouldn't have arisen. Instead he chose to rile everyone up by saying it was the lad holding everyone up when it wasn't. That's the long and short of it.

It's quite funny and disturbing that you're more offended by bad language rather then violence and you think that the latter is a reasonable punishment for the former.

[Pyramid*]

Everyone deserves a chance to respond in a decent manner, and not be assaulted by a random stranger imo.

A chance that the yob was given and several times over....and he himself failed to respond in a decent manner.

Instead he responded by verbally abusing the conductor (despite yob knowing fine well he did not have a ticket as confirmed by his own word in the BBC news interview).

The yob clearly states that he knew he'd the wrong ticket, he then says he'd have bought a ticket if he'd been given the chance in his own words in the interview: why then did he argue with the conductor by telling the conductor that he HAD the correct ticket, ie: "I've *******ing gave you it"... ;)

[Pyramid*]

So that gives people the right to assault teenagers? One does something bad so they all deserve a lamping? Nice logic.



If the conductor followed procedure then a situation wouldn't have arisen. Instead he chose to rile everyone up by saying it was the lad holding everyone up when it wasn't. That's the long and short of it.

It's quite funny and disturbing that you're more offended by bad language rather then violence and you think that the latter is a reasonable punishment for the former.

If the guy wasnt hell bent on fare dodging and pretending he had the correct ticket - and stopped arguing and cursing away: then the situation would never have arisen.

You may think it's amusing for people to be verbally abused in their place of work - I don't - and I don't care if that is a train conductor, a nurse in A&E - people have a right to carry out their employ and not be verbally abused for it.

[arista]

"So that gives people the right to assault teenagers? One does something bad so they all deserve a lamping? Nice logic."


No its not a Right to do this Dezzy

But in this case more in the World back the Big Man
Thats Logic

[Vicky.]

If the guy wasnt hell bent on fare dodging and pretending he had the correct ticket - and stopped arguing and cursing away: then the situation would never have arisen.


Difference is, the lad doesnt have to be professional and follow procedure to travel on a train. Someone at work, and trained to deal with situations like this, should know better :)

Im pretty damn sure this guy wasnt the first to dodge the fair and refuse to leave the train. But I would think he is probably the first where the conductor gave free reign to other passengers to assault him. At least I would hope the second scenario wasnt common.

[arista]

Well I dont particularly want to be stabbed either. Nor do I assume that just because someone is young and rude, that they are carrying a knife and going to use it on me :crazy:


No Your a Good Lady
I am sure you are fine.


But that Ticket Old Boy may have had weapons pointed at him
more than younger you

[Tom4784]

If the guy wasnt hell bent on fare dodging and pretending he had the correct ticket - and stopped arguing and cursing away: then the situation would never have arisen.

You may think it's amusing for people to be verbally abused in their place of work - I don't - and I don't care if that is a train conductor, a nurse in A&E - people have a right to carry out their employ and not be verbally abused for it.

At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly, that's a fact. Instead of opting to do any of the procedures he opened the floor to violence. I don't care what kind of verbal abuse was flying around swearing doesn't condone violence and I'm surprised and flabbergasted that you think that Pyramid.

Does that mean if I hear someone say **** while i'm out and about I can throw them in front of a car or beat them down?

[Vicky.]

No Your a Good Lady
I am sure you are fine.


But that Ticket Old Boy may have had weapons pointed at him
more than younger you

Still, this does not mean that every youngster is carrying a knife. And it would be ridiculous of the conductor to assume that. if he is seriously that paranoid, he shouldnt be at work anyway, he must be a nervous wreck if he thinks every teen is going to stab him.

[Pyramid*]

Difference is, the lad doesnt have to be professional and follow procedure to travel on a train. Someone at work, and trained to deal with situations like this, should know better :)


Actually, you will find that he (the passenger) does have to follow rules. The terms and conditions of using public tranport - and are often posted around in respect of fare dodging: makes procedures very clear as to what is required when you use such mode of transport, what is expected when ticket inspector come on board, and of the consequences.

If he uses a mode of transport - he should be aware of the T&Cs of carriager prior to embarking. :)

[Vicky.]

Actually, you will find that he does. The terms and conditions of using public tranport - and are often posted around in respect of fare dodging: makes procedures very clear as to what is required when you use such mode of transport, what is expected when ticket inspector come on board, and of the consequences.

If he uses a mode of transport - he should be aware of the T&Cs of carriager prior to embarking. :)

Oh ffs...you knew what I meant.

One would assume that someone in a position of power/a work, would follow procedure and do things the right way...no?

[Vicky.]

Basically what we have learned from this thread...is that contrary to popular belief... two (or three) wrongs DO make a right. And that swearing or dodging train fares means you should be assaulted/the person who assaults you is the one in the right.

Blimey :D

[arista]

Still, this does not mean that every youngster is carrying a knife. And it would be ridiculous of the conductor to assume that. if he is seriously that paranoid, he shouldnt be at work anyway, he must be a nervous wreck if he thinks every teen is going to stab him.


No it does not
but the Punk Scammer was Swearing a great deal
in front of children
so thats on the way to a attack - From Rail Staff

[Pyramid*]

At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly, that's a fact. Instead of opting to do any of the procedures he opened the floor to violence. I don't care what kind of verbal abuse was flying around swearing doesn't condone violence and I'm surprised and flabbergasted that you think that Pyramid.

Does that mean if I hear someone say **** while i'm out and about I can throw them in front of a car or beat them down?

At the end of the day: there would have been no situation for the conductor to handle at all - if the boyo would have simply bought his ticket -or - accepted that he didn't and got off when he was told.

He created the situation.

I'm not perturbed in the slightest if you are surprised or flabbergasted at my views - or not - they are my views regardless. If that has some impact on your thoughts on my views - it has no bearing on me whatsover.

[Tom4784]

At the end of the day: there would have been no situation for the conductor to handle at all - if the boyo would have simply bought his ticket -or - accepted that he didn't and got off when he was told.

He created the situation.

I'm not perturbed in the slightest if you are surprised or flabbergasted at my views - or not - they are my views regardless. If that has some impact on your thoughts on my views - it has no bearing on me whatsover.

The conductor should have been professional enough to end the situation without having the passengers attack each other. He gave his consent to violence which is hardly professional.

It hardly matters who creates the situation what's more important is how it's resolved and for a fully trained professional he did a piss poor job.

Oh I said piss, does that mean a fat tub of lard should come to my house and beat my head in now?

[Pyramid*]

Oh ffs...you knew what I meant.

One would assume that someone in a position of power/a work, would follow procedure and do things the right way...no?

Oh I knew what you meant, it's important though that people do realise that they don't travel on public transport without accepting the T&Cs of carriage.

I've stated several times over that the conductor could have handled the matter differently: I also gave reasons for considation as to why he did not do so.

Basically what we have learned from this thread...is that contrary to popular belief... two (or three) wrongs DO make a right. And that swearing or dodging train fares means you should be assaulted/the person who assaults you is the one in the right.

Blimey :D

Only if you hold that view: which I and others on here...don't.

:)

[Pyramid*]

The conductor should have been professional enough to end the situation without having the passengers attack each other. He gave his consent to violence which is hardly professional.

It hardly matters who creates the situation what's more important is how it's resolved and for a fully trained professional he did a piss poor job.

Oh I said piss, does that mean a fat tub of lard should come to my house and beat my head in now?

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

It mattered - ie the situation - when in your earlier post you were keen to assign blame to only the conductor.


At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly,


Now you are changing stance? It's only important when it's how it was handled, but not WHO created it in the first instance?

[Vicky.]

Only if you hold that view: which I and others on here...don't.

:)

Oh I think the very vast majority(pretty much everyone except one or two) would agree that it IS assault. Some of those may think it was deserved...thats their choice...and a different argument really. But theres really no denying that by law, the lad was assaulted.

Therefor those saying the big guy was in the right, think its fine to assault someone who is swearing and being rude :)

[Jack_]

Basically what we have learned from this thread...is that contrary to popular belief... two (or three) wrongs DO make a right. And that swearing or dodging train fares means you should be assaulted/the person who assaults you is the one in the right.

Blimey :D

:joker: :joker: :joker:

Only if you hold that view: which I and others on here...don't.

Is that some sort of joke? Because everything you've posted on this subject for the last 24 hours has hinted heavily that that's you believe.

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

The 'big man' says 'do you want me to remove him?' or something along those lines, the conductor quite clearly says 'yes', and thus he is giving permission to another passenger to commit an assault, permission of which he doesn't have the power to give and had he be doing his job properly, he wouldn't have given any.

[Pyramid*]

Oh I think the vast majority would agree that it IS assault. Some may think it was deserved...thats their choice. But theres really no denying that by law, the lad was assaulted.

Therefor those saying the big guy was in the right, think its fine to assault someone who is swearing and being rude :)

What people 'think' is assault and what actually 'is' assault will no doubt be clarified - seeing that a complaint has been made to the Police.

If they feel assault has taken place, I'd expect them to charge Mr Pollock with said crime, and see what the outcome is thereafter. Until then, I'm maintaining my stance. *digs heels in*

Verbal abuse is not the same as verbal assault.

[Tom4784]

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

It mattered - ie the situation - when in your earlier post you were keen to assign blame to only the conductor.



Now you are changing stance? It's only important when it's how it was handled, but not WHO created it in the first instance?

He did consent, you said it yourself Pyramid.

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

As for me 'changing stance' I've been blaming the conductor for ages, do keep up Pyramid. Maybe if you read people's posts in full instead of ignoring points you can't win against you wouldn't slip up so much.

[Vicky.]

What people 'think' is assault and what actually 'is' assault will no doubt be clarified - seeing that a complaint has been made to the Police.

If they feel assault has taken place, I'd expect them to charge Mr Pollock with said crime, and see what the outcome is thereafter. Until then, I'm maintaining my stance. *digs heels in*

Verbal abuse is not the same as verbal assault.

:conf:

As for the rest...if the complaint is not withdrawn...and the guy IS charged with assault...will you accept then that it was assault? Or will you be saying the police are wrong so that you can continue with this argument?

[GypsyGoth]

Big Man :worship:

:worship:

[Pyramid*]

Is that some sort of joke? Because everything you've posted on this subject for the last 24 hours has hinted heavily that that's you believe.


The 'big man' says 'do you want me to remove him?' or something along those lines, the conductor quite clearly says 'yes', and thus he is giving permission to another passenger to commit an assault, permission of which he doesn't have the power to give and had he be doing his job properly, he wouldn't have given any.

What have I hinted heavily at as being a joke in my posts?

Is what a joke: what precisely Jack? That I hold a different view from you - no, that's no joke.

The Big Man says, " Do you want me to get him off for you". The conductor replies Yes. He didn't ask or invite or request or incite any violent act. The T&Cs of rail travel are clear: he was abusive, and he was removed. Not perhaps by the best means - but that is what happened.

[Vicky.]

The T&Cs of rail travel are clear: he was abusive, and he was removed. Not perhaps by the best means - but that is what happened.

Pretty sure the T&Cs dont mention 'if you fail to provide a ticket a random other passenger will be allowed to intervene and throw you off the train with much more force than necessary'. I would imagine they might say something about the police being called/transport police though :D

[Pyramid*]

'Why I filmed train ticket row'14 December 2011 Last updated at 10:00 Help ScotRail have said they are investigating after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a member of the public. Click to see interview of guy who filmed..... the yobs abuse had been going on for some time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16173835



Vicky:what you have asked was coverd by Shasown some time back, the wording states 'Generally'.

[InOne]

My god. 16 pages of you lot rewording your same points over and over again :joker:

[Livia]

I saw the "lad" on the news being all reasonable. A very different attitude to the one he had on the train. He didn't try to explain, he effed and blinded at the conductor who was there doing a job. Nice. Whatever they're paying the ticket chap it isn't enough to have some twat-in-a-hat talk to him like he's a piece of crap. Maybe if his attitude had been like the attitude he suddenly seems to have adopted for the TV cameras, the matter would have been cleared up in seconds.

It amazes me that people think his attitude demanded some kind of special treatment and respect from a person doing a job when it was clear there was not one iota of respect coming from the "lad". Next time he might consider a) buying a ticket or b) explaining himself without being abusive and obnoxious.

[MTVN]

My god. 16 pages of you lot rewording your same points over and over again :joker:

:joker:

[Vicky.]

I saw the "lad" on the news being all reasonable. A very different attitude to the one he had on the train. He didn't try to explain, he effed and blinded at the conductor who was there doing a job. Nice. Whatever they're paying the ticket chap it isn't enough to have some twat-in-a-hat talk to him like he's a piece of crap. Maybe if his attitude had been like the attitude he suddenly seems to have adopted for the TV cameras, the matter would have been cleared up in seconds.

It amazes me that people think his attitude demanded some kind of special treatment and respect from a person doing a job when it was clear there was not one iota of respect coming from the "lad". Next time he might consider a) buying a ticket or b) explaining himself without being abusive and obnoxious.
Pretty sure I have read every post in this thread and I dont think I have seen even one saying he should get special treatment :conf:

[InOne]

Is it just me or do things keep getting deleted from here? :S

[Pyramid*]

He did consent, you said it yourself Pyramid.



In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

As for me 'changing stance' I've been blaming the conductor for ages, do keep up Pyramid. Maybe if you read people's posts in full instead of ignoring points you can't win against you wouldn't slip up so much.


Please show me where I have said that anyone gave anyone consent to assault. Show me those exact words that I have used in any of my posts......

How about you taking some of your own advice: and read what people actually type: and not what you somehow manage to twist that to meaning. If you are unable to correctly read what is written, it may be best you do not quote posts at all, because as it is, you are making thing up as you go along.

[Tom4784]

Please show me where I have said that anyone gave anyone consent to assault. Show me those exact words that I have used in any of my posts......

How about you taking some of your own advice: and read what people actually type: and not what you somehow manage to twist that to meaning. If you are unable to correctly read what is written, it may be best you do not quote posts at all, because as it is, you are making thing up as you go along.

You said yourself the the conductor gave him the OK, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. I've quoted you saying this, it doesn't matter if it's not the exact wording as 'consented to the assault' since the meaning is still the same. Even at your most pedantic you can't argue with that.

You see I actually read your posts and more often then not you are your own worst enemy since you are constantly contradicting yourself. I could actually use half of your own posts to argue against you.

Also I can't twist anyone's words if it's original meaning is there for everyone to see. Twisting what people say is a classic Pyramid move my dear and no amount of painfully obvious deflection will make anyone see different.

You now have my permission to start backpedalling as fast as you can.

[Pyramid*]

You said yourself the the conductor gave him the OK, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. I've quoted you saying this, it doesn't matter if it's not the exact wording as 'consented to the assault' since the meaning is still the same. Even at your most pedantic you can't argue with that.

You see I actually read your posts and more often then not you are your own worst enemy since you are constantly contradicting yourself. I could actually use half of your own posts to argue against you.

Also I can't twist anyone's words if it's original meaning is there for everyone to see. Twisting what people say is a classic Pyramid move my dear and no amount of painfully obvious deflection will make anyone see different.

You now have my permission to start backpedalling as fast as you can.

Your comment was

In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.


I'll ask again, very simply.

Show me where I SAID IN MY VERY OWN WORDS..... and not your version of them - that the conductor consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

I think you may be in danger here of making yourself look more than a little foolish here Dezzy. Unless of course: you can actually provide me with a direct quote of mine, one which has not been amended and filled in with your own version.

[MTVN]

I believe it's called paraphrasing Pyramid

[Pyramid*]

I believe it's called paraphrasing Pyramid

Perhaps you and Dezzy might want tobelieve less in paraphrasing, and pay a bit more attention to what a poster actually writes MTVN.

[Tom4784]

Your comment was



I'll ask again, very simply.

Show me where I SAID IN MY VERY OWN WORDS..... and not your version of them - that the conductor consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

I think you may be in danger here of making yourself look more than a little foolish here Dezzy. Unless of course: you can actually provide me with a direct quote of mine, one which has not been amended and filled in with your own version.

I've not ammended anything and to prove it I've got a screenshot right here of what you said so you can't sneakily edit it later.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a133/deanyzyz/pyra-1.gif

In your own words you said that the conductor said yes when the lout asked him for help, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. How is that not consenting an assault? They're both the same thing and it's ridiculous that you're trying to worm your way out of it by saying that my point is invalid since I paraphrased what you said.

The original meaning of your words still stands no matter how hard you try to say otherwise, say that I've ammended your posts all you like but they're there for everyone to see. You'll also see that the only person to have edited the post in question is you...

I'm in no danger of looking foolish Pyramid, You've got that area covered.

[Marsh.]

I can't believe this debate is still going round in circles. Probably best if everyone agrees to disagree and moves on. lol

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

ewww dezzy that theme

[arista]

Is it just me or do things keep getting deleted from here? :S


Yes its a Manic Thread
Busy much to delete 24/7



Feel The Force.

[arista]

I can't believe this debate is still going round in circles. Probably best if everyone agrees to disagree and moves on. lol



Yes is Spinning on a Loop




I say the Punk Kid is Guilty

[Tom4784]

ewww dezzy that theme

I don't know how to change it :sad:

[Kerry]

I don't know how to change it :sad:

The theme for here? Very bottom left hand corner of the forum. Click the little arrow thing for the drop down menu

[Tom4784]

The theme for here? Very bottom left hand corner of the forum. Click the little arrow thing for the drop down menu

OOOOH I thought he meant my firefox theme :laugh:

BB10 4 lyfe.

[arista]

The theme for here? Very bottom left hand corner of the forum. Click the little arrow thing for the drop down menu


VB Style
is best

[Kerry]

OOOOH I thought he meant my firefox theme :laugh:

BB10 4 lyfe.

That's easy to change too :D

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/themes/

Click download and it's yours. Takes the blink of an eye :D Theres loads. Have a ball!

[Callum]

VB Style
is best

I disagree. I think that the BB10 theme is the best, it reminds me of the forum on the old server.

[joeysteele]

I think the big guy was right to help get things back on track after asking the Conductor if he wanted him off the train, once the Conductor said yes to that he invited the bigger guy to help remove the teenager from the train.
The Conductor handled this very badly.

However, not having a valid ticket and then being abusive,loses you your right to even be on the train and technically this teenager was affecting the time and lives of everyone else on the train.

A court if it gets to court, would take all that into account, that had the teenager had a valid ticket and presented it then he had every right to be on the train, rail staff have a right to go about their jobs properly without being abused in the process.

So in law, the teenager had then no right to be on the train in the first place and secondly he would not leave the train when requested to do so by the legitimate Conductor.

Unfortunately,in law to manhandle anyone is assault so while in law it would be seen that an assault was commited by the big guy.
However, a court would likely also take into account that provocation was evident from the teenager in his refusal to leave the train and therefore cause massive inconvenience to a great many other people and that in this instance the end justified the means.

[Pyramid*]

I've not ammended anything and to prove it I've got a screenshot right here of what you said so you can't sneakily edit it later.



In your own words you said that the conductor said yes when the lout asked him for help, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. How is that not consenting an assault? They're both the same thing and it's ridiculous that you're trying to worm your way out of it by saying that my point is invalid since I paraphrased what you said.

The original meaning of your words still stands no matter how hard you try to say otherwise, say that I've ammended your posts all you like but they're there for everyone to see. You'll also see that the only person to have edited the post in question is you...

I'm in no danger of looking foolish Pyramid, You've got that area covered.

I have no idea what you are havvering on about in regards to ''in case you sneakily edit it'' - given that I have not done so and neither is it a habit of mine in making very late amendments to posts to completely alter them.

Therefore for you to place a sreenshot seems utterly bizarre in the extreme. I'll make it easier for you - here is exactly - quoted directly and exactly - no need for screenshots, quoted in the usual manner that the forum allow - precisely what I said: word for word - no edits but quoted directly as was and as still remains:-

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

How on earth you can somehow translate that into what you claim it says
is laughable- which was:-


In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.


I think it's fair to say that you appear to have reached a point whereby you are unable to debate this with me in a reasonable manner - and have to resort to changing entirely what I have written, adding in what you feel 'should' be there - rather than what actually is there.

Deary me.

[Omah]

I think the big guy was right to help get things back on track after asking the Conductor if he wanted him off the train, once the Conductor said yes to that he invited the bigger guy to help remove the teenager from the train.
The Conductor handled this very badly.

However, not having a valid ticket and then being abusive,loses you your right to even be on the train and technically this teenager was affecting the time and lives of everyone else on the train.

A court if it gets to court, would take all that into account, that had the teenager had a valid ticket and presented it then he had every right to be on the train, rail staff have a right to go about their jobs properly without being abused in the process.

So in law, the teenager had then no right to be on the train in the first place and secondly he would not leave the train when requested to do so by the legitimate Conductor.

Unfortunately,in law to manhandle anyone is assault so while in law it would be seen that an assault was commited by the big guy.
However, a court would likely also take into account that provocation was evident from the teenager in his refusal to leave the train and therefore cause massive inconvenience to a great many other people and that in this instance the end justified the means.

Succintly put ..... :thumbs:

[Pyramid*]

I think the big guy was right to help get things back on track after asking the Conductor if he wanted him off the train, once the Conductor said yes to that he invited the bigger guy to help remove the teenager from the train.
The Conductor handled this very badly.

However, not having a valid ticket and then being abusive,loses you your right to even be on the train and technically this teenager was affecting the time and lives of everyone else on the train.

A court if it gets to court, would take all that into account, that had the teenager had a valid ticket and presented it then he had every right to be on the train, rail staff have a right to go about their jobs properly without being abused in the process.

So in law, the teenager had then no right to be on the train in the first place and secondly he would not leave the train when requested to do so by the legitimate Conductor.

Unfortunately,in law to manhandle anyone is assault so while in law it would be seen that an assault was commited by the big guy.
However, a court would likely also take into account that provocation was evident from the teenager in his refusal to leave the train and therefore cause massive inconvenience to a great many other people and that in this instance the end justified the means.


This is exactly the way I see it. It will be interesting to see how this is view by the Police and the PF.

[Tom4784]

I have no idea what you are havvering on about in regards to ''in case you sneakily edit it'' - given that I have not done so and neither is it a habit of mine in making very late amendments to posts to completely alter them.

Therefore for you to place a sreenshot seems utterly bizarre in the extreme. I'll make it easier for you - here is exactly - quoted directly and exactly - no need for screenshots, quoted in the usual manner that the forum allow - precisely what I said: word for word - no edits but quoted directly as was and as still remains:-



How on earth you can somehow translate that into what you claim it says
is laughable- which was:-



I think it's fair to say that you appear to have reached a point whereby you are unable to debate this with me in a reasonable manner - and have to resort to changing entirely what I have written, adding in what you feel 'should' be there - rather than what actually is there.

Deary me.

Deflecting like a pro. Run to the hills, It just means I've won.

I've not changed anything, I even put in a screenshot so that you couldn't deny that you hadn't written what you did. I'm using your own words Pyramid so keep denying it all you want it's only making you look silly because you can't admit when you're wrong so you go to stupid lengths to try to discredit people. Just admit I caught you out because this is getting embarassing for you.

You can scream like a banshee all you like that I've twisted your words, no one's buying it since everyone can see through you and can see what you've said. You said it in your own words and there's no changing that. Keep wailing about how wrong I am, I'm finding your antics hilarious and so is everyone else.

[Pyramid*]

Deflecting like a pro. Run to the hills, It just means I've won.

I've not changed anything, I even put in a screenshot so that you couldn't deny that you hadn't written what you did. I'm using your own words Pyramid so keep denying it all you want it's only making you look silly because you can't admit when you're wrong so you go to stupid lengths to try to discredit people. Just admit I caught you out because this is getting embarassing for you.

You can scream like a banshee all you like that I've twisted your words, no one's buying it since everyone can see through you and can see what you've said. You said it in your own words and there's no changing that. Keep wailing about how wrong I am, I'm finding your antics hilarious and so is everyone else.



I love the wording of your post here Dezzy - designed with no other purpose than to be an attack on me personally rather than being able to debate the matter with reason, and with what is a fair degree of baiting and spoiling for an argument to ensue between both you and I.

It says something that you put up a screenshot in case I 'sneakily' amended a post a made hours ago: I don't HAVE to do that and neither am I in the habit of doing so. That should say more about you, that you appear to be out to score points on a personal level, rather than be able to discuss this subject reasonably.

[Tom4784]

I love the wording of your post here Dezzy - designed with no other purpose than to be an attack on me personally rather than being able to debate the matter with reason, and with what is a fair degree of baiting and spoiling for an argument to ensue between both you and I.

It says something that you put up a screenshot in case I 'sneakily' amended a post a made hours ago: I don't HAVE to do that and neither am I in the habit of doing so. That should say more about you, that you appear to be out to score points on a personal level, rather than be able to discuss this subject reasonably.

Why should I take any discussion with you seriously? You rely on stock answers all the time when you've been challenged on points you can't overcome and any time you're losing an argument you'll play the victim or get on your high horse or worst of all attempt to mini mod people although you don't hold yourself to the standards you preach at everyone.

Look at this discussion, most of it's consisted of you essentially sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. I'm not going to debate with someone on a serious level that relies on such asinine tactics.

What's the point of me wasting my time writing arguments for something when you're gonna feign ignorance at it in a misguided attempt to disregard it? It's a waste of time debating anything with you because you act like a child.

If you want a proper debate then I'll give you one but I'm not going to take you seriously until you drop the playground antics.

[Pyramid*]

Bit of Scots Law for you all. Note the parts in red. The Big Man's intent was on removing a troublesome, abusive, fare dodger who was holding up the train - ie: there was no criminal intent.


http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html






Assault

Source: Common Law

Offence: To direct an attack to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted.

Arrest: Common law power of arrest.

Notes:
There must be criminal intent, an accidental injury does not amount to assault. It is not however necessary that the attack should take effect. An assault can be direct or indirect, e.g. setting a dog at another person. It is also assault to be violently menacing. Threatening gestures inducing a state of bodily fear are an example. An assault may be aggravated by intent; mode of perpetration (e.g. use of a weapon), extent of injury, place of assault, or the character of the person assaulted (e.g. a pregnant woman). Indecent assault is an assault accompanied by indecent intent. In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others or in self-defence.

[Pyramid*]

Why should I take any discussion with you seriously? You rely on stock answers all the time when you've been challenged on points you can't overcome and any time you're losing an argument you'll play the victim or get on your high horse or worst of all attempt to mini mod people although you don't hold yourself to the standards you preach at everyone.

Look at this discussion, most of it's consisted of you essentially sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. I'm not going to debate with someone on a serious level that relies on such asinine tactics.

What's the point of me wasting my time writing arguments for something when you're gonna feign ignorance at it in a misguided attempt to disregard it? It's a waste of time debating anything with you because you act like a child.

If you want a proper debate then I'll give you one but I'm not going to take you seriously until you drop the playground antics.

Dezzy, you really should think about what you are posting as there are more insults in your posts than you should be allowed to be getting away with. Several of your previous posts of this very nature and the in the same vein were removed last night.

Notwithstanding that - The basic point is: I do not have to be forced to accept what you (or anyone else) say. I have my own viewpoint and I will stick to that as long as I feel I have reason to do so, which I do.

I'll let you read the snippet I just posted up in respect of Laws in Scotland regarding assault.

[Tom4784]

I'm not playing your game no longer Pyramid, I'm goinna leave this thread with my dignity intact knowing that I stuck to my guns and won which can't be said for some others.

If you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me, I'm tired of your diversions and deflections.

[Pyramid*]

I'm not playing your game no longer Pyramid, I'm goinna leave this threadwith my dignity intactknowing that I stuck to my guns and won which can't be said for some others.

If you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me, I'm tired of your diversions and deflections.


If you wish to continue responding with insults in a rather surreptitious manner then by all means, feel free to PM me Dezzy.

However if I wish to discuss the subject that this thread is about, and should I wish to address posts you make on this thread regarding the subject, I will do so on this very thread. If you wish not to reply, then that is your perogative.

Do you have any comment to make on the post I just put up: I'll repost it below for ease for you.


Bit of Scots Law for you all. Note the parts in red. The Big Man's intent was on removing a troublesome, abusive, fare dodger who was holding up the train - ie: there was no criminal intent.


http://www.police-information.co.uk/...nindexsco.html (http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html)


Quote:


Assault

Source: Common Law

Offence: To direct an attack to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted.

Arrest: Common law power of arrest.

Notes:
There must be criminal intent, an accidental injury does not amount to assault. It is not however necessary that the attack should take effect. An assault can be direct or indirect, e.g. setting a dog at another person. It is also assault to be violently menacing. Threatening gestures inducing a state of bodily fear are an example. An assault may be aggravated by intent; mode of perpetration (e.g. use of a weapon), extent of injury, place of assault, or the character of the person assaulted (e.g. a pregnant woman). Indecent assault is an assault accompanied by indecent intent. In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others or in self-defence.

[Jords]

I think the fat twat is an absolute ****! He wouldnt act all tough if he was a skinny **** so sit the **** down. Especially with a kid, its none of his business and who knows if he was telling the truth or not.


I think its pretty sad that if he had no money and no way to get home they did that, they shoulda just left him on the train its not like it was packed (and maybe send a bill to his address?) He was on his own not pissing about with a bunch of mates or anything too so...

[Tom4784]

You've missed your chance Pyramid, if you wanted to debate then you shouldn't have acted like you did before.

I must congratulate you though, you're the first and most likely only person to ever grace my ignore list.

[MTVN]

I don't see how it could be classed as "accidental injury" Pyramid, not like he wouldn't have realised that chucking him head first onto a stone train platform wouldn't have caused him injury

[Pyramid*]

I think the fat twat is an absolute ****! He wouldnt act all tough if he was a skinny **** so sit the **** down. Especially with a kid, its none of his business and who knows if he was telling the truth or not.


I think its pretty sad that if he had no money and no way to get home they did that, they shoulda just left him on the train its not like it was packed (and maybe send a bill to his address?) He was on his own not pissing about with a bunch of mates or anything too so...

The yob was 19. An adult not a kid.

He got on a train knowing fine well that he did not have the ticket required.

He argued with the conductor - verbally abusing the man - and lying that he had the correct ticket - despite then changing his story twice to in two different interviews.

He refused to get off - as he was legally bound to do.

He was aided in being removed by another passenger.

He then lied about not being allowed to get his bag, which in fact, had been thrown off the train - after him.

[Pyramid*]

You've missed your chance Pyramid, if you wanted to debate then you shouldn't have acted like you did before.

I must congratulate you though, you're the first and most likely only person to ever grace my ignore list.

I see you have chosen to completely and utterly ignore the post that refers you directly to what is regarded as assault in Scotland, and under what circumstances it is regarded as justifiable, if indeed, it is classed as assault in the first instance.



I don't see how it could be classed as "accidental injury" Pyramid, not like he wouldn't have realised that chucking him head first onto a stone train platform wouldn't have caused him injury

It is not his fault that the yob fell. If the yob had left the train in the manner in which he should have, if he would have accepted that he was being ejected from the train - it would not have happened.

Also note the bottom part in red - re when assault can be classed as justified.

I do not think in all seriousness, that this man, the Big Man, Mr Pollock will be found guilty, far less charged. I will be very surprised if he is.

[MTVN]

It is not his fault that the yob fell. If the yob had left the train in the manner in which he should have, if he would have accepted that he was being ejected from the train - it would not have happened.

Also note the bottom part in red - re when assault can be classed as justified.

I do not think in all seriousness, that this man, the Big Man, Mr Pollock will be found guilty, far less charged. I will be very surprised if he is.

Are train conductors the law now?

[Jords]

The yob was 19. An adult not a kid.

He got on a train knowing fine well that he did not have the ticket required.

He argued with the conductor - verbally abusing the man - and lying that he had the correct ticket - despite then changing his story twice to in two different interviews.

He refused to get off - as he was legally bound to do.

He was aided in being removed by another passenger.

He then lied about not being allowed to get his bag, which in fact, had been thrown off the train - after him.

I really dont care.

The fat bastard just wanted to show authority, if he was less rough Id be fine with it but the fact he was pretty aggressive and obviously pushed him out making a mess to his face, angers me.

Hes 4 times the size of him. Twat.

[Pyramid*]

Are train conductors the law now?

Fare dodging is a criminal act and is liable for prosecution, therefore it could be argued that the Big Man was justified in his actions because he was acting within authority of the Law.

It doesn't say Authority or Authorities as in designated or recognised Authoritative Law figures (ie: policemen, security guard, tranport police etc)- the meaning of the word authority and the context in which it is used, can be open to various interpretations. I suspect quite deliberately - to cover this type of very incident - ie: allow the Police certain leaway in whether such action is regarded as an offence or not.

[Jords]

Pyra if that was your son how would you honestly feel about it?

[Pyramid*]

I really dont care.

The fat bastard just wanted to show authority, if he was less rough Id be fine with it but the fact he was pretty aggressive and obviously pushed him out making a mess to his face, angers me.

Hes 4 times the size of him. Twat.

:hugesmile: BIB made me laugh!

You're perfectly entitled to be angered if that's how it's made you feel - I totally agree if that how it's got to you then it's understandable that you have the view you have, and like us all here, you are more than allowed to have that view on it - but it still gave me a giggle.

[Shasown]

Bit of Scots Law for you all. Note the parts in red. The Big Man's intent was on removing a troublesome, abusive, fare dodger who was holding up the train - ie: there was no criminal intent.




Nice try but its best not to use outdated UK sources for a legal reference for Scottish Law. (In order to tidy up Scottish Law, The Scottish Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 was introduced. You will notice on the site you referenced its not mentioned at all.) It also good to understand the meaning of certain legal terms before you use them as a defence.

Lets go through what you have highlighted and I will point out your misunderstandings, because there are a few.

"Criminal intent" was shown by Big Man to a witness namely the person who filmed the incident when BM said "if I go to jail..." that means he was aware that what he was about to do could be classed as a criminal act but was going to do it anyway. Thats criminal intent. Ignorance of a law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

"an accidental injury does not amount to assault." Thats very true, however in pushing the yob of the train he caused the injury, a sheriff(or jury) will question is it likely that someone may receive a graze or similar in being pushed off a stationary train, yeah it is likely depending on the force used to push the person off. In that case its not an accidental injury.

"In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others" In defence of who? Who was being attacked etc. Simply because people are being slightly inconvenienced doesnt mean they need someone to defend them.


Just going off the video the yob was guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour, thats section 38 of SCJ&L Act its not an indictable offence therefore its not something a private citizen should "lay hands" on to rectify. (what used to be classed as Breach of the Peace).

[Vicky.]

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(

[Pyramid*]

Pyra if that was your son how would you honestly feel about it?

Exactly the same as I do now - in fact, probably worse - given that he's turned out to be everything I just said earlier: an irresponsible, lying, law breaking cheeky bastard of a son, who showed no respect to a man who was only trying to do his job - and had now embarrassed me by having the world seeing what an arsehole he was.

That's how I would feel. Honestly.

[Vicky.]

Fare dodging is a criminal act and is liable for prosecution, therefore it could be argued that the Big Man was justified in his actions because he was acting within authority of the Law.


As is shoplifting.

If I go to tescos tomorrow and see someone slying vodka in their bag, its ok for me to plant them one? After all, they were breaking the law...right?

Or if some drunk is singing outside my house at 4am...being drunk and disorderly, ie. breaking the law. Its fine for me to go knock em out to shut them up?

[Benjamin]

Are you lot not bored yet of hashing over the same argument, going round and round in circles? :laugh:

[Vicky.]

It is not his fault that the yob fell.

He didnt fall, he was pushed

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ErCmIL4pIyI/Tb_4cbwqKYI/AAAAAAAAAO4/IsslLm98SDI/s1600/humptydumpty.jpg

[Pyramid*]

Nice try but its best not to use outdated UK sources for a legal reference for Scottish Law. (In order to tidy up Scottish Law, The Scottish Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 was introduced. You will notice on the site you referenced its not mentioned at all.) It also good to understand the meaning of certain legal terms before you use them as a defence.

Lets go through what you have highlighted and I will point out your misunderstandings, because there are a few.

"Criminal intent" was shown by Big Man to a witness namely the person who filmed the incident when BM said "if I go to jail..." that means he was aware that what he was about to do could be classed as a criminal act but was going to do it anyway. Thats criminal intent. Ignorance of a law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

"an accidental injury does not amount to assault." Thats very true, however in pushing the yob of the train he caused the injury, a sheriff(or jury) will question is it likely that someone may receive a graze or similar in being pushed off a stationary train, yeah it is likely depending on the force used to push the person off. In that case its not an accidental injury.

"In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others" In defence of who? Who was being attacked etc. Simply because people are being slightly inconvenienced doesnt mean they need someone to defend them.


Just going off the video the yob was guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour, thats section 38 of SCJ&L Act its not an indictable offence therefore its not something a private citizen should "lay hands" on to rectify. (what used to be classed as Breach of the Peace).

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do. We can all google till our hearts are content and pretend we know of things we actually don't - that's not exclusive.

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(


As I said to Shasown - let's see if he is found guilty.

[Shasown]

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do.




If you say so, because its obvious you know all about it dont you?

As I said before if you are going to quote Scottish Law use an up to date reference. Nuff said. ;)

[Jords]

:hugesmile: BIB made me laugh!

You're perfectly entitled to be angered if that's how it's made you feel - I totally agree if that how it's got to you then it's understandable that you have the view you have, and like us all here, you are more than allowed to have that view on it - but it still gave me a giggle.

But you are saying he was 'aided' off when there was way more force that that, along with his 'big man' attitude whilst doing so.

I understand that he had to lead off (although the conductor should have made him CHECK, especially if its true hed bought it but got his tickets mixed up). The big man could have easily controlled him and encouraged him with 'come on mates' etc. whilst grabbing his arm and leading. Would have gained a lot more respect as a person imo

Of course if the lad swung at the conductor (who was doing a **** job with this, I can stand here all day Im getting paid, wat) his actions would be warranted, but all he did was tell him to **** off... meh.

[Pyramid*]

As is shoplifting.

If I go to tescos tomorrow and see someone slying vodka in their bag, its ok for me to plant them one? After all, they were breaking the law...right?

Or if some drunk is singing outside my house at 4am...being drunk and disorderly, ie. breaking the law. Its fine for me to go knock em out to shut them up?

Ahhh...so we are back to ''what if he was an off duty copper / security guard / bouncer etc'...... :tongue:

We aren't talking about nicking a bottle of vodka, nor are we talking about the Big Man having landed a punch on the yob. (though the yob did in fact try to punch the big guy....remember). ;)

For the time being: I'm pretty confident there will be no charges made upon the Big Man, far less him being found guilty of a crime. If that does happen, I will be the first to come on here and say, "Well blow me down, I never saw that one coming". You have my word.

[Pyramid*]

If you say so, because its obvious you know all about it dont you?

As I said before if you are going to quote Scottish Law use an up to date reference. Nuff said. ;)

I know enough...... as we are both aware of. Nuff said. ;)

But you are saying he was 'aided' off when there was way more force that that, along with his 'big man' attitude whilst doing so.

I understand that he had to lead off (although the conductor should have made him CHECK, especially if its true hed bought it but got his tickets mixed up). The big man could have easily controlled him and encouraged him with 'come on mates' etc. whilst grabbing his arm and leading. Would have gained a lot more respect as a person imo

Of course if the lad swung at the conductor (who was doing a **** job with this, I can stand here all day Im getting paid, wat) his actions would be warranted, but all he did was tell him to **** off... meh.

The conductor asked him several times, and told him several times that the guy was showing him the incorrect ticket....

The guy swung not at the conductor, but at the Big Man.

He was forcibly removed. Far as I am concerned, it was justified. That's it really in a nutshell.

[Vicky.]

Ahhh...so we are back to ''what if he was an off duty copper / security guard / bouncer etc'...... :tongue:

We aren't talking about nicking a bottle of vodka, nor are we talking about the Big Man having landed a punch on the yob. (though the yob did in fact try to punch the big guy....remember). ;)

For the time being: I'm pretty confident there will be no charges made upon the Big Man, far less him being found guilty of a crime. If that does happen, I will be the first to come on here and say, "Well blow me down, I never saw that one coming". You have my word.

I dont actually remember that part. However if it was after being grabbed, I cant blame him. I would have done the same if some randomer grabbed hold of me on a train. Its called self defense.

[Shasown]

I know enough...... as we are both aware of. Nuff said. ;)


Yeah but not enough to use an up to date reference or even be able to argue the meaning behind the points you highlighted


We aren't talking about nicking a bottle of vodka, nor are we talking about the Big Man having landed a punch on the yob. (though the yob did in fact try to punch the big guy....remember). ;)

For the time being: I'm pretty confident there will be no charges made upon the Big Man, far less him being found guilty of a crime. If that does happen, I will be the first to come on here and say, "Well blow me down, I never saw that one coming". You have my word.

Yeah the yob did try to punch the big guy, after the big guy grabbed him, now that could be argued as self defence.

Should be interesting to see if the police do charge him, then if the PF follows through with the charge and finally if the sheriff convicts. Depends whats viewed as being in the public interest.

[Jords]

Stealing a bottle of voddy is worse, shop loses money, and if he goes and gets drunk he could act disorderly.

In fairness all he did was temporarily steal a seat that was going to be empty if he had not... should be thanking him for making the journey more efficient (OK maybe not but just showing that the action was really uncalled for with what actually went down).

[Jack_]

As is often the case with fights, when two people begin having a slanging match which includes the use of bad language and verbal abuse to each other and then one of them eventually flips out and initiates the actual physical fight with the other person, who would and should be charged with physically abusive behaviour? The person who initiated the actual physical part of the fight of course, I don't see how that could be disputed.

You can argue all you want with verbal insults (which of course is still a criminal offence), but that does not give you the right to take matters further and then escalate it into a physical fight. And it is basically the same principle here really - just because the guy was being verbally abusive, it does not give anyone other than relevant authorities the power to then use physical force to remove him from the train when he posed no physical threat to anybody.

[Jords]

I know enough...... as we are both aware of. Nuff said. ;)



The conductor asked him several times, and told him several times that the guy was showing him the incorrect ticket....

The guy swung not at the conductor, but at the Big Man.

He was forcibly removed. Far as I am concerned, it was justified. That's it really in a nutshell.

Dont get confused Pyra, the big man began forcibly removing him and then the lad went for a swing (probably because he wanted his bag at least)... cant really blame him although very unwise with the size difference :laugh:

[arista]

Dont get confused Pyra, the big man began forcibly removing him and then the lad went for a swing (probably because he wanted his bag at least)... cant really blame him although very unwise with the size difference :laugh:


Yes but at the same time another Good Person
Chucked the Punks Bag out.


He was swearing for 10mins before the mobile film went on
so any Judge will see the Punk is Guilty.

[InOne]

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying :bored:

[mizzy25]

i think he was wrong it was nothing to do with him the inspector guy shud have rang 4 back up or wotever

[Omah]

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/debate_rages_over_falkirk_student_s_train_row_1_20 08988

The Heriot-Watt University student claimed in a radio interview yesterday that the argument with the conductor was the fault of another Scotrail employee, who had advised him to buy two single tickets for his return journey from Polmont to Edinburgh Park.

He said that when he tried to explain the situation to the conductor he was told to buy another ticket or leave the train.

But The Falkirk Herald can reveal that this explanation has been dismissed by a rail industry insider.

The source said: “The claim he was advised to buy two single tickets does not ring true.

“Clearly, it is cheaper to buy a standard day return. And at all times on the tape, he shows only one ticket. It was for his outward journey in the morning from Polmont to Edinburgh Park - not for his return trip at night.”

The student seems to be blaming everybody .....

[Benjamin]

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/debate_rages_over_falkirk_student_s_train_row_1_20 08988



The student seems to be blaming everybody .....

It's because he is clutching at straws to try and have blame anybody but himself. :idc:

[arista]

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying :bored:

No

[arista]

It's because he is clutching at straws to try and have blame anybody but himself. :idc:

Bang On Right

[Livia]

As is often the case with fights, when two people begin having a slanging match which includes the use of bad language and verbal abuse to each other and then one of them eventually flips out and initiates the actual physical fight with the other person, who would and should be charged with physically abusive behaviour? The person who initiated the actual physical part of the fight of course, I don't see how that could be disputed.

You can argue all you want with verbal insults (which of course is still a criminal offence), but that does not give you the right to take matters further and then escalate it into a physical fight. And it is basically the same principle here really - just because the guy was being verbally abusive, it does not give anyone other than relevant authorities the power to then use physical force to remove him from the train when he posed no physical threat to anybody.

At exactly what point in the film did you hear the conductor swear at the person with no ticket?

Let's give the person travelling without a valid ticket and effing and blinding at the conductor all the sympathy in the world. All the other people on the train being inconvenienced by this idiot don't seem to count, so long as the man swearing and being abusive is treated with kid gloves to save the liberals getting all upset because his rights have been infringed.

I think the crux of the matter, and why the "big man" has got so much support, is that many people are titsed off with having to creep around people who are being unreasonable and abusive.

[Jack_]

At exactly what point in the film did you hear the conductor swear at the person with no ticket?

Let's give the person travelling without a valid ticket and effing and blinding at the conductor all the sympathy in the world. All the other people on the train being inconvenienced by this idiot don't seem to count, so long as the man swearing and being abusive is treated with kid gloves to save the liberals getting all upset because his rights have been infringed.

I think the crux of the matter, and why the "big man" has got so much support, is that many people are titsed off with having to creep around people who are being unreasonable and abusive.

If we lived in a world or country where strangers were allowed to take the law into their own hands, i.e. vigilantes, manhandling people for example, then we'd be even less safe than we are today. Giving regular people that sort of power is foolish and would lead to much more crime.

And quite frankly even the suggestion of it sounds idiotic. Let's make it legal for complete strangers to manhandle you off a train using physical force even though you've not used any yourself. Laws like that would have so many loopholes if you ask me that'd allow much more violence to take place because there'd be ways of getting around it, and it is beyond ridiculous.

Nobody, and I repeat nobody should be allowed to physically force or be violent towards someone in any circumstance, unless it is to protect themselves or they actually have the power and right to do so. It'd basically be promoting and advocating vigilantism by allowing it to happen. It's nothing to do with being liberal, it's to do with common sense.

[arista]

Jack
on that train
the Punk Scammer had been swearing 10mins before.


So the folks clapped the big guy
after chucking the piss head off.


What is he going to do
The Transport Police have spoken to the big guy

Now What?

[fruit_cake]

I think the crux of the matter, and why the "big man" has got so much support, is that many people are titsed off with having to creep around people who are being unreasonable and abusive.

an opportunist bully like the 'big man' should never be given support, ever imo

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

an opportunist bully like the 'big man' should never be given support, ever imo

:worship:

[arista]

Worldwide Support for the Big Man


Shows it all.

[Pyramid*]

Worldwide Support for the Big Man


Shows it all.

Yes. Every newspaper article on the story that allows comments that I have read, has overwhelming support of the Big Man.

Every report I read - the yob is telling a different story.

Someone posted this in one of the Scottish Rags... the guy has a point.

Lets deal with this in chronological order. Charge the wee ned with theft for the price of a ticket from Edinburgh Park to Linlithgow, Breach of the peace for his behavior on the train and drunk and disorderly conduct. Only and only after that lot has been addressed should the "assault" be investigated and even then be considered if a prosecution is in the public interest



The shocking part of all of this that there are young men his age fighting - in the real sense of the word - in our armed forces - literally putting their lives on the line - and at the opposite end -we have this yob, who brought all of this upon himself right from the off.

He, his father and his uncle (who is so proud of him that he doesn't want to be named) - would be better off shutting their mouths. We all do silly things - he should have accepted it and moved on. Instead he's showing himself to be questionable in all manner of ways, he's embarrassing himself now as well as many regarding him an embarrassment to his own family.

I wonder how long this will haunt the yob - after he's finished Uni, when he's trying to get a job in the future..... given the amount of press he and his father have pushed for...... who'd want to employ an aggressive, abusive, disrespectful, fare dodging yob who is promoting himself as some sort of poor wee defenceless innocent soul.

Remember the Lawyer who gave the Big Man his card if he needed - quite a credible witness there, as well as all the others on the train who applauded and were glad to see the yob thrown off.

[InOne]

Yes. Every newspaper article on the story that allows comments that I have read, has overwhelming support of the Big Man.

Every report I read - the yob is telling a different story.

Someone posted this in one of the Scottish Rags... the guy has a point.




The shocking part of all of this that there are young men his age fighting - in the real sense of the word - in our armed forces - literally putting their lives on the line - and at the opposite end -we have this youb, who brought all of this upon himself right from the off.

Don't really see what that has to do with anything :conf:

[Pyramid*]

Don't really see what that has to do with anything :conf:

It's called comparing how one 19 drunken, irresponsible yob is an embarrassment and makes us ashamed of having such lowlife (overall - not just on Tibb) - and there are other 19 year old puttting their life on the line to fight for their country - of whom we are very proud.

Comparing the differences to real men and wimps. The yob being the latter in case there is any confusion.

[InOne]

It's called comparing how one 19 drunken, irresponsible yob is an embarrassment and makes us ashamed of having such lowlife (overall - not just on Tibb) - and there are other 19 year old puttting their life on the line to fight for their country - of whom we are very proud.

Comparing the differences to real men and wimps. The yob being the latter in case there is any confusion.

There are 19 year olds who are smackheads

There are 19 year olds who went out and rioted

There are 19 year olds who rape, murder and steal.


He's not exactly at the bottom of the social ladder.

[Shasown]

It's called comparing how one 19 drunken, irresponsible yob is an embarrassment and makes us ashamed of having such lowlife (overall - not just on Tibb) - and there are other 19 year old puttting their life on the line to fight for their country - of whom we are very proud.

Comparing the differences to real men and wimps. The yob being the latter in case there is any confusion.

Hummmm lowlife? On TiBB? What are you suggesting?

This is one instance in the kid's life, you dont know if this sort of thing is a regular occurrence.

Nor do you know what his future holds for him, he may turn out to be the bravest person in Falkirk.

Didnt the carpenter say, let him who is without sin cast the first stone? ;)

Saying that though while plod investigates the assault claims I hope they also investigate the alleged fare dodging and all parties receive fitting and fair treatment.

[Pyramid*]

Hummmm lowlife? On TiBB? What are you suggesting?

This is one instance in the kid's life, you dont know if this sort of thing is a regular occurrence.

Nor do you know what his future holds for him, he may turn out to be the bravest person in Falkirk.

Didnt the carpenter say, let him who is without sin cast the first stone? ;)

Saying that though while plod investigates the assault claims I hope they also investigate the alleged fare dodging and all parties receive fitting and fair treatment.


Lowlife was very clearly used to describe the yob in question - what are you suggesting?

I didn't say I knew what the future held for him- as indicated by my words

I wonder how long this will haunt the yob


Did the carpenter say that? Was he on the train? Has he been asked to provide a witness statement? Did he arrive at his destination on time after the train was held up? Did he manage to build that new staircase and was it to his customer's liking.

[Pyramid*]

There are 19 year olds who are smackheads

There are 19 year olds who went out and rioted

There are 19 year olds who rape, murder and steal.


He's not exactly at the bottom of the social ladder.

Yes but how many of them are go around lying through their teeth: are recorded doing it, have it followed up in the press and continue their lies to the point that he's used every excuse in the book to try to deflect from his own breaking of the law?

I read earlier that it's reported in an newspaper that he HAD the correct ticket (Daily Record I think it was) - funny how that's not been shown....perhaps that got lost in amongst all the lies he is spinning - along with the bag that he claimed he wasn't allowed to get which then he admitted in another report, that he did in fact have his bag: whilst trying to blame someone else for a situation that was of his own making.

[InOne]

Yes but how many of them are go around lying through their teeth: are recorded doing it, have it followed up in the press and continue their lies to the point that he's used every excuse in the book to try to deflect from his own breaking of the law?

I read earlier that it's reported in an newspaper that he HAD the correct ticket (Daily Record I think it was) - funny how that's not been shown....perhaps that got lost in amongst all the lies he is spinning - along with the bag that he claimed he wasn't allowed to get which then he admitted in another report, that he did in fact have his bag: whilst trying to blame someone else for a situation that was of his own making.

It's a thing that has been blown way out of proportion, and it's basically because of "the big man" wading in. He is the one to blame.

[Pyramid*]

It's a thing that has been blown way out of proportion, and it's basically because of "the big man" wading in. He is the one to blame.


There would have nothing to have been blown out of proportion if

1. The yob had the correct ticket and not tried to lie his way out of it
2. The yob hadn't spent a good 5 mins or so verbally abusing the conductor
3. The yob did as he was asked to do: get off the train.

Everything occurred as a direct result of the yob's actions.

[fruit_cake]

when big man waded in the situation escalated imo

[Shasown]

Lowlife was very clearly used to describe the yob in question - what are you suggesting?



Would have thought it was fairly obvious what I said, I didnt suggest anything I asked what you were suggesting.

No need for evading the issue or deflecting the question.

What did you mean by saying "makes us ashamed of having such lowlife (overall - not just on Tibb) "?

The way I read the comment is that there are lowlife all around, not just on Tibb. Therefore you are suggesting some members are lowlife.

Would these lowlife be the people who in your eyes are defending the yob? As far as I can see there are very few people who have defended the yob's actions, most people are in fact simply condeming the Big Man's actions.

Thats probably a difference too subtle for you to grasp but believe me there is a big difference.

[InOne]

There would have nothing to have been blown out of proportion if

1. The yob had the correct ticket and not tried to lie his way out of it
2. The yob hadn't spent a good 5 mins or so verbally abusing the conductor
3. The yob did as he was asked to do: get off the train.

Everything occurred as a direct result of the yob's actions.

No.

It's all the big mans fault. And partly the ticket inspector. He should be fired and big man arrested.

[InOne]

And before you go on at me, I don't defend the way the kid acted either :nono:

[Pyramid*]

Would have thought it was fairly obvious what I said, I didnt suggest anything I asked what you were suggesting.

No need for evading the issue or deflecting the question.

What did you mean by saying "makes us ashamed of having such lowlife (overall - not just on Tibb) "?

The way I read the comment is that there are lowlife all around, not just on Tibb. Therefore you are suggesting some members are lowlife.

Would these lowlife be the people who in your eyes are defending the yob? As far as I can see there are very few people who have defended the yob's actions, most people are in fact simply condeming the Big Man's actions.

Thats probably a difference too subtle for you to grasp but believe me there is a big difference.

Perhaps you should try to not to twist what a poster writes in your very shallow attempt to flame and instead, put more into reading what I stated very obviously.

Given that not everyone agrees on here, there may be some others on here who may also regard this yob as lowlife - judging by some of the comments of others on Tibb as to how they view this guy. They may, they may not.

No need for your insulting comments either - or perhaps that's the only way you are able to put over your points.

I don't believe most people are condeming the Big Man's actions - and I stated why in an earlier post.

.

[arista]

And before you go on at me, I don't defend the way the kid acted either :nono:


Good as he was Pissed and Swearing
10mins before the mobile was even started

[Pyramid*]

And before you go on at me, I don't defend the way the kid acted either :nono:

Here is a simple question. Given that the incident would never have occurred if the 'the kid' (19 year old) - had simply ensured he had the correct ticket: do you honestly feel that it is justified that his actions, and subsequent actions of all invovled - and this yob's pushing it into the media /public in the way he has that the following may (slim) but may happen

1. He ends up charges with several offences, and may end up with a criminal record - which may impact on his career.
2. The Big Man has is charged with assault and ends up with a criminal record and may possibly lose his job (as we have no idea if this could be an impact
3. A Scotrail employee may be fired at such a late stage in his life.

All of which could happen - all because this little bit of scum thought he could get away with fare dogding and all that resulted as a consequence of HIS actions.

[Niamh.]

Here is a simple question. Given that the incident would never have occurred if the 'the kid' (19 year old) - had simply ensured he had the correct ticket: do you honestly feel that it is justified that his actions, and subsequent actions of all invovled - and this yob's pushing it into the media /public in the way he has that the following may (slim) but may happen

1. He ends up charges with several offences, and may end up with a criminal record - which may impact on his career.
2. The Big Man has is charged with assault and ends up with a criminal record and may possibly lose his job (as we have no idea if this could be an impact
3. A Scotrail employee may be fired at such a late stage in his life.

All of which could happen - all because this little bit of scum thought he could get away with fare dogding and all that resulted as a consequence of HIS actions.

Every person is only responsible for their own actions. No, that boy shouldn't have behaved the way he did but he can't be responsible for the reactions of the other 2 people involved. Firstly, it was not the place or responsibility of The Big man to act as a security guard or Police officer and secondly The conductor should have been doing his job properly and followed the rails proper procedures in dealing with situations like this.

[Jack_]

Yes. Every newspaper article on the story that allows comments that I have read, has overwhelming support of the Big Man.

And it is these very people that complain regularly about crime levels and how 'disgusting' some crimes are becoming, yet fail to understand what needs to be done to combat the problem, and that in fact their beliefs on stories like these will only continue to inadvertently increase levels of crime because they are advocating such behaviour. It makes me so ****ing annoyed to see such blatant stupidity, but then again the Daily Mail comments section is always worth a laugh.

Here is a simple question. Given that the incident would never have occurred if the 'the kid' (19 year old) - had simply ensured he had the correct ticket: do you honestly feel that it is justified that his actions, and subsequent actions of all invovled - and this yob's pushing it into the media /public in the way he has that the following may (slim) but may happen

1. He ends up charges with several offences, and may end up with a criminal record - which may impact on his career.
2. The Big Man has is charged with assault and ends up with a criminal record and may possibly lose his job (as we have no idea if this could be an impact
3. A Scotrail employee may be fired at such a late stage in his life.

All of which could happen - all because this little bit of scum thought he could get away with fare dogding and all that resulted as a consequence of HIS actions.

Yes, I agree with all of those. Because funnily enough it wasn't just the guy that was in the wrong, so was the 'big man' and train conductor. There's a saying it takes two to tango, well in this case it's three. None of them should be let off because for starters two of them (the guy and the 'big man') committed a crime, one of which is actually worse than the other (physical abuse rather than verbal abuse, again funnily enough), and the train conductor incited all the unnecessary physical force, so perhaps the 'big man' should blame his idiocy in the event that he is charged. Of course it all stems from the guy attempting to fare dodge initially, but that doesn't mean that the other two should are angels here because both of them handled the situation unprofessionally in the case of the train conductor, and illegally in the case of Alan Pollock.

Regardless, you cannot assume that you can blame someone else's actions for yours, you must take responsibility for your own and so that's why all involved are in the wrong and should all face fitting consequences, and again before you begin moaning, that includes the 19 year old.

[Shasown]

Perhaps you should try to not to twist what a poster writes in your very shallow attempt to flame and instead, put more into reading what I stated very obviously.

Given that not everyone agrees on here, there may be some others on here who may also regard this yob as lowlife - judging by some of the comments of others on Tibb as to how they view this guy. They may, they may not.

No need for your insulting comments either - or perhaps that's the only way you are able to put over your points.

I don't believe most people are condeming the Big Man's actions - and I stated why in an earlier post.

.

Kettle pot - grimey arse

[Omah]

As far as I can see there are very few people who have defended the yob's actions, most people are in fact simply condeming the Big Man's actions.

It appears that, on this thread, you are wrong :

Was the Big Man right or wrong to throw the boy off the train?

Right 16 47.06%
Wrong 18 52.94%

An almost even split ..... ;)

[arista]

It appears that, on this thread, you are wrong :

Right 16 47.06%
Wrong 18 52.94%


NO NO NO


That Pole I said put up
a Mod did it
More still have to Vote as they posted BEFORE the pole

[Omah]

NO NO NO


That Pole I said put up
a Mod did it
More still have to Vote as they posted BEFORE the pole

Democracy in action - only votes that have been cast count ..... :idc:

[Pyramid*]

[]

Every person is only responsible for their own actions. No, that boy shouldn't have behaved the way he did but he can't be responsible for the reactions of the other 2 people involved. Firstly, it was not the place or responsibility of The Big man to act as a security guard or Police officer and secondly The conductor should have been doing his job properly and followed the rails proper procedures in dealing with situations like this.

Every action has a reaction. His actions caused the reactions.

Kettle pot - grimey arse

Ditto.

It appears that, on this thread, you are wrong :

Was the Big Man right or wrong to throw the boy off the train?

Right 16 47.06%
Wrong 18 52.94%

An almost even split ..... ;)

Indeed. if people look at newspapers online which allow comments: it's overwhelming support for the Big Man on every one of them.

There is one poster who tried to vote here but the poll stated they had already voted - when they hadn't - and that was a vote for the Big Man.

Tibb is not representative of the UK public. It's representative of people who are, in the main, fans of the reality TV show BB - which is the main reason they were drawn to a site that was set up specifically for fans of BB. As we all know, that is nowhere close to represening the UK public.

[Pyramid*]

And it is these very people that complain regularly about crime levels and how 'disgusting' some crimes are becoming, yet fail to understand what needs to be done to combat the problem, and that in fact their beliefs on stories like these will only continue to inadvertently increase levels of crime because they are advocating such behaviour. It makes me so ****ing annoyed to see such blatant stupidity, but then again the Daily Mail comments section is always worth a laugh.



Yes, I agree with all of those. Because funnily enough it wasn't just the guy that was in the wrong, so was the 'big man' and train conductor. There's a saying it takes two to tango, well in this case it's three. None of them should be let off because for starters two of them (the guy and the 'big man') committed a crime, one of which is actually worse than the other (physical abuse rather than verbal abuse, again funnily enough), and the train conductor incited all the unnecessary physical force, so perhaps the 'big man' should blame his idiocy in the event that he is charged. Of course it all stems from the guy attempting to fare dodge initially, but that doesn't mean that the other two should are angels here because both of them handled the situation unprofessionally in the case of the train conductor, and illegally in the case of Alan Pollock.

Regardless, you cannot assume that you can blame someone else's actions for yours, you must take responsibility for your own and so that's why all involved are in the wrong and should all face fitting consequences, and again before you begin moaning, that includes the 19 year old.

If you don't like the comments in the DM, have a check on the Daily Record - a Scottish Newspaper - it's the same comments on there - overwhelming support for the Big Man. Perhaps even check out the Guardian if that's more your scene - same thing there.

[arista]

Democracy in action - only votes that have been cast count ..... :idc:


Typical from you ,who in general ,Only post Bloated BBC Links.


More will Vote on this.

[Omah]

Typical from you ,who in general ,Only post Bloated BBC Links.


More will Vote on this.

Then those votes will count ..... :laugh:

[Pyramid*]

Then those votes will count ..... :laugh:

Not if when some fms are trying to vote and the poll tells them that they have already voted: when they have not. ;)

[arista]

I was the First Voter for the Big Man

[Shasown]

Not if when some fms are trying to vote and the poll tells them that they have already voted: when they have not. ;)

Wondered about the relevance of the quotes you have now edited out.

Calm down, deep breaths then post ;)

[Pyramid*]

Wondered about the relevance of the quotes you have now edited out.

Calm down, deep breaths then post ;)

Nope: no matter how often I deselect them - they aren't coming off the multi quote, even when I am only quoting a single post and keep showing again.... been happening every single time I post.

No need for deep breaths here. ;)

[Shasown]

Nope: no matter how often I deselect them - they aren't coming off the multi quote, even when I am only quoting a single post and keep showing again.... been happening every single time I post.

No need for deep breaths here. ;)

Try logging out of site, then clear cookies temp internet files and browsing history from your browser tools menu.

Big Breaths?

[Pyramid*]

Try logging out of site, then clear cookies temp internet files and browsing history from your browser tools menu.

Big Breaths?

I'll give that a bash later, cheers.

Big Breaths....with MY lungs!! Aye right, I'll crack the jokes!

[Shasown]

I'll give that a bash later, cheers.

Big Breaths....with MY lungs!! Aye right, I'll crack the jokes!

I was typing with my lisp ;)