View Full Version : 19 year old 'fare dodger' thrown off train by passenger after refusing to leave
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:25 PM
At the end of the day we need to ask - Does the end justify the means?
And the logical, intelligent answer is of course no.
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:29 PM
At the end of the day we need to ask - Does the end justify the means?
And the logical, intelligent answer is of course no.
Given that you are speaking only for yourself and not for everyone who has a view on this: your statement above is not a given - and nor is your inferrance that those who do not agree with your view, are illogical or unintelligent.
Got to laugh, we see a 2 minute clip of a kid getting pushed off a train and Pyramid thinks she can make a solid judgement that he is "scum" and a "lowlife"
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:31 PM
Got to laugh, we see a 2 minute clip of a kid getting pushed off a train and Pyramid thinks she can make a solid judgement that he is "scum" and a "lowlife"
There are far more posters than just me who will have this view - perhaps quit your targetting of one specific forum member - besides which, I have every right to see this yob as I see him - regardless.
I can form any judgement I wish, based on whatever I wish to.
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:32 PM
Given that you are speaking only for yourself and not for everyone who has a view on this: your statement above is not a given - and nor is your inferrance that those who do not agree with your view, are illogical or unintelligent.
You seem to think with your emotions rather than your head. Your posts in this thread show that.
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:33 PM
You seem to think with your emotions rather than your head. Your posts in this thread show that.
Perhaps both you and MTVN wish to discuss me personally via PM rather than on this thread.
There are far more posters than just me who will have this view - perhaps quit your targetting of one specific forum member - besides which, I have every right to see this yob as I see him - regardless.
I can form any judgement I wish, based on whatever I wish to.
Not over the last couple of pages
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:35 PM
Perhaps both you and MTVN wish to discuss me personally via PM rather than on this thread.
I don't know you personally, therefore I cannot discuss you personally. I can only go by what you post on this forum, which after all, is a pubic forum ;)
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:35 PM
Not over the last couple of pages
If you want to turn this thread into discussing me rather than the subject. Let's see how that goes then.
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:36 PM
I don't know you personally, therefore I cannot discuss you personally. I can only go by what you post on this forum, which after all, is a pubic forum ;)
Correct you don't therefore you have a right to be discussing me - which is clearly what both you and MTVN are doing. ;)
kisywisy
15-12-2011, 07:37 PM
this little ned needed put in his place. people are always moaning about brats like him causing trouble and how 'something needs to be done'. well, someone's done something and he gets pish for it!!!!
we need more people like this, willing to stand up to wee pricks
If you want to turn this thread into discussing me rather than the subject. Let's see how that goes then.
I made a comment on your characterisation of the teenager in this video, you are part of the debate so what you say will be commented on
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:38 PM
Correct you don't therefore you have no right to be discussing me - which is clearly what both you and MTVN are doing. ;)
Nope, I'm discussing your reactions and posts, not you
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:40 PM
I made a comment on your characterisation of the teenager in this video, you are part of the debate so what you say will be commented on
yes what I say - but that gives you no right to discuss me in the manner that you are doing.
It's fine. I'll raise it and report it as necessary.
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:40 PM
this little ned needed put in his place. people are always moaning about brats like him causing trouble and how 'something needs to be done'. well, someone's done something and he gets pish for it!!!!
we need more people like this, willing to stand up to wee pricks
That's all we need, "big men" popping up all over the country thinking they're the law.
kisywisy
15-12-2011, 07:40 PM
At the end of the day we need to ask - Does the end justify the means?
And the logical, intelligent answer is of course no.
disagree
kisywisy
15-12-2011, 07:44 PM
That's all we need, "big men" popping up all over the country thinking they're the law.
i'd prefer more 'big men' fighting for what's right, than more wee f@nnies thinking their ABOVE the law
InOne
15-12-2011, 07:46 PM
i'd prefer more 'big men' fighting for what's right, than more wee f@nnies thinking their ABOVE the law
Oh come on, you really believe he was "fighting for what's right?" he jumped at the chance to throw him off the train. He was basically a thug. He was more likely doing it for his own convinience rather that helping the train ticket guy out.
Pyramid*
15-12-2011, 07:54 PM
this little ned needed put in his place. people are always moaning about brats like him causing trouble and how 'something needs to be done'. well, someone's done something and he gets pish for it!!!!
we need more people like this, willing to stand up to wee pricks
Could not agree more kisy - I'd far rather have someone like the big man - than those who would walk away and leave a lout abusing an employee in this manner and giving little regard to everyone else on the train: never mind the young kids that were having to listen to his argument and his cursing.
joeysteele
15-12-2011, 11:35 PM
Really looking at this one again and discussing it with some of my friends,as with the poll on here opinion is near equally divided as to the right or wrong actions of the guy who put the teenager off the train.
However, the first wrong was the teenager who should have 'made sure' he had a valid ticket to travel on the train.
The second wrong was for same teenager not to have that ticket ready for inspection at all times.
The third wrong was that when unable to show a valid ticket for his journey that the teenager refused to leave the train when told to by an official of the rail company and then went on to hurl abuse at him.
The other passenger who intervened really did little wrong, the final wrong was the conducter who when the other passenger asked if he wanted him to get the teenager off the train, invited him to do so and thereby gave his consent to him to do so.
If this does go down any legal route then I still stand by my view and if I was already a practising lawyer I would be arguing this point,that the teenager had no right to be on the train in the first place,unlike everyone else who was.
He would not leave when told to and thereby caused obstruction and inconvenience to all the other passengers and also the rail company whose duty it is to ensure trains run to time therefore in light of all that although he was unfortunately manhandled,in this case totally the end did fully justify the means.
He could have completely avoided being manhandled off the train simply by obeying the rail company official and leaving the train of his own accord and own speed,he, the teenager chose not to do so and preferred to become abusive.
InOne
16-12-2011, 02:12 AM
Really looking at this one again and discussing it with some of my friends,as with the poll on here opinion is near equally divided as to the right or wrong actions of the guy who put the teenager off the train.
However, the first wrong was the teenager who should have 'made sure' he had a valid ticket to travel on the train.
The second wrong was for same teenager not to have that ticket ready for inspection at all times.
The third wrong was that when unable to show a valid ticket for his journey that the teenager refused to leave the train when told to by an official of the rail company and then went on to hurl abuse at him.
The other passenger who intervened really did little wrong, the final wrong was the conducter who when the other passenger asked if he wanted him to get the teenager off the train, invited him to do so and thereby gave his consent to him to do so.
If this does go down any legal route then I still stand by my view and if I was already a practising lawyer I would be arguing this point,that the teenager had no right to be on the train in the first place,unlike everyone else who was.
He would not leave when told to and thereby caused obstruction and inconvenience to all the other passengers and also the rail company whose duty it is to ensure trains run to time therefore in light of all that although he was unfortunately manhandled,in this case totally the end did fully justify the means.
He could have completely avoided being manhandled off the train simply by obeying the rail company official and leaving the train of his own accord and own speed,he, the teenager chose not to do so and preferred to become abusive.
So basically wrong + wrong + wrong = wrong. Which doesn't make it right
Was the Big Man right or wrong to throw the boy off the train?
Right 19 51.35%
Wrong 18 48.65%
Right goes into the lead ..... :thumbs:
joeysteele
16-12-2011, 07:46 AM
So basically wrong + wrong + wrong = wrong. Which doesn't make it right
My point being that this incident is more about wrongdoing rather than necessarily anything criminal.
However as I said, more wrongs lay at the feet of the teenager,rather than anyone else as to this matter.
Which is why I again say,should this surprisingly go down a legal route and even more so surprisingly end up in a courtroom, that it will be almost sure to be dealt by a court with the conclusion being reached that in this instance the end fully justified the means.
Pyramid*
16-12-2011, 09:01 AM
My point being that this incident is more about wrongdoing rather than necessarily anything criminal.
However as I said, more wrongs lay at the feet of the teenager,rather than anyone else as to this matter.
Which is why I again say,should this surprisingly go down a legal route and even more so surprisingly end up in a courtroom, that it will be almost sure to be dealt by a court with the conclusion being reached that in this instance the end fully justified the means.
Pity it wasn't you in that seat on the train last week Joey: there wouldn't have been all this bother - and everyone would be happy chappies - including the Big Man and the conductor !
Niamh.
16-12-2011, 01:14 PM
[]
Every action has a reaction. His actions caused the reactions.
Ditto.
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.
Yes his action caused the reactions but the people who reacted were the only ones responsible for how they did so. By your logic for example, it would be ok for a man to shoot his wife in the head if he caught her having an affair as it would be a reaction to her actions. Which of course is absurd, the man would be 100% responsible for his own actions.
The conductor was dealing with a situation in his place of work, he did not react in the correct way (as was stated by Scotrail) The Big man reacted by taking the law into his own hands which was wrong (which he was fully aware of when he stated to another passenger that he was aware he may be arrested for doing what he did)
fruit_cake
16-12-2011, 01:44 PM
Yes his action caused the reactions but the people who reacted were the only ones responsible for how they did so. By your logic for example, it would be ok for a man to shoot his wife in the head if he caught her having an affair as it would be a reaction to her actions. Which of course is absurd, the man would be 100% responsible for his own actions.
The conductor was dealing with a situation in his place of work, he did not react in the correct way (as was stated by Scotrail) The Big man reacted by taking the law into his own hands which was wrong (which he was fully aware of when he stated to another passenger that he was aware he may be arrested for doing what he did)
I agree, it seems people are trying to make an argument that because the 19 year old was a bit aggressive and should of bought a ticket, that somehow means people like big man have a licence to do whatever they like to him.
basically it seems to me they are saying that if you don't follow the rules your fair game to be abused and assaulted by anyone who feels like it.
Omah
19 Right
18 Wrong
I know - I've already posted it ..... :rolleyes:
Niall
16-12-2011, 03:01 PM
Though the guy was right to throw him off the train in theory, the way he actually carried it out was far too rough. I didn't like the way he was just throwing him around. It was a bit much really. :/
Like I and others have said though, they were in the right to throw him off the train of course.
Crimson Dynamo
16-12-2011, 03:33 PM
I agree, it seems people are trying to make an argument that because the 19 year old was a bit aggressive and should of bought a ticket, that somehow means people like big man have a licence to do whatever they like to him.
basically it seems to me they are saying that if you don't follow the rules your fair game to be abused and assaulted by anyone who feels like it.
It illustrates that selfish teenage immature w ankers are not tolerated by joe public in Scotland
:nono:
lily.
16-12-2011, 03:38 PM
Still no excuse for this so-called 'big man' to use physical force against him though. Yeah, I'm not denying the 19 year old was clearly in the wrong, but if he needed to be removed then it should have been up to the relevant authorities to do that, not some passenger on a train who thinks he can take matters into his own hands in to be honest, what looks like an attempt to show off to everybody else on the train.
At the end of the day the 19 year old didn't exert any physical force or violence himself and so the 'big man' had no right to either...and the use of bad language doesn't automatically mean you can do that either, they're not on the same level at all. Oh, and the applause was totally pathetic.
Both are in the wrong here if you ask me.
This thread is TL;DR, but I got as far as the first 2 pages, and I totally agree with Jack.
The boy didn't show the right ticket. He cursed at the inspector. Ideally, the inspector should have means to contact the station security or police who would remove the boy from the train, because it was clear to me that the boy wasn't about to remove himself and knew the inspector wouldn't physically remove him. As far as I was previously aware, the rail company regulations state that if an issue like this arises on a train, the journey is not to be held up, but the next station is to be contacted so that security personnel will be waiting there to escort them off. If this is indeed the rules, then the inspector was wasting his time arguing with the boy. He should have taken that action, thus ensuring none of the other passengers were inconvenienced.
The 'big man' probably got pissed off with the boy smart-mouthing the inspector and about having to wait around listening to them arguing, so he got up and chucked him out. I'm sure he probably now regrets this, as he will be charged with assault for his actions, and from what I know of him, he's a decent, law-abiding citizen the rest of the time.
I understand why he did it, and I'm sure a lot of people might have done the same, but it's not right, and he will rightly be charged for it. I expect he'll know that himself though.
So, Jack's last statement about both being in the wrong is accurate in my view.
Shasown
16-12-2011, 04:32 PM
It illustrates that selfish teenage immature w ankers are not tolerated by joe public in Scotland
:nono:
Does that mean this isnt the first hiding this lad has had? Pray tell.
Otherwise he was tolerated right up until this incident. And he is almost out of his teens.
One other point to think about, if the yob had been a yobbess would it still be okay for big Man to lift and hurl? If you think it is then suppose gobby teenager was drunk gobby OAP, is it still ok?
You see in the eyes of the law they all have the same rights and responsibilities.
arista
16-12-2011, 05:36 PM
"if the yob had been a yobbess"
Yes thats a Tricky One
as Pissed Woman Shout - "You Touching Me UP"
So If Female
Next Station with Female Staff or Female Lesbo Coppers.
Note: There is Nothing Wrong with Lesbos
For all the people who moan about the price of public transport - it's arseholes like this to blame.
Loads of people get away with fare dodging - this guy got caught - he should have had the sense to take it on the chin and left when he was asked to.
The Scots don't put up with this pish - and it was nice to see a more younger guy helping out the older conductor - who was only doing his job but had a young yob thinking he was some sort of hard man, cursing away at the old guy. He showed him no respect - so the other passenger gave the gobsh*te as dose of his own 'no respect' medicine.
Good on the big guy.
You wouldnt go into a taxi and say Im not paying for the fare would you.:devil:
The trouble today people are to pc and then the perpetrator has more rights than the victim the world has gone mad. A minority of young people thinks the world owes them something but in actual fact they owe them fark all.
Shasown
16-12-2011, 05:45 PM
You wouldnt go into a taxi and say Im not paying for the fare would you.:devil:
The trouble today people are to pc and then the perpetrator has more rights than the victim the world has gone mad. A minority of young people thinks the world owes them something but in actual fact they owe them fark all.
Look I have said it before and will say it again morally big man was right, you arent getting an argument with me on that. Legally however its a different game.
As for the taxi question, yeah have taken a taxi and walked into the house without paying, sent the wife god rest her soul out to settle up with the driver.
I have three kids. ;)
Look I have said it before and will say it again morally big man was right, you arent getting an argument with me on that. Legally however its a different game.
As for the taxi question, yeah have taken a taxi and walked into the house without paying, sent the wife god rest her soul out to settle up with the driver.
I have three kids. ;)
Yep I understand I have children of my own . I hope my children would never do anything like the 19year old in question but if he/she did I hope they would pay up rather than be chucked off the train was that an option? If the burly guy was heavy handed and threatening then yes there would be legal consquences .
The taxi answer above you did pay or should I say wife.:hugesmile:
Shasown
16-12-2011, 06:10 PM
Yep I understand I have children of my own . I hope my children would never do anything like the 19year old in question but if he/she did I hope they would pay up rather than be chucked off the train was that an option? If the burly guy was heavy handed and threatening then yes there would be legal consquences .
The taxi answer above you did pay or should I say wife.:hugesmile:
Of course she paid, told you have three kids ;)
Mind you think I have done it about 6 times, so would that mean she blew the other three off?
Of course she paid, told you have three kids ;)
Mind you think I have done it about 6 times, so would that mean she blew the other three off?
I get your game should have got off in Caerphilly and went to Cardiff, the trip should have been shorter rather than longer.:joker:
Shasown
16-12-2011, 06:38 PM
I get your game should have got off in Caerphilly and went to Cardiff, the trip should have been shorter rather than longer.:joker:
LOL yeah but its nice going up the Taff trail, its a lovely ride.
LOL yeah but its nice going up the Taff trail, its a lovely ride.
You from around that area.
Shasown
16-12-2011, 06:48 PM
You from around that area.
No, I used to work down there for a little while.
Niamh.
16-12-2011, 06:53 PM
You wouldnt go into a taxi and say Im not paying for the fare would you.:devil:
The trouble today people are to pc and then the perpetrator has more rights than the victim the world has gone mad. A minority of young people thinks the world owes them something but in actual fact they owe them fark all.
No one is saying the boy was right, the only thing people are saying is the way it was handled was pretty bad. The conductor should have called security and got them to meet him and deal with the boy at the next station instead of riling up the whole train and making the situation 100 times worse.
No, I used to work down there for a little while.
On the railways ha ha.:joker: Considering you got my joke.
No one is saying the boy was right, the only thing people are saying is the way it was handled was pretty bad. The conductor should have called security and got them to meet him and deal with the boy at the next station instead of riling up the whole train and making the situation 100 times worse.
Mishandled situation seems to happen all the time, youngests seem to be fiery and being man handled just seems to make matters worse. I have to agree with your posts. See both sides of the story.
Shasown
16-12-2011, 07:11 PM
On the railways ha ha.:joker: Considering you got my joke.
Errr no sorry, I was the undercover member in a covert insertion team respionsible for assessing and then reducing the internacine interactions between valley commandos and rooftop snipers in the late 80's.
Things just havent been the same since Frankie said Relax.
Errr no sorry, I was the undercover member in a covert insertion team respionsible for assessing and then reducing the internacine interactions between valley commandos and rooftop snipers in the late 80's.
Things just havent been the same since Frankie said Relax.
I had the t shirt from that era so the bib you been on the Call duty to long:devil::joker: Valley commandos :shocked:
Shasown
16-12-2011, 07:27 PM
I had the t shirt from that era so the bib you been on the Call duty to long:devil::joker: Valley commandos :shocked:
It was a dirty job but someone had to do it :devil:
It was a dirty job but someone had to do it :devil:
Dirty dozen springs to mind.:joker:
Shasown
16-12-2011, 07:30 PM
Dirty dozen springs to mind.:joker:
No there is only one of me, they broke some sort of mould apparently.
No there is only one of me, they broke some sort of mould apparently.
My mam said that about me, I did come into this world weighing 10lbs:shocked:
Shasown
16-12-2011, 07:34 PM
My mam said that about me, I did come into this world weighing 10lbs:shocked:
Dear god, your poor mum.
And afterwards your poor dad.
(The woman always blames the man you know)
Dear god, your poor mum.
And afterwards your poor dad.
(The woman always blames the man you know)
She was stitched up like a kipper:devil::joker:
Benjamin
16-12-2011, 11:27 PM
Can we try and keep this thread on topic please guys. :)
Shasown
16-12-2011, 11:32 PM
Yes Mr God sir :worship: :worship: :worship:
Sorry Mr God sir :worship: :worship: :worship:
Wont happen again, Mr God sir :worship: :worship: :worship:
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 12:22 AM
Just had a quick read on today's news on the story:-
One quote I've pulled from the yob's father from the article
Asked what he would have done if he had been a passenger and seen Pollock throwing another student off a train, Mr Main said: ‘I wouldn’t stand for it —his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075258/Hounding-class-hero-The-banker-threw-foul-mouthed-student-train-end-court.html#ixzz1gkYJFna7
Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.
What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.
I see he's gone back to saying the did buy the correct ticket (well, if he did....where is it then.... but then in the same paragraph, claims he was given incorrect ones again..... either he bought the right ones or he didn't.
He insists he bought the correct tickets (his family believe there is CCTV evidence to support this), but had been given two tickets in the same direction by mistake.
Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.
What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.
A-ha !
Well spotted ..... :thumbs:
It seems it's like father, like son - a right pair of gobsh1tes ..... :rolleyes:
There's a difference between using violence on a nonviolent person and using violence on a violent person, not that either is particulary commendable
Shasown
17-12-2011, 12:43 AM
Just had a quick read on today's news on the story:-
One quote I've pulled from the yob's father from the article
Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.
What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.
I see he's gone back to saying the did buy the correct ticket (well, if he did....where is it then.... but then in the same paragraph, claims he was given incorrect ones again..... either he bought the right ones or he didn't.
He insists he bought the correct tickets (his family believe there is CCTV evidence to support this), but had been given two tickets in the same direction by mistake.
Does the father mean he would assault someone who had assaulted his son, or assault someone who had assaulted another person. Or does he mean he would attempt to prevent someone throwing another person off a train?
Either one would be borderline assault, depending upon the intent behind it, if you see a person committing an assault or in the process of committing an assault, you are allowed to intervene and prevent an assault using the minimum force necessary to achieve that legal aim.
You arent allowed to assault someone else after they have assaulted someone simply to give a bit of payback.
You are though depending upon the severity of the inital assault allowed to use force to restrain the inital assaulter in order to hand them over to the police(citizens arrest). Bearing in mind if the person you restrain complains you may be liable for prosecution for assault or even unlawful arrest.
So yob may be done for fare dodging, he may also lose his place at university. Oh and sometime soon his dad is going to have that father-son talk about foul language (bet he is cacking himself).
Meanwhile Sams dad is lining up lawyers for a compo case and rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of all that lovely free money.
Ticket Inspector is "on leave" and may face disciplinary action
Mr Pollock is on time off and may be prosecuted and possibly lose his job.
Bet they all love the person who videoed this incident and posted it online.
Ban mobile phones with videos on public transport now. Before someone gets seriously hurt. Its only a question of time before someone turns up at a hospital saying "doctor can you remove this phone from my a***?"
I'd be surprised if the kid was kicked out of Uni for it
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 12:49 AM
There's a difference between using violence on a nonviolent person and using violence on a violent person, not that either is particulary commendable
Yeah that sounds a fab idea really.........
Let's all wade in and turn it into a major riot.
The point of the matter is: the yob's father is showing that he himself is no 'better' than the very man he and his son are complaining about.
Yeah that sounds a fab idea really.........
Let's all wade in and turn it into a major riot.
The point of the matter is: the yob's father is showing that he himself is no 'better' than the very man he and his son are complaining about.
If someone is assaulting somebody who wasn't being violent, and another person steps in to prevent that using force, then they are just as bad as each other?
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 12:56 AM
I'd be surprised if the kid was kicked out of Uni for it
I wouldn't. At all.
The way the pair of them (father and son) are going about this: the son will get kicked out of Uni and have several charges against him and poss have a criminal record on various counts - not the best these days to have when a heck of a lot of companies in Scotland require a minimum of Basic Disclosure background check.
An older employee (probably been with Scotrail for decades) who is currently suspended, may be fired from his job at this late stage in life.
The Big Man may also end up with a criminal record and also lose his job.
Well done to the yob and his hypocrite of a father.......... all down to one arsehole lying, irresponsible, disrespectful, ignorant 19 year old fare dodging student.
Welcome to life in the UK these days.
I wouldn't. At all.
The way the pair of them (father and son) are going about this: the son will get kicked out of Uni and have several charges against him and poss have a criminal record on various counts - not the best these days to have when a heck of a lot of companies in Scotland require a minimum of Basic Disclosure background check.
Various counts? What would those be then? Surely fare dodging is his only "crime", and it's hardly a serious one at that
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:00 AM
Various counts? What would those be then? Surely fare dodging is his only "crime", and it's hardly a serious one at that
Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)
Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)
Can't see him charges being pressed on any of those tbh
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:06 AM
Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)
you got there before I did.....
Now I may be wrong but couldn't he also be charged with Petty Assault (?) on the abusive language thing as well. I think there is also something in the Deception side that 'could' be used also.
If there's a good enough Prosecuting side; the student will be the one who would possibly be worse off on the crimimal record side of things.
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:08 AM
Can't see him charges being pressed on any of those tbh
Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.
They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.
You see even when travelling with perfectly valid tickets if a railway official asks you to leave a train you should comply, provided he has valid reasons, one of which is he suspects that you may have obtained the ticket dishonestly etc. They tend not to use it a lot nowadays, simply because of the compensation culture and bad publicity generated
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:10 AM
Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.
They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.
That's where I think that they will decide that due to public reaction - and due to the very serious and very severe impact it may have (on all 3 people involved) -that they will no pursue any prosecution.
then there's the point of Civil Law vs Criminal Law - what may not be under Criminal Law, may be covered by Civil Law and then on the roundabout we go......
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:12 AM
That's where I think that they will decide that due to public reaction - and due to the very serious and very severe impact it may have (on all 3 people involved) -that they will no pursue any prosecution.
They may not in the end prosecute but Pollock could still end up being offered and accepting a Fiscal Caution, in which case its recorded. Still shows up on Enhanced Disclosure (PVG) etc.
If student Sam goes for a civil writ against Pollock, Pollock will be found guilty of assault, simply because the student didnt attack or show signs of attacking someone.
The award against him though will probably be something like a pound to reflect the moral rightness of his interference.
Well I think this whole thing could be sorted by a good handshake and an apology (from all of them)
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:17 AM
Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.
They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.
You see even when travelling with perfectly valid tickets if a railway official asks you to leave a train you should comply, provided he has valid reasons, one of which is he suspects that you may have obtained the ticket dishonestly etc. They tend not to use it a lot nowadays, simply because of the compensation culture and bad publicity generated
BIB. There is something in the back of my mind, that that will not hold up in court, as it is the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure they check and bring to attention asap any errors.
ie: buying a flight ticket - If I do that in person and the booking agent makes an error: the responsibility lies with me to check and alert to error - if I don't and go to passport desk with incorrect docs - it is I who have to pay to rectify.
I'm sure that is the case - and given that it's been reported several times over that the boyo claims he KNEW he'd been given 2 tickets for the same journey prior to even sitting the exam: he had plenty of opportunity to contact Scotrail to having it sorted prior to boarding the train.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:19 AM
Well I think this whole thing could be sorted by a good handshake and an apology (from all of them)
In all fairness: given the publicity this has had - I think that's the best way forward - for all parties.
I suspect father and son are seeing £ signs otherwise they would just Shut TFU about it , but the notion of compensation is what is pushing them, rather than any real desire for justice being done (in their eyes).
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:24 AM
They may not in the end prosecute but Pollock could still end up being offered and accepting a Fiscal Caution, in which case its recorded. Still shows up on Enhanced Disclosure (PVG) etc.
If student Sam goes for a civil writ against Pollock, Pollock will be found guilty of assault, simply because the student didnt attack or show signs of attacking someone.
The award against him though will probably be something like a pound to reflect the moral rightness of his interference.
Not too sure about that one either: - rather, I'll rephrase, yes, that could so - but on the other hand: as it could be argued by other side that Main was placing others in a State of Alarm & Distress - (that's not the correct term but it's close) - and therefore Pollock's actions were justified. I have a hunch that something similar is covered by Civil Law?
It's one massive can of worms.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:26 AM
Wonders if Main senior will be buying Main junior some driving lessons and a car for Christmas! :D
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:32 AM
Not too sure about that one either: - rather, I'll rephrase, yes, that could so - but on the other hand: as it could be argued by other side that Main was placing others in a State of Alarm & Distress - (that's not the correct term but it's close) - and therefore Pollock's actions were justified. I have a hunch that something similar is covered by Civil Law?
It's one massive can of worms.
Its fear and alarm, again thats simply a breach of the peace, you aint allowed to interfere, its a plod job.
Its a good thing it will be handled down there anyway, if it was done through Grampian plod and Aberdeen or Inverness PF yob and hero would have already been cautioned and charged.
Its all about Performance Indicators up here. If a crime report is raised for a complaint someone is arrested, a report goes to the PF, if the PF gets a crime report they prosecute, simples. Aberdeen PF (covers all the way over to Nairn) have actually only issued a handful cautions for the whole year - that doesnt include Nov and Dec. Apparently they are aiming to beat their 97.6% prosecution rate.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Its fear and alarm, again thats simply a breach of the peace, you aint allowed to interfere, its a plod job.
Its a good thing it will be handled down there anyway, if it was done through Grampian plod and Aberdeen or Inverness PF yob and hero would have already been cautioned and charged.
Its all about Performance Indicators up here. If a crime report is raised for a complaint someone is arrested, a report goes to the PF, if the PF gets a crime report they prosecute, simples. Aberdeen PF (covers all the way over to Nairn) have actually issued 7 cautions for the whole year - so far.
Oh.....much as I get your drift, I'm not so sure that 'down here' is going to be any saving grace - it doesn't give auto protection because there are more cases going through the PFs office at this end. ;)
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Wonders if Main senior will be buying Main junior some driving lessons and a car for Christmas! :D
Nah a scotrail season ticket and a ball gag to be fitted at stations either end of his journey
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 01:39 AM
Nah a scotrail season ticket and a ball gag to be fitted at stations either end of his journey
With a lifetime guarantee not to be seated anywhere close to punters from Wishaw who won't stand for any nonsense! :hugesmile:
Shasown
17-12-2011, 01:43 AM
With a lifetime guarantee not to be seated anywhere close to punters from Wishaw who won't stand for any nonsense! :hugesmile:
Scotrail might decide to give him his own carriage, a wee doddery bogey thing towed behind the train.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 03:02 AM
Does the father mean he would assault someone who had assaulted his son, or assault someone who had assaulted another person. Or does he mean he would attempt to prevent someone throwing another person off a train?
Either one would be borderline assault, depending upon the intent behind it, if you see a person committing an assault or in the process of committing an assault, you are allowed to intervene and prevent an assault using the minimum force necessary to achieve that legal aim.
You arent allowed to assault someone else after they have assaulted someone simply to give a bit of payback.
You are though depending upon the severity of the inital assault allowed to use force to restrain the inital assaulter in order to hand them over to the police(citizens arrest). Bearing in mind if the person you restrain complains you may be liable for prosecution for assault or even unlawful arrest.
So yob may be done for fare dodging, he may also lose his place at university. Oh and sometime soon his dad is going to have that father-son talk about foul language (bet he is cacking himself).
Meanwhile Sams dad is lining up lawyers for a compo case and rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of all that lovely free money.
Ticket Inspector is "on leave" and may face disciplinary action
Mr Pollock is on time off and may be prosecuted and possibly lose his job.
Bet they all love the person who videoed this incident and posted it online.
Ban mobile phones with videos on public transport now. Before someone gets seriously hurt. Its only a question of time before someone turns up at a hospital saying "doctor can you remove this phone from my a***?"
BIB
Asked what he would have done if he had been a passenger and seen Pollock throwing another student off a train, Mr Main said: ‘I wouldn’t stand for it —his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground.’
Main snr seems to think it's not okay for Pollock to have 'assaulted' his son (or any other student), but it is okay for him (Main Snr) to assault Pollok if he witnessed Pollock doing what he did to another student. That's the way I'm reading it anyway. If so, it is complete and utter double standards from the man shouting about 'assault' in the first instance.
InOne
17-12-2011, 07:17 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/16/big-man-train-vigilante-alan-pollock-invited-to-join-us-crimebusters-group-guardian-angels-86908-23638345/
Big Man has been offered a job
Was the Big Man right or wrong to throw the boy off the train?
Right 22 55.00%
Wrong 18 45.00%
joeysteele
17-12-2011, 08:34 AM
I am plesed to see that slightly more now agree with the action of Mr Pollock. It is not usually an action I would support,to manhandle someone else but I have said on this thread I think it was justified after the failure of the conductor to act correctly and efficiently himself and to be getting nowhere as to the teenager leaving the trrain at all.
Mr. Pollock didn't just wade in, he asked the official,(the conducter),first, did he want him to get the teenager off the train.
It is not an action I would like to see as generally done on public transport but in this instance, clearly things were going nowhere and so since the teen would 'not' leave the train and was getting abusive in this instance,well I would have smiled at the result after Mr Pollock's intervention.
As for Mr Main snr, well he needs to instil some respect for 'other people' going about their daily business into his son.
Had I acted like this teenager(just still a teenager though), my Dad would have really got at me first for attempting to use something I had no legitimate right to and also for becoming abusive in a public place.
I'd have been marched back to the Rail company to apologise for my behaviour and although he wouldn't have liked someone else manhandling me, speaking to my Dad yesterday he said in that instance,I would have got what I deserved.
I agree with him on that completely in this particular instance.
This has been a good thread,it has stirred up good debate and emotions on all sides of the argument,it will be interesting to see what the final tally of voting leaves the result to be.
Vicky.
17-12-2011, 09:10 AM
There's a difference between using violence on a nonviolent person and using violence on a violent person, not that either is particulary commendable
I agree with this.
fruit_cake
17-12-2011, 09:12 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/16/big-man-train-vigilante-alan-pollock-invited-to-join-us-crimebusters-group-guardian-angels-86908-23638345/
Big Man has been offered a job
if you read that article it seems that even his new employers don't think he handled the situation correctly
We run a training programme which would help him to develop the correct skills to better handle situations like the one he found himself in
Vicky.
17-12-2011, 09:16 AM
I am plesed to see that slightly more now agree with the action of Mr Pollock. It is not usually an action I would support,to manhandle someone else but I have said on this thread I think it was justified after the failure of the conductor to act correctly and efficiently himself and to be getting nowhere as to the teenager leaving the trrain at all.
I will ask you too then joey...if it had been a female, or an elderly person behaving in the way the student did...would you be commending the big mans actions then?
No dodging the question like others have by throwing about stereotypes of 'older people wouldnt act like that' either :p
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921
A ticket inspector has been stabbed on a C2C train travelling from Essex into London, prompting an investigation by British Transport Police (BTP).
The attack at East Tilbury happened on the 20:20 Southend Victoria to London Fenchurch Street service on Friday.
BTP said the inspector had asked two men without tickets, aged about 18, to leave the train. They got off, but one returned and stabbed him in the back.
The inspector was said to be in a comfortable condition in hospital.
Officers are now looking through CCTV images and are appealing to any passengers on the train who witnessed anything to contact them.
'Severely punished'
One of the suspects wore a black hooded top and the second a grey flat cap and grey top.
The police force said there had been four ticket inspectors on the service at the time of the stabbing and that they worked in pairs.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union representing many railway workers, said anyone with any information should contact police urgently.
"Once again it shows the dangers that transport staff face every day and particularly over the Christmas and new year period.
"The perpetrators of this vicious and cowardly assault must be caught and the authorities need to show that those who attack public service workers will be severely punished," he said.
The other side of the coin, eh ..... :eek:
arista
17-12-2011, 11:00 AM
Vicky
Of course Not
if it was a pissed female
next station with Female Staff and Female Lesbo Police
Note: There is nothing wrong with Lesbos
arista
17-12-2011, 11:10 AM
The other side of the coin, eh ..... :eek:
I hope they Arrest that Evil Punk
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 03:14 PM
I will ask you too then joey...if it had been a female, or an elderly person behaving in the way the student did...would you be commending the big mans actions then?
No dodging the question like others have by throwing about stereotypes of 'older people wouldnt act like that' either :p
I didn't see your question. I won't dodge the question - I won't give an opinion on it because that's us back to 'what ifs' situation again.
This story may or may not have had a different outcome if it was a female: but as it isn't - it's the situ we have as is, that we're discussing, not the 'what ifs'.:p
Jack_
17-12-2011, 03:21 PM
I didn't see your question. I won't dodge the question - I won't give an opinion on it because that's us back to 'what ifs' situation again.
This story may or may not have had a different outcome if it was a female: but as it isn't - it's the situ we have as is, that we're discussing, not the 'what ifs'.:p
This is just question dodging disguised with an excuse.
The real reason you're not answering the question is because you know full well that you can't, as you wouldn't hold the same opinion on this if it were a woman or an elderly person...basically double standards. And you just won't admit to that. You'll deny this and try to shy away from it all you want but it's evident for all to see, you won't answer the question because you'll expose your double standards.
You already did answer Pyramid
I will be honest here: if it was anyone giving the conductor verbals the way this guy did: I don't care what age or sex the person is - I still would not have found fault.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 03:36 PM
You already did answer Pyramid
Thanks MTVN - all the better then. :thumbs: Although my most recent comment does still apply - that isn't what happened anyway!
Originally Posted by Snowball http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/blue/viewpost.gif (http://thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4817254#post4817254)
I will be honest here: if it was anyone giving the conductor verbals the way this guy did: I don't care what age or sex the person is - I still would not have found fault.
This is just question dodging disguised with an excuse.
The real reason you're not answering the question is because you know full well that you can't, as you wouldn't hold the same opinion on this if it were a woman or an elderly person...basically double standards. And you just won't admit to that. You'll deny this and try to shy away from it all you want but it's evident for all to see, you won't answer the question because you'll expose your double standards.
What was that you were saying Jack - seeing as you missed it as well.
arista
17-12-2011, 03:48 PM
Right 22 55.00%
Wrong 18 45.00%
Yes The Big Man was Right
The Pissed Student Punk is Guilty
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 03:59 PM
if you read that article it seems that even his new employers don't think he handled the situation correctly
A bit downmarket compared to who the Big Man works with....
Alan – a manager with £2.3trillion asset management firm BlackRock
joeysteele
17-12-2011, 05:14 PM
I will ask you too then joey...if it had been a female, or an elderly person behaving in the way the student did...would you be commending the big mans actions then?
No dodging the question like others have by throwing about stereotypes of 'older people wouldnt act like that' either :p
Oh Vicky you do know how to stump me a bit :joker: and you do sort of have me there,in fact my answer would have to be no,I wouldn't support that action in that instance, having said that I have often found as a student some females far more vicious and physical than some males.
However, as I say you have me a bit in the corner with that question though, I have been brought up to respect women and also the elderly and as you asked me to not sidestep and say older people wouldn't act like that, my answer would then have to be no, I wouldn't support such action in that scenario you outlined.
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 05:20 PM
Oh Vicky you do know how to stump me a bit :joker: and you do sort of have me there,in fact my answer would have to be no,I wouldn't support that action in that instance, having said that I have often found as a student some females far more vicious and physical than some males.
However, as I say you have me a bit in the corner with that question though, I have been brought up to respect women and also the elderly and as you asked me to not sidestep and say older people wouldn't act like that, my answer would then have to be no, I wouldn't support such action in that scenario you outlined.
I've seen women with a drink in them being aggressive and foul mouthed - and many of them can be far more vicious & far more scary than even this guy was - if it had been such a woman -it may have required more than just one Big Man to sort her out....... ! :shocked:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2104401_bottle_of_whiskey_poured_over_train_conduc tor
CCTV images of two suspects wanted over an attack on a railway conductor near Redhill on Wednesday morning (November 30) have been released by police.
The victim, a staff member on a Southern service from London Victoria to Ore in East Sussex, was set upon after asking two men for their tickets at around 6.30am.
They had not paid and refused to leave the train when asked, then swearing at the conductor and threatening to attack him with a whiskey bottle.
One of the men tried to throw a punch at the conductor before the other poured the contents of the bottle over him.
The two men left the train at Redhill, taking the empty bottle with them.
Inspector Jack Ioannou, of the British Transport Police, said: “This pair’s behaviour towards the member of staff, who had quite rightly asked them for their tickets to travel, was completely unacceptable.
“This was a degrading assault on a man who was simply trying to do his job and we’ll do everything we can to track down the pair responsible.”
A conductor's lot is not a happy one when he has to deal with thugs ..... :sad:
fruit_cake
17-12-2011, 05:23 PM
I've seen women with a drink in them being aggressive and foul mouthed - and many of them can be far more vicious & far more scary than even this guy was - if it had been such a woman -it may have required more than just one Big Man to sort her out....... ! :shocked:
:bored:
arista
17-12-2011, 05:31 PM
A conductor's lot is not a happy one when he has to deal with thugs ..... :sad:
Yes which proves the Big Man was right
even though it was a Pissed Student Punk
and not like your current story pick of thugs
Pyramid*
17-12-2011, 05:39 PM
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2104401_bottle_of_whiskey_poured_over_train_conduc tor
A conductor's lot is not a happy one when he has to deal with thugs ..... :sad:
Quite - anyone working with Joe Public and is fully customer facing, has to put up with this kind of sh*t - and it ain't right. Not by a long shot.
:bored:
Don't know what the need for the bored smiley is: it's true - women can be vicious as hell & I'm quite sure you know that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921
A ticket inspector has been stabbed on a C2C train travelling from Essex into London, prompting an investigation by British Transport Police (BTP).
The attack at East Tilbury happened on the 20:20 Southend Victoria to London Fenchurch Street service on Friday.
BTP said the inspector had asked two men without tickets, aged about 18, to leave the train. They got off, but one returned and stabbed him in the back.
The inspector was said to be in a comfortable condition in hospital.
Officers are now looking through CCTV images and are appealing to any passengers on the train who witnessed anything to contact them.
'Severely punished'
One of the suspects wore a black hooded top and the second a grey flat cap and grey top.
The police force said there had been four ticket inspectors on the service at the time of the stabbing and that they worked in pairs.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union representing many railway workers, said anyone with any information should contact police urgently.
"Once again it shows the dangers that transport staff face every day and particularly over the Christmas and new year period.
"The perpetrators of this vicious and cowardly assault must be caught and the authorities need to show that those who attack public service workers will be severely punished," he said.
The other side of the coin, eh ..... :eek:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16239056
Detectives investigating the stabbing of a rail ticket inspector at East Tilbury station, Essex, have arrested two people.
British Transport Police arrested a 19-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy on Sunday in Tilbury, two days after the incident on a C2C train.
The males were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm.
The inspector, 42, needed three stitches to the stab wound and was released from hospital on Saturday.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/teacher-who-filmed-ticket-row-plagued-by-prank-calls.16215980
THE man who shot the YouTube video showing a student being manhandled off a ScotRail train has had to go ex-directory after receiving prank calls.
Ian Hems's video had attracted nearly two million views as of yesterday. It has made headlines across Britain and further afield and has also sparked a debate about the extent of citizen-power.
The video shows 19-year-old Sam Main apparently being lifted from his seat and physically ejected from the Edinburgh to Perth ScotRail service after he swore at a train conductor.
Alan Pollock – a 30-year-old finance manager dubbed the "big man" online – intervened after the teenager refused to leave the train at Linlithgow, then blocked his attempt to re-enter the carriage and eventually sat down to cheers from other passengers.
Mr Hems captured the action on his Nokia mobile phone and uploaded it to YouTube. But he did not expect the video to go viral and become an internet hit.
The 27-year-old IT teacher, said ruefully yesterday: "If you ever upload a film to YouTube, don't put your actual name on it. I've had to phone BT and go ex-directory because my phone has gone red-hot from about five in the morning with prank calls.
"I was only there [on the train] and filmed it. Big deal. What's the problem? I'm not the star of this show. I don't get why people are getting at me on this one."
It was only the day after he posted the video online, when it made the front page of Reddit, a popular news website featuring user-generated content, that Mr Hems realised how popular it was becoming.
He admits to being slightly baffled by the fuss and said: "I don't really get what it's all about, to be honest."
Speaking about the incident yesterday, Mr Hems – who has been interviewed by British Transport Police – said he was sitting bored on the train, "mucking around with the phone", when it started.
He said: "I started filming purely because the train conductor had gone backwards and had stopped the train after checking everyone's tickets.
"There was a bit of abuse going on. I thought the transport police were about to come and throw the student off the train.
"I was thinking it was going to be funny, but I didn't expect the big man to step up like that. It has caused a bit of a stir.
"I'm firmly on the big man's side because he did what everyone wanted to be done."
Mr Hems added: "Sam is basically saying that he tried to explain, and wasn't given a chance to explain [about the ticket]. But he was given lots of time to explain.
"He was just being offensive - He could have avoided it if he'd just got a ticket. He got a taxi home afterwards. He clearly had money."
Mr Hems said that after the incident everybody "took their headphones off, and started chatting". He added: "I've never been on a train journey where everyone starts talking to each other - it was very weird.
"Most folk were on the side of [Alan Pollock]. It was the right thing to do. The conductor was pretty much in shock."
Well, Ian Hems was there and he should know ..... :thumbs:
InOne
20-12-2011, 08:37 AM
Why are you posting all this crap in here, it's nothing to do with the topic
Omah can you stop posting articles from different incidents in here please, they have nothing to do with this thread topic.
after refusing to leave
Omah can you stop posting articles from different incidents in here please, they have nothing to do with this thread topic.
Nothing to do with the "passenger/conductor incident" on Scotrail ?
I beg to differ - the post at 09:24, to which the previous FM presumably refers, is specifically to do with the "passenger/conductor incident" on Scotrail .....
Shasown
20-12-2011, 09:40 AM
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/teacher-who-filmed-ticket-row-plagued-by-prank-calls.16215980
Well, Ian Hems was there and he should know ..... :thumbs:
Yeah he was, and he is entitled to his opinion. But thats all it is, his opinion. Unless of course this IT teacher is some sort of expert on the law of the land.
Incidentally:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-16239056
Love the red highlights. Nothing like shooting yourself down is there?
Talk about an "own goal"!
19 year old 'fare dodger' thrown off train by passenger after refusing to leave
Nothing to do with the "passenger/conductor incident" on Scotrail ?
I beg to differ - the post at 09:24, to which the previous FM presumably refers, is specifically to do with the "passenger/conductor incident" on Scotrail .....
I never posted specifically about any article or said they were all off topic I asked you to stop copy/pasting articles that have nothing to do with incident that's been debated in here, like the 3 you posted before the one that was on topic...
I never posted specifically about any article or said they were all off topic I asked you to stop copy/pasting articles that have nothing to do with incident that's been debated in here, like the 3 you posted before the one that was on topic...
As I pointed out in one of those, the articles were included to show the "other side of the coin", i.e. to give perspective .....
If the purpose of this thread is merely to score points by analysing a video clip ad infinitum then I am happy to leave well enough alone ..... :thumbs:
Pyramid*
20-12-2011, 09:37 PM
Interesting little snippet that has come to light.
Main Junior does indeed seem to be coming over more and more of a lout and a yob at every turn. I so want this CCTV clip to be made available: let's see how much of a charming young man his father believes his son really is then......
But CCTV footage from the train has shown a new side to the story, which is missing from the clip which became an online sensation.
Filmed earlier in the journey, it is understood to show student Sam Main trying to trip up the white-haired conductor as he goes about his work.
After a heated argument with the man, the youth is seen putting his leg out into the train aisle to block his way, with the next frame appearing to show the conductor forced to step over him to leave
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076718/Sam-Main-thrown-train-Big-Man-You-Tube-hero-tried-trip-conductor.html#ixzz1h7JKRVZR
Interesting little snippet that has come to light.
Main Junior does indeed seem to be coming over more and more of a lout and a yob at every turn. I so want this CCTV clip to be made available: let's see how much of a charming young man his father believes his son really is then......
Yeah, Ian Hems has always maintained there was several minutes of "aggro" from the beanie yob before he started recording the incident - I'm pleased that his account seems to be confirmed ..... :idc:
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 06:13 AM
Yeah, Ian Hems has always maintained there was several minutes of "aggro" from the beanie yob before he started recording the incident - I'm pleased that his account seems to be confirmed ..... :idc:
Far as I remember, he said there had been a lot of verbals from yobbo - but I cannot recall him saying he saw the conductor being tripped up or his way being blocked: hence why it would be interesting to see this CCTV footage. It could have been right at the start of all the palava before anyone notice, and only has come to light now the conductor is being questioned in detail about it.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 06:56 AM
Wonder if this "CCTV" footage does in fact exist or is the Mail just trying to keep the debate over this story for as long as they can milk it.
"But CCTV footage from the train "
"The unnamed conductor too has stayed silent...."
"The only person to have spoken out is Mr Main, ....."
"A ScotRail spokesman said: 'Our inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the incident continue.
'As British Transport Police has received and is investigating a complaint of assault, it would be inappropriate to comment further.' "
No source named or even mentioned about this "CCTV"
Wonder if this "CCTV" footage does in fact exist
Probably :
First ScotRail set to install 2,000 CCTV cameras on train fleet
Published on Tuesday 20 September 2005 01:03
CRIMINALS on trains will have nowhere to hide after First ScotRail yesterday announced that its fleet is to be equipped with the most sophisticated and comprehensive security camera system on Britain's railways.
Up to five state-of-the-art CCTV cameras will be installed in each carriage, capable of recording high-resolution images from every angle.
A total of 2,000 cameras will see almost every First ScotRail train covered within two years.
The multi-million-pound system will be the most hi-tech on the rail network, with a total of 230 trains equipped - more than any other operator.
The move builds on Scotland's pre-eminence in station security, where more than half have CCTV cameras - the highest proportion in Britain.
First ScotRail's entire diesel fleet and almost all its electric trains will be covered.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-east-fife/first_scotrail_set_to_install_2_000_cctv_cameras_o n_train_fleet_1_1096590
Petards First ScotRail Project
Location: United Kingdom
Customer: First Group
Project Type: Refurbishment
Solution: On-Board and Forward-Facing
Value: £2 million +
Year: 2005/6 and 2007/8
Project Overview
1st November 2011
In 2005, when First ScotRail was looking at on-board surveillance options, they turned to Petards to provide the most sophisticated, reliable and comprehensive security camera system available.
Up to five state-of-the-art CCTV cameras were installed in each carriage, capable of recording high-resolution images from every angle. A total of 2,000 cameras saw almost every First ScotRail train covered within two years.
Today, the multi-million-pound system remains one of the most hi-tech on the rail network, with over 230 trains equipped.
First ScotRail's entire diesel fleet and almost all its electric trains were covered in the project.
http://www.petards.com/transport/case_studies/case_study_first_scotrail_project.aspx
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:17 AM
Wonder if this "CCTV" footage does in fact exist or is the Mail just trying to keep the debate over this story for as long as they can milk it.
"But CCTV footage from the train "
"The unnamed conductor too has stayed silent...."
"The only person to have spoken out is Mr Main, ....."
"A ScotRail spokesman said: 'Our inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the incident continue.
'As British Transport Police has received and is investigating a complaint of assault, it would be inappropriate to comment further.' "
No source named or even mentioned about this "CCTV"
sometimes its better not taking things out of context.....
"The unnamed conductor too has stayed silent...." ......the remainder of that being: "He is on leave from work and is being investigated by Scotrail over his actions". I would be pretty certain that ensuring he do as he's told by him employer during this period would over-ride his need to speak to the media.
"The only person to have spoken out is Mr Main, ....." the remainder of that being: "He last week launched a litany of excuses for his behaviour, blaming his long day, diabetes and hungry state, as well as claiming he had been sold the wrong ticket for his return journey"
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out that the yob and his father (who also spoke out, along with his 'unnamed uncle') - are out for one thing: not justice: but money.
I suspect that with the matter being investigated, and the conductor's revelations about being tripped up etc: hence why there has been attention given to CCTV footage: and if this is the case and it does exist - I hope it all comes crashing around the ears of a certain 19year old student who goes by the name of Sam Main.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 08:26 AM
Probably :
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-east-fife/first_scotrail_set_to_install_2_000_cctv_cameras_o n_train_fleet_1_1096590
Yeah funny old thing living in Scotland I have used Scotrail. I am aware that most trains do in fact have some CCTV coverage.
I think the point I was making has gone right over your head.
How does the Mail know whats on any CCTV footage of the incident? Who gave them details? Given the Transport police would have immediately secured any footage from the train as soon as a complaint was made. BT Police are governed by the same rules about discussing evidence being reviewed in ongoing enquiries as noraml police forces. Normally the Mail is quite keen to quote sources for their stories.
There is one other point to consider, there have been numerous cases in the past since the introduction of CCTV in both buses and trains in Scotland where the actual footage taken from security CCTV was next to useless, either because of the positioning of the equipment meant the area of the incident was covered or the standard of the recording was such that no worthwhile information could be garnered from the film.
I think the point I was making has gone right over your head.
Probably
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:31 AM
Yeah funny old thing living in Scotland I have used Scotrail. I am aware that most trains do in fact have some CCTV coverage.
I think the point I was making has gone right over your head.
How does the Mail know whats on any CCTV footage of the incident? Who gave them details? Given the Transport police would have immediately secured any footage from the train as soon as a complaint was made. BT Police are governed by the same rules about discussing evidence being reviewed in ongoing enquiries as noraml police forces. Normally the Mail is quite keen to quote sources for their stories.
There is one other point to consider, there have been numerous cases in the past since the introduction of CCTV in both buses and trains in Scotland where the actual footage taken from security CCTV was next to useless, either because of the positioning of the equipment meant the area of the incident was covered or the standard of the recording was such that no worthwhile information could be garnered from the film.
Pretty patronising comment there and pretty unnecessary tbh. There is every chance that the media have been tipped off.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 08:35 AM
Pretty patronising comment there and pretty unnecessary tbh. There is every chance that the media have been tipped off.
Well you would know all about unnecessary and patronising comments.
There is every chance as well the story is BS, simply used by the Mail to keep the debate in the public eye.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:44 AM
Well you would know all about unnecessary and patronising comments.
There is every chance as well the story is BS, simply used by the Mail to keep the debate in the public eye.
I don't however profess to be a fountain of knowledge on all subjects in the manner that you appear to think you are - regardless of what the subject matter is.
You have no idea if the newpaper article has any supporting truth behind it or not - but are happy to berate another fm for having their opinion - when all Omah did was show a link to CCTV coverage introduced by Scotrail- not just for you but for others on the thread who may not be familiar with Scotrail.
I too live in Scotland, have used Scotrail but it doesn't make me some expert on their CCTV operations - yet somehow your own post in reply to Omah very much gives the impression that you think you expertly qualified in the running of Scotrail, British Tranport Police and everything else in between.
You are like everyone else on this thread: going by what is being reported: and gleaning from that what we all individually chose to from the reported stories.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 08:44 AM
Here, think this article in the Record puts things into perspective you appear to have overlooked it in your search for more info on this story
Sheriff gives his legal view on the 'Big Man' train incident
Dec 15 2011 By Charles Gall
THE guy who intervenes is out of order because it’s really a matter between the ticket collector and the student.
The ticket collector would be within his rights to say to this chap, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”.
I’m not in any doubt the ticket collector would be entitled to use reasonable force if this guy wasn’t prepared to go.
The collector, I’ve absolutely no doubt, would decide not to bother doing that because that’s the sensible thing to do.
These collectors, I am fairly certain, have a direct line to the British Transport Police. He has it within his powers to lock the doors of the train until the police arrive.
If, for example, the ticket collector had decided that he was going to try to get rid of this chap, and use reasonable force as a result, then our bold hero would still not be entitled to intervene until such time as the collector was assaulted.
In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach.
There are all kinds of situations that would arise before one would think of actually just lifting the guy and throwing him off the train.
I suspect the ticket collector is probably under instruction not to use force at all, even “reasonable force”.
I can well understand if the investment banker is charged with assault. They would be entitled to charge the man if the student has complained.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/15/sheriff-gives-his-legal-view-on-the-big-man-train-incident-86908-23636128/
Would you like fries with that...
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:51 AM
Here, think this article in the Record puts things into perspective you appear to have overlooked it in your search for more info on this story
Would you like fries with that...
I'm sure another sheriff would give an opposing view if the Daily Record asked around.
I'll wait to see what actually happens in respect of any charges, and if anyone is actually prosecuted.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 09:49 AM
I'll wait to see what actually happens in respect of any charges, and if anyone is actually prosecuted.
Really?
Appears you forgot one basic rule of law!
I'm sure another sheriff would give an opposing view if the Daily Record asked around.
I think "Sheriff" is just a pseudonym for an old hack ..... :joker:
Shasown
21-12-2011, 12:50 PM
I think "Sheriff" is just a pseudonym for an old hack ..... :joker:
Yeah I have to admit that could be a possibility.
Heres another one though, if you look to the right of the article you will see an area marked as tags, in that area is the name Douglas Cusine, he has commented on a few things for the Daily Record recently.
Oh and he was a sheriff in Aberdeen, recently retired.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 01:49 PM
Yeah I have to admit that could be a possibility.
Heres another one though, if you look to the right of the article you will see an area marked as tags, in that area is the name Douglas Cusine, he has commented on a few things for the Daily Record recently.
Oh and he was a sheriff in Aberdeen, recently retired.
ie: in other words: has no oomph therefore can be quoted saying whatever the Daily Record would like him to - for a fee.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 02:26 PM
ie: in other words: has no oomph therefore can be quoted saying whatever the Daily Record would like him to - for a fee.
Yeah of course he is going to compromise his integrity for a couple of grand aint he?
And risk his 60+grand a year pension and the chance of being asked back to help out by a sheriff principal at 600 quid a day.
Talk about clutching at straws.
Incidentally he is also a former lecturer in Scottish Law at Aberdeen University and spent over 10 years as a sheriff at Aberdeen.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 02:35 PM
Yeah of course he is going to compromise his integrity for a couple of grand aint he?
And risk his 60+grand a year pension and the chance of being asked back to help out by a sheriff principal at 600 quid a day.
Talk about clutching at straws.
He's retired - he can do and say what he likes as far as his own opinion is concerned (which really holds no valid judgement any longer - given that he is retired).
Since when did many of our law representatives & such authority figures automatically have integrity. Hardly unheard of that there are ones who do get backhanders - same with those within the policeforce - making out as though it doesn't happen and that they are all innocence personified is sheer and utter folly.
Weren't you implying earlier in the thread that the authorities up in the North East were - errr...let's say more driven to reach targets for particular crimes - more interested in figures of another variety ....... which would/could indicate that people are being prosecuted more in that area than further south? Isn't that another way of cooking the books....
So you think that it's more likely that he's lying because the Record want him to, as oppose to him merely giving his informed opinion on events?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 02:47 PM
So you think that it's more likely that he's lying because the Record want him to, as oppose to him merely giving his informed opinion on events?
I said whatever he says means that it is HIS opinion and not the opinion shared by all sheriffs. As well we know, what one person is charged with in one court - they can be let off with in another. They don't all met out the same punishments.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 02:51 PM
I said whatever he says means that it is HIS opinion and not the opinion shared by all sheriffs. As well we know, what one person is charged with in one court - they can be let off with in another. They don't all met out the same punishments.
The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.
Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.
But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 02:59 PM
The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.
Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.
But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?
Given that the case won't be heard up in the North of Scotland - if it even goes that far - your Aberdeen retired sheriff etc - it's all really nothing to do with the thread in the first place is it.
I happen to drive - thankfully I don't have to rely on public transport - so your sarcastic snipe was all wasted. Shame.
IMO, it's a rather dubious article attributed to Charles Gall
The so-called "Sheriff" is not identified nor is it clear which, if any, parts of the article are written by or may be attributed to anyone other than the aforementioned Charles Gall - on the one hand, each of the opposing participants is called "the guy and on the other "the chap" - a strange mix of the colloquial and formal
Then there's the weird turns of phrase :
I’m not in any doubt
I’ve absolutely no doubt
I am fairly certain
I suspect
I can well understand
And anyone who thinks "In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach." would be helpful is clearly out of touch with reality - calling anyone "sunshine", especially a drunk, is inviting a fist in the phizzog ..... :laugh2:
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 03:15 PM
IMO, it's a rather dubious article attributed to Charles Gall
The so-called "Sheriff" is not identified nor is it clear which, if any, parts of the article are written by or may be attributed to anyone other than the aforementioned Charles Gall - on the one hand, each of the opposing participants is called "the guy and on the other "the chap" - a strange mix of the colloquial and formal
Then there's the weird turns of phrase :
And anyone who thinks "In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach." would be helpful is clearly out of touch with reality - calling anyone "sunshine", especially a drunk, is inviting a fist in the phizzog ..... :laugh2:
Sheriff gives his legal view on the 'Big Man' train incident
THE guy who intervenes is out of order because it’s really a matter between the ticket collector and the student.
The ticket collector would be within his rights to say to this chap, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”.
I’m not in any doubt the ticket collector would be entitled to use reasonable force if this guy wasn’t prepared to go. The collector, I’ve absolutely no doubt, would decide not to bother doing that because that’s the sensible thing to do.
These collectors, I am fairly certain, have a direct line to the British Transport Police. He has it within his powers to lock the doors of the train until the police arrive.
If, for example, the ticket collector had decided that he was going to try to get rid of this chap, and use reasonable force as a result, then our bold hero would still not be entitled to intervene until such time as the collector was assaulted.
In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach.
There are all kinds of situations that would arise before one would think of actually just lifting the guy and throwing him off the train.
I suspect the ticket collector is probably under instruction not to use force at all, even “reasonable force”.
I can well understand if the investment banker is charged with assault.
They would be entitled to charge the man if the student has complained.
Yes Omah - along with the phrase: These collectors, I am fairly certain, have a direct line to the British Transport Police - seems that for such a well documented and long serving sheriff - even HE isn't 100% sure - fairly certain doesn't quite cut it.
This sheriff isn't even aware of the situation: since when did an expired ticket come into play? Why on earth would the sheriff state that the conductor would have been within his right to say, "Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”.
Sounds like an article full of BS to me.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 03:21 PM
The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.
Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.
But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?
All of which very much depends on the sheriff in question actually having the facts to hand, rather than some loose translation of the background to the story (ie: as per the Daily Record's 'source' and that sheriff's comments re, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”)
Shasown
21-12-2011, 03:45 PM
All of which very much depends on the sheriff in question actually having the facts to hand, rather than some loose translation of the background to the story (ie: as per the Daily Record's 'source' and that sheriff's comments re, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”)
Funnily enough, isnt that exactly what you have been doing all through this thread, in your first post of the thread calling the student involved an arsehole and then accusing the student of fare dodging.
For all the people who moan about the price of public transport - it's arseholes like this to blame.
.......
Loads of people get away with fare dodging - this guy got caught -
....
Moral of the story is: If you want to fare dodge and get caught - don't be dickhead about it
You have no real evidence for any of those comments. But Better was yet to come
Actually Jack, it is MY business: even though I wasn't even on the train. Monies from train fares are liable for taxation, which hits the public purse. If those monies are depleted due to arseholes like this guy: the defecit has to be made up from some other sector. In effect: we ALL pay it.
How much of your hard earned wages go into the pubic purse......
Such arse about face logic
Then because the newspapers used different quotes and different stories the student was obviously lying, couldnt stick to the original story etc.
Then it was obviously his parents fault for failing to instil proper values in the boy simply because the father backed up the lads story according to the newspapers
And all of this from a video that doesnt show the full incident(s)
but then after all the venom you managed to heap on the yob, the classic ...
I'll wait to see what actually happens in respect of any charges, and if anyone is actually prosecuted.
Does that only apply in the case of Mr Pollock or isnt the student allowed the same basic human right?
Is it because he is a student?
Incidentally the basic rule of law I referred to in a comment in an earlier post which you so skillfully ignored obviously because it totally undermines all your arguments in this thread and underlines your bias is quite simply:
the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
I take it you dont think it should apply to drunken gobby students eh?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 04:10 PM
Funnily enough, isnt that exactly what you have been doing all through this thread, in your first post of the thread calling the student involved an arsehole and then accusing the student of fare dodging.
You have no real evidence for any of those comments. But Better was yet to come
Such arse about face logic
Then because the newspapers used different quotes and different stories the student was obviously lying, couldnt stick to the original story etc.
Then it was obviously his parents fault for failing to instil proper values in the boy simply because the father backed up the lads story according to the newspapers
And all of this from a video that doesnt show the full incident(s)
but then after all the venom you managed to heap on the yob, the classic ...
Does that only apply in the case of Mr Pollock or isnt the student allowed the same basic human right?
Is it because he is a student?
Incidentally the basic rule of law I referred to in a comment in an earlier post which you so skillfully ignored obviously because it totally undermines all your arguments in this thread and underlines your bias is quite simply:
the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
I take it you dont think it should apply to drunken gobby students eh?
The student is an arsehole, that's called an opinion - and one which belongs to me. That's why the forum exists - to share opinions. Until he shows he had the correct ticket - he is a fare dodger, therefore my opinion on him being so, will remain as is.
The supposed sheriff that you quoted claims it was an expired ticket, a quote pulled from a newspaper in which it appeared that it gave your own posts held far more credence than anyone else who doesn't agree with you. For someone who bangs on so often about basic rules: basic rules apply to all things: and it can be helpful to read an article and apply a degree of logic to it: especially when the supposed 'sheriff' doesn't even have the basic background to the story on which he is 'allegedly' making comment on.
The article to which you linked and posted here has been shot down in flames.
I will heap whatever venom on the yob I wish to. If you find that so distasteful, that's your issue, not mine.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 04:22 PM
The student is an arsehole, that's called an opinion - and one which belongs to me. That's why the forum exists - to share opinions. Until he shows he had the correct ticket - he is a fare dodger, therefore my opinion on him being so, will remain as is.
The supposed sheriff that you quoted claims it was an expired ticket, a quote pulled from a newspaper in which it appeared that it gave your own posts held far more credence than anyone else who doesn't agree with you. For someone who bangs on so often about basic rules: basic rules apply to all things: and it can be helpful to read an article and apply a degree of logic to it: especially when the supposed 'sheriff' doesn't even have the basic background to the story on which he is 'allegedly' making comment on.
The article to which you linked and posted here has been shot down in flames.
I will heap whatever venom on the yob I wish to. If you find that so distasteful, that's your issue, not mine.
Yes as we all know opinions are like arseholes, clearly some are full of ****. Not pointing fingers I hope you understand.
I did apply logic to the article, I pasted it in its entirety without altering it or imposing any opinion of my own in it.
After all I wouldnt want you to be able to add any credence to your posts by me incorrectly paraphrasing [that something that journalists often do to quotes from people - I suggest you look it up ;) ] it now would I?
Yes you can pour scorn and venom as whomever you like, be wary though the anonymity of the internet isnt real and wont protect you.
Wasnt it Hermann Hesse that said "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself" ?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Yes as we all know opinions are like arseholes, clearly some are full of ****. Not pointing fingers I hope you understand.
I did apply logic to the article, I pasted it in its entirety without altering it or imposing any opinion of my own in it.
After all I wouldnt want you to be able to add any credence to your posts by me incorrectly paraphrasing [that something that journalists often do to quotes from people - I suggest you look it up ;) ] it now would I?
Yes you can pour scorn and venom as whomever you like, be wary though the anonymity of the internet isnt real and wont protect you.
Wasnt it Hermann Hesse that said "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself" ?
I'm glad you agree that I can pour scorn and venom on whomever I like - but please, give it up with the 'be wary though, anonymity won't protect you....' crap. That could at a push be regarded as a threat (from you!!! lol) - could almost be regarded as stalkerish.
As for your quote: I'm cool with that - seeing as I don't hate the yob - I don't have to hate a person I'm reading about to form an opinion on them.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 04:34 PM
I'm glad you agree that I can pour scorn and venom on whomever I like - but please, give it up with the 'be wary though, anonymity won't protect you....' crap. That could at a push be regarded as a threat (from you!!! lol) - could almost be regarded as stalkerish.
As for your quote: I'm cool with that - seeing as I don't hate the yob - I don't have to hate a person I'm reading about to form an opinion on them.
Moving the goalposts once again eh Pyr, muddy the water to avoid being seen to be losing.
Why would I threaten you about anonymity when I already know your name, email and your phone numbers, after all you gave them to me.
So enough of the half truths and bollocks.
Now going back to the questions I asked earlier shouldnt the student be afforded the same respect as the Big man if you are prepared to wait for one court case you should be prepared to wait for another, or do you always side with bullies?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 04:40 PM
Moving the goalposts once again eh Pyr, muddy the water to avoid being seen to be losing,
Why would I threaten you about anonymity when I already know your name and email etc, and your phone numbers, after all you gave them to me.
So enough of the half truths and bollocks.
Now going back to the questions I asked earlier shouldnt the student be afforded the same respect as the Big man if you are prepared to wait for one court case you should be prepared to wait for another, or do you always side with bullies and those who sort problems out with brute force and ignorance?
What has my anonymity to do with this thread - or indeed any of my personal details at all. None. Zilch. Nada, Zero. Nowt. Your point is moot.
I've given countless posts on this thread why I feel the Big Man should not be punished and why I feel the yob should. If you have free time, you could spent it raking through them - I'm not repeating myselfl
Shasown
21-12-2011, 04:45 PM
What has my anonymity to do with this thread - or indeed any of my personal details at all. None. Zilch. Nada, Zero. Nowt. Your point is moot.
I've given countless posts on this thread why I feel the Big Man should not be punished and why I feel the yob should. If you have free time, you could spent it raking through them - I'm not repeating myselfl
Top tip of the day: "Opinions" posted on internet forums are still subject to UK libel and Slander Laws.
2nd Top Tip of the day Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it a legal defence that will stand up in court.
Funny that, quite similar to Mr Pollocks plight, Oh except he intimated to the teacher doing the videoing, he thought it was probably illegal, but hey. (thats paraphrased by the way) ;)
Look at that who would ever have though you would get a bogof on TiBB?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 04:52 PM
Top tip of the day: "Opinions" posted on internet forums are still subject to UK libel and Slander Laws.
2nd Top Tip of the day Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it a legal defence that will stand up in court.
Funny that, quite similar to Mr Pollocks plight, Oh except he intimated to the teacher doing the videoing, he thought it was probably illegal, but hey. (thats paraphrased by the way) ;)
Look at that who would ever have though you would get a bogof on TiBB?
Strangely enough though: forums run and run on far more serious topics with opinions from every section of society: without massive clousure day in day out. Wonder why that might be. BTW: given the type of medium we are using: it wouldn't be slander - it would be libel given that it is in written form. ;)
Defamation could also be referred to if you were so inclined. ;)
My opinions on the yob remain. As do my opinion on the Big Man.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 05:03 PM
Strangely enough though: forums run and run on far more serious topics with opinions from every section of society: without massive clousure day in day out. Wonder why that might be. BTW: given the type of medium we are using: it wouldn't be slander - it would be libel given that it is in written form. ;)
Defamation could also be referred to if you were so inclined. ;)
My opinions on the yob remain. As do my opinion on the Big Man.
There have been a few cases where posts on the internet resulted in High Court decisions as to whether they are to be classed as Libel or slander, the rulings were they are both, because of the transitory nature of internet databases.
That is posts can be deleted both by the originating user and also by the staff/admin of the site. They can also be cut and posted elsewhere on the internet very quickly.
Comment was made in one judges ruling that modern software also allowed the written word to be spoken. Though I am not sure if that comment was set into the precedent.
And if you couldnt tell that the warning was a tongue in cheek comment, bearing in mind Sam and his dads speed to talk about claiming compensation etc, totally disregarding the part the lad played in the scenario, then you really do need to see about sorting out your sense of priorities.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 05:21 PM
There have been a few cases where posts on the internet resulted in High Court decisions as to whether they are to be classed as Libel or slander, the rulings were they are both, because of the transitory nature of internet databases.
That is posts can be deleted both by the originating user and also by the staff/admin of the site. They can also be cut and posted elsewhere on the internet very quickly.
Comment was made in one judges ruling that modern software also allowed the written word to be spoken. Though I am not sure if that comment was set into the precedent.
And if you couldnt tell that the warning was a tongue in cheek comment, bearing in mind Sam and his dads speed to talk about claiming compensation etc, totally disregarding the part the lad played in the scenario, then you really do need to see about sorting out your sense of priorities.
You are now going completely off tangent - banging on now about Libel & Slander cases - which have nothing to do with the thread or the story.
I'm don't need to do anything about my priorties - certainly not as far as posting my opinions on a forum. You however should at least try to stick to the main topic of the thread - rather than offering your own opinions on other forum members and derailing the thread. It's not about Libel or Slander.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 05:41 PM
Big Man has been charged with assault -and yob has been also reported to the PF but with no charges as yet.
Tory MP commented on BBC regional news are much that he feels the PF may not prosecute - but may issue a warning. His comments seemed to be almost siding / sympathising with the Big Man - rather than him taking the line of ''The correct course is being taken''
This should be interesting .......... I still do not think he'll be prosecuted.
Police have charged a man with assault after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a passenger.
Mobile phone recordings by a passenger on board the Edinburgh to Perth train on 9 December have been viewed by almost two million people on You Tube.
It shows a man - since dubbed 'Big Man' - throwing a teenager off a train after he argued with a ticket inspector.
British Transport Police said a 35-year-old man from Stirling had been charged with assault.
The man is understood to be Alan Pollock.
Meanwhile the student accused of fare dodging, 19-year-old Sam Main from Falkirk, has also been reported to the procurator fiscal, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.
He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.
The You Tube video shows a passenger speaking to a conductor over an alleged unpaid fare.
He is then removed from the train by another passenger at Linlithgow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101
Shasown
21-12-2011, 05:52 PM
Me going off tangent, add dissembling to the evasions then Pyr. PMSL talk about a little christmas street cheer eh? ;)
Should be amusing to see if Sam does get prosecuted for fare dodging.
Should be even more amusing if Pollock gets done for assault.
You see the law isnt there to be popular, its to help things run easier and prevent the collapse into anarchy - supposedly.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 05:56 PM
Me going off tangent, add dissembling to the evasions then Pyr. PMSL talk about a little christmas street cheer eh? ;)
Should be amusing to see if Sam does get prosecuted for fare dodging.
Should be even more amusing if Pollock gets done for assault.
You see the law isnt there to be popular, its to help things run easier and prevent the collapse into anarchy - supposedly.
Thing is though: it's not up to you or I.
It is as we both are aware, upto the PF - I certainly wouldn't use the word 'amusing' as a fitting description to this - I find the whole thing unsavory - I am however interested in the outcome, rather than finding any of it amusing.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 06:11 PM
Thing is though: it's not up to you or I.
It is as we both are aware, upto the PF - I certainly wouldn't use the word 'amusing' as a fitting description to this - I find the whole thing unsavory - I am however interested in the outcome, rather than finding any of it amusing.
I think its hilarious, it brings certain areas of the law into question, areas most people arent aware of their own responsibilities and liabilities.
Main gets prosecuted under section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing, Breach of the Peace basically. The Trespass may just get binned, too easy for him to rig a defence now. Bound to be some other numpty willing to give him a ticket issued that morning to prove his defence.
PF's decision is whether its in the public interest to prosecute on an assault to someone who is being very annoying. Would not prosecuting send the wrong message to the general public.
After the publicity and debate raised over the incident, should be interesting to see if they release reasons for non prosecution, they normally dont other that not in the public interest.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 06:17 PM
I think its hilarious, it brings certain areas of the law into question, areas most people arent aware of their own responsibilities and liabilities.
Main gets prosecuted under section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing, Breach of the Peace basically. The Trespass may just get binned, too easy for him to rig a defence now. Bound to be some other numpty willing to give him a ticket issued that morning to prove his defence.
PF's decision is whether its in the public interest to prosecute on an assault to someone who is being very annoying. Would not prosecuting send the wrong message to the general public.
After the publicity and debate raised over the incident, should be interesting to see if they release reasons for non prosecution, they normally dont other that not in the public interest.
Yob was in fact more than very annoying. He was abusive, was in breach of the terms upon which he used the facilities of Scotrail, and could be done for such as you yourself alluded to earlier in the thread - along with various Bye Laws.
Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)
;)
As I say: it will be interesting.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 06:24 PM
Yob was in fact more than very annoying. He was abusive, was in breach of the terms upon which he used the facilities of Scotrail, and could be done for such as you yourself alluded to earlier in the thread - along with various Bye Laws.
;)
As I say: it will be interesting.
Yes thats why the transport police havent charged him with anything, they leave that decision to the PF, when things are ropey as to what to charge a person with. The PF will look at all possible charges available then prosecute under two or three of the ones most likely to gain a conviction.
However in Mr Pollocks case, they have determined that he may be guilty of an assault and have charged him as such.
Good luck to whichever Depute gets to make the go/no go decisions on those cases pmsl.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 06:37 PM
Yes thats why the transport police havent charged him with anything, they leave that decision to the PF, when things are ropey as to what to charge a person with. The PF will look at all possible charges available then prosecute under two or three of the ones most likely to gain a conviction.
However in Mr Pollocks case, they have determined that he may be guilty of an assault and have charged him as such.
Good luck to whichever Depute gets to make the go/no go decisions on those cases pmsl.
You have no idea whether that is the case or not - that BT Police have not charged Main for anything because it's ropey and so they are leaving it to the PF.
It could be due to the publicity that this has received that it has been decided between all relevant authorities, that it be dealt with by the PF directly due to the public interest - - rather than several fingers in the pie - and nothing to do with anything being 'ropey'.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 06:49 PM
You have no idea whether that is the case or not - that BT Police have not charged Main for anything because it's ropey and so they are leaving it to the PF.
It could be due to the publicity that this has received that it has been decided between all relevant authorities, that it be dealt with by the PF directly due to the public interest - - rather than several fingers in the pie - and nothing to do with anything being 'ropey'.
Yeah thats right I have absolutely no idea why they have done what they have done.
Call it an educated guess, or better yet call it my opinion, I do believe I am allowed to post that on these forums. It normally happens when the person accused of a crime doesnt make a statement to the police, or the police have a few potential charges they can use, bearing in mind for every charge they do raise against someone they have several forms to fill in (thats from experience). Your turn....
Besides PF doesnt become involved technically until after the intial police investigation, they can then redirect the police to investigate areas of uncertainty, its a legal thing about the inital investigation being fair and unbiased to all parties by the way. (So the police cant be accused of being a prosecuting force, well thats what it says in my notes ;) )
Mind you saying that my educated guesses have been a whole lot more accurate than your opinions so far, didnt you say Pollock didnt commit any assault? Well in your opinion, that is, slightly different opinion to mine, oh and the British Transport Police.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 06:57 PM
Yeah thats right I have absolutely no idea why they have done what they have done.
Call it an educated guess, or better yet call it my opinion, I do believe I am allowed to post that on these forums.
Besides PF doesnt become involved technically until after the intial police investigation, they can then redirect the police to investigate areas of uncertainty, its a legal thing about the inital investigation being fair and unbiased to all parties by the way.
Mind you saying that my educated guesses have been a whole lot more accurate than your opinions so far, didnt you say Pollock didnt commit any assault? Well in your opinion, that is, slightly different opinion to mine, oh and the British Transport Police.
Mais qui, of course you can put over your opinion. All I did was merely clarify that it is your opinion - and not actual fact- as many of your posts are worded to appear to give more an indepth knowledge than is the case: and for those who may be skim reading - they may take what you are saying as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: when it is in fact: only your own thoughts.
I said that as far as I was concerned, the big man didn't assault anyone. He's not been found guilty of that charge as yet. ;) Remember that basic premise you mentioned earlier: innocent until proven guilty. ;)
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 07:24 PM
From the Guardian
Two men involved in a dispute about an unpaid train ticket, which was filmed by another passenger and posted on YouTube, are facing prosecution after a police investigation.
British transport police confirmed on Wednesday that Alan Pollock, 35, a financial manager from Stirling, has been charged with assault concerning the incident on the 9.33pm train from Edinburgh to Perth earlier this month.
Sam Main, 19, a student from Falkirk, has been reported to prosecutors under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/scotland), which covers threatening and abusive behaviour, and with trespass. He has yet to be formally charged.
Main was allegedly thrown off the train after he failed to have the right ticket for the journey. Footage showing the incident has been watched nearly 1.9m times on YouTube.
A spokesman for the Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution authority, confirmed that prosecutors were considering whether to press ahead with a trial after receiving a report from British transport police.
"The procurator fiscal at Livingston has received reports concerning two males aged 35 and 19, in connection with an incident in Linlithgow on Friday 9 December 2011. The reports remain under consideration by the procurator fiscal," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/21/men-prosecution-fare-train-row
Shasown
21-12-2011, 07:25 PM
Nope.
He was asked to leave, he was unable to provide proof of payment for his journey. He was unable to.
He became verbally abusive to an employee of the rail company. He also failed to follow the request of an employee who is there to enforce the conditions of passenger carriage for the rail company. It is therefore fine that he was removed from said train, with force if he refused to leave. That is ALL that happened.
No assault on the yobbo.
Not according to British Transport Police
Why waste public funds .....when a good chuck out suffices?
There is a chance you get charged with assault
There's me thinking Scots don't push up with shi*te like this, don't accept youngsters being verbally abusive to someone who is doing their job, that the Scots don't just stand back and let terrorists try to blow up Glasgow airport, andthey don't sit back and give idiots who create FB pages inciting riots & damage to buildings and civil servants just a wee slap on the wrist.
I must have got that wrong then eh?
Very, restraining someone who has tried to blow up an airport is on a slightly different level to throwing a fare dodger off a train.
The boyo wasn't assaulted. he was removed from a train.
Not according to British Transport Police, Shame that eh? Afer all they deal with enforcement of the law and investigating potential breaches of the law, What the hell do they know?
How do we know that the 'big man' wasn't such a person off duty? How do we know he was not a police officer off duty?
Works as an Investment manager or some such for a bluechip company by the way apparently, well maybe he will be an ex employee.
Mais qui, of course you can put over your opinion. All I did was merely clarify that it is your opinion - and not actual fact- as many of your posts are worded to appear to give more an indepth knowledge than is the case: and for those who may be skim reading - they may take what you are saying as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: when it is in fact: only your own thoughts.
Mais qui? take it you mean oui? Yes only my thoughts, but reasonably accurate so far wouldnt you say? Gosh darn it almost as if I had a bit of indepth knowledge in the Law, wouldnt you say?
Well I know you wont because you cant seem to be seen as having been worng and you wont back down eh? Or even acknowledging someone with more knowledge in a certain field eh? Lets just say a slightly more educated opinion in legal matters than your good self.
I said that as far as I was concerned, the big man didn't assault anyone. He's not been found guilty of that charge as yet. ;) Remember that basic premise you mentioned earlier: innocent until proven guilty. ;)
I do remember it, funny old thing I mentioned it to you as you seemed to have totally forgotten it. Its a pity the British Transport Police think the balance of probabilities is that he did assault someone thats why they have charged him with assault.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:17 PM
Not according to British Transport Police
There is a chance you get charged with assault
Very, restraining someone who has tried to blow up an airport is on a slightly different level to throwing a fare dodger off a train.
Not according to British Transport Police, Shame that eh? Afer all they deal with enforcement of the law and investigating potential breaches of the law, What the hell do they know?
Works as an Investment manager or some such for a bluechip company by the way apparently, well maybe he will be an ex employee.
Mais qui? take it you mean oui? Yes only my thoughts, but reasonably accurate so far wouldnt you say? Gosh darn it almost as if I had a bit of indepth knowledge in the Law, wouldnt you say?
Well I know you wont because you cant seem to be seen as having been worng and you wont back down eh? Or even acknowledging someone with more knowledge in a certain field eh? Lets just say a slightly more educated opinion in legal matters than your good self.
I do remember it, funny old thing I mentioned it to you as you seemed to have totally forgotten it. Its a pity the British Transport Police think the balance of probabilities is that he did assault someone thats why they have charged him with assault.
What a shameful waste of all those quotes - given that they are my opinion.
Let's not kid on that you're some legal eagle - you aren't.
He can be charged from here to high heaven and back, the fact remains that as at this point in time, he has not been found guilty as yet. ;)
Ramsay
21-12-2011, 08:18 PM
We're still talking about this?
really?
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 08:19 PM
We're still talking about this?
really?
It's a quiet run up to Christmas!
Shasown
21-12-2011, 09:46 PM
What a shameful waste of all those quotes - given that they are my opinion.
Let's not kid on that you're some legal eagle - you aren't.
He can be charged from here to high heaven and back, the fact remains that as at this point in time, he has not been found guilty as yet. ;)
Never said I was a legal eagle now did I?
Trying to put words into my mouth now Pyr?
Nah if you start charging people with offences then sstart changing them or dropping them and reinstating either them or others, a good solicitor (even a lousy one really) will show that the PF or investigation is more of a fishing trip than a legal procedure.
No he hasnt been found guilty yet, but lets face it, he admitted to a witness he knew he could end up in trouble with the law for the actions he carried out.
We dont know what he said in his defence to the police while being interviewed, but lets face it the video is sort of damning.
One other point to consider, because of the video and his comment to the teacher I think which ever solicitor represents him will probably advise him to plead guilty, at the earliest possible time during the various diets and get the minimum sentence the mitigation is there, in the fact it was morally right.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 09:58 PM
Never said I was a legal eagle now did I?
Trying to put words into my mouth now Pyr?
Nah if you start charging people with offences then sstart changing them or dropping them and reinstating either them or others, a good solicitor (even a lousy one really) will show that the PF or investigation is more of a fishing trip than a legal procedure.
No he hasnt been found guilty yet, but lets face it, he admitted to a witness he knew he could end up in trouble with the law for the actions he carried out.
We dont know what he said in his defence to the police while being interviewed, but lets face it the video is sort of damning.
I wouldn't try to put words into your mouth - not at all - merely stating that you're no expert in this particular case - you don't know what is going on behind the scenes any more than any of the rest of us on here - and whilst you have not specifically maintained that you do - or that you are an expert on current laws and crimes etc, : the wording of your posts does sometimes give that impression. I'm merely clarifying.
I'm not saying he won't be found guilty: if he is, I suspect that there will be charges brought against Main also. I do honestly find it difficult to believe that they will charge Pollock and not Main. I think if they do one they will do it with both - charges may still be placed against Main - and if the PF does decide to prosecute: I do believe it will be both of them.
My own view is that either both are punished or neither are. That to me, would be fair and reasonable: all things considered and taking all things into account. Hopefully the PF will see it the same way.
Shasown
21-12-2011, 10:20 PM
I wouldn't try to put words into your mouth - not at all - merely stating that you're no expert in this particular case - you don't know what is going on behind the scenes any more than any of the rest of us on here - and whilst you have not specifically maintained that you do - or that you are an expert on current laws and crimes etc, : the wording of your posts does sometimes give that impression. I'm merely clarifying.
No you werent clarifying anything, you were simply trying to undermine points I made. Thats what debates are about. You have very little idea of any qualifications or experience that I have in Law.
I'm not saying he won't be found guilty: if he is, I suspect that there will be charges brought against Main also. I do honestly find it difficult to believe that they will charge Pollock and not Main. I think if they do one they will do it with both - charges may still be placed against Main - and if the PF does decide to prosecute: I do believe it will be both of them.
The merits of a successful prosecution in one case does not depend on the facts of the other even though both cases are interlinked.
The trespass allegation will cover either travelling without a valid ticket or If Main was able to give some reasonable semblance of an excuse for not having a valid ticket for travel at the time he was travelling, failing to comply with the requests of the conductor.
As for the section 38's there are excuses already mentioned, the fact he claims to be diabetic, a good medical excuse allows for what would be classed as unreasonable behaviour in a normal person to be accepted as exceptional behaviour. Dont think he will get away with the shouting and swearing though. Thats if the PF actually prosecute.
Bearing in mind, what has been quoted in the media as his comments can easily be denied in court.
PF is in a no win situation with both cases.
Marsh.
21-12-2011, 10:24 PM
http://www.sasaints.net/images/Kids%20On%20A%20Merry%20Go%20Round%20-%20XL%20clr.gif
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 10:28 PM
No you werent clarifying anything, you were simply trying to undermine points I made. Thats what debates are about. You have very little idea of any qualifications or experience that I have in Law.
The merits of a successful prosecution in one case does not depend on the facts of the other even though both cases are interlinked.
The trespass allegation will cover either travelling without a valid ticket or If Main was able to give some reasonable semblance of an excuse for not having a valid ticket for travel at the time he was travelling, failing to comply with the requests of the conductor.
As for the section 38's there are excuses already mentioned, the fact he claims to be diabetic, a good medical excuse allows for what would be classed as unreasonable behaviour in a normal person to be accepted as exceptional behaviour. Dont think he will get away with the shouting and swearing though. Thats if the PF actually prosecute.
Bearing in mind, what has been quoted in the media as his comments can easily be denied in court.
PF is in a no win situation with both cases.
Nothing new here though - this has all been said over and over again.
Pyramid*
21-12-2011, 10:29 PM
http://www.sasaints.net/images/Kids%20On%20A%20Merry%20Go%20Round%20-%20XL%20clr.gif
Now that - I like !!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.