Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4828077)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828084)

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'.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4828096)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4816275)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4816729)

Why waste public funds .....when a good chuck out suffices?

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4816741)

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?

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4816818)

The boyo wasn't assaulted. he was removed from a train.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4816856)

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?

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828109)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828109)

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. ;)

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4828139)

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.

Originally Posted by Karl (Post 4828192)

We're still talking about this?
really?

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828191)

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. ;)

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4828283)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828311)

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.

Originally Posted by Snowball (Post 4828311)

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.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 4828358)

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.

Originally Posted by 08marsh (Post 4828365)