Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
Why waste public funds .....when a good chuck out suffices?
|
There is a chance you get charged with assault
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.