Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball
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.