[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

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

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

[Jords]

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

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

[Jack_]

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

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

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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



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

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

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

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

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

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


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

[InOne]

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying

[mizzy25]

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

[Omah]

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/..._row_1_2008988

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/..._row_1_2008988



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

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying

No

[arista]

Originally Posted by God

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

Bang On Right

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

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

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

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

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

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arista]

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


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


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

Now What?

[fruit_cake]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by christmas_cake

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

[arista]

Worldwide Support for the Big Man


Shows it all.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by arista

Worldwide Support for the Big Man


Shows it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

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




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

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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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

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

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

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

There are 19 year olds who are smackheads

There are 19 year olds who went out and rioted

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


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

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

Hummmm lowlife? On TiBB? What are you suggesting?

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

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

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

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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Hummmm lowlife? On TiBB? What are you suggesting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder how long this will haunt the yob

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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

There are 19 year olds who are smackheads

There are 19 year olds who went out and rioted

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


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

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

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

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

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

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