[InOne]

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*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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.

[MTVN]

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*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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]

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

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by kisywisy

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]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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]

Originally Posted by kisywisy

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*]

Originally Posted by kisywisy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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

[Omah]

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 .....

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

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*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

[]



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)