[tmi]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Dear god, your poor mum.

And afterwards your poor dad.

(The woman always blames the man you know)

She was stitched up like a kipper

[Benjamin]

Can we try and keep this thread on topic please guys.

[Shasown]

Yes Mr God sir

Sorry Mr God sir

Wont happen again, Mr God sir

[Pyramid*]

Just had a quick read on today's news on the story:-

One quote I've pulled from the yob's father from the article

Asked what he would have done if he had been a passenger and seen Pollock throwing another student off a train, Mr Main said: ‘I wouldn’t stand for it —his feet wouldn’t have touched the ground.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1gkYJFna7

Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.

I see he's gone back to saying the did buy the correct ticket (well, if he did....where is it then.... but then in the same paragraph, claims he was given incorrect ones again..... either he bought the right ones or he didn't.

He insists he bought the correct tickets (his family believe there is CCTV evidence to support this), but had been given two tickets in the same direction by mistake.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.

A-ha !

Well spotted .....

It seems it's like father, like son - a right pair of gobsh1tes .....

[MTVN]

There's a difference between using violence on a nonviolent person and using violence on a violent person, not that either is particulary commendable

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Just had a quick read on today's news on the story:-

One quote I've pulled from the yob's father from the article



Ahh......so the father has double standards then, it's not alright someone to chuck his son off a train - and if he saw that happening - he himself is saying that HE would not stand for it, that person's feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

What a hypocrite - it's well seening he's brought his son up with his own dubious morals: one rule for for him, and another rule for everyone else. He says effectively that he would have done the same thing that Alan Pollock done (albeit for for a different reason.... !!!!) What a total prat.

I see he's gone back to saying the did buy the correct ticket (well, if he did....where is it then.... but then in the same paragraph, claims he was given incorrect ones again..... either he bought the right ones or he didn't.

He insists he bought the correct tickets (his family believe there is CCTV evidence to support this), but had been given two tickets in the same direction by mistake.

Does the father mean he would assault someone who had assaulted his son, or assault someone who had assaulted another person. Or does he mean he would attempt to prevent someone throwing another person off a train?

Either one would be borderline assault, depending upon the intent behind it, if you see a person committing an assault or in the process of committing an assault, you are allowed to intervene and prevent an assault using the minimum force necessary to achieve that legal aim.

You arent allowed to assault someone else after they have assaulted someone simply to give a bit of payback.

You are though depending upon the severity of the inital assault allowed to use force to restrain the inital assaulter in order to hand them over to the police(citizens arrest). Bearing in mind if the person you restrain complains you may be liable for prosecution for assault or even unlawful arrest.



So yob may be done for fare dodging, he may also lose his place at university. Oh and sometime soon his dad is going to have that father-son talk about foul language (bet he is cacking himself).

Meanwhile Sams dad is lining up lawyers for a compo case and rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of all that lovely free money.

Ticket Inspector is "on leave" and may face disciplinary action

Mr Pollock is on time off and may be prosecuted and possibly lose his job.


Bet they all love the person who videoed this incident and posted it online.

Ban mobile phones with videos on public transport now. Before someone gets seriously hurt. Its only a question of time before someone turns up at a hospital saying "doctor can you remove this phone from my a***?"

[MTVN]

I'd be surprised if the kid was kicked out of Uni for it

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

There's a difference between using violence on a nonviolent person and using violence on a violent person, not that either is particulary commendable

Yeah that sounds a fab idea really.........

Let's all wade in and turn it into a major riot.

The point of the matter is: the yob's father is showing that he himself is no 'better' than the very man he and his son are complaining about.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Yeah that sounds a fab idea really.........

Let's all wade in and turn it into a major riot.

The point of the matter is: the yob's father is showing that he himself is no 'better' than the very man he and his son are complaining about.

If someone is assaulting somebody who wasn't being violent, and another person steps in to prevent that using force, then they are just as bad as each other?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I'd be surprised if the kid was kicked out of Uni for it

I wouldn't. At all.

The way the pair of them (father and son) are going about this: the son will get kicked out of Uni and have several charges against him and poss have a criminal record on various counts - not the best these days to have when a heck of a lot of companies in Scotland require a minimum of Basic Disclosure background check.

An older employee (probably been with Scotrail for decades) who is currently suspended, may be fired from his job at this late stage in life.

The Big Man may also end up with a criminal record and also lose his job.

Well done to the yob and his hypocrite of a father.......... all down to one arsehole lying, irresponsible, disrespectful, ignorant 19 year old fare dodging student.

Welcome to life in the UK these days.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I wouldn't. At all.

The way the pair of them (father and son) are going about this: the son will get kicked out of Uni and have several charges against him and poss have a criminal record on various counts - not the best these days to have when a heck of a lot of companies in Scotland require a minimum of Basic Disclosure background check.

Various counts? What would those be then? Surely fare dodging is his only "crime", and it's hardly a serious one at that

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Various counts? What would those be then? Surely fare dodging is his only "crime", and it's hardly a serious one at that

Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)

Can't see him charges being pressed on any of those tbh

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Threatening and abusive language
Breach of the Peace
He could also be done under various Bye Laws encomapssed in the Railways Act for failing to comply with the directions of a duly authorised Railway Official (He didnt get off when the guard told him to)

you got there before I did.....

Now I may be wrong but couldn't he also be charged with Petty Assault (?) on the abusive language thing as well. I think there is also something in the Deception side that 'could' be used also.

If there's a good enough Prosecuting side; the student will be the one who would possibly be worse off on the crimimal record side of things.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Can't see him charges being pressed on any of those tbh

Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.

They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.

You see even when travelling with perfectly valid tickets if a railway official asks you to leave a train you should comply, provided he has valid reasons, one of which is he suspects that you may have obtained the ticket dishonestly etc. They tend not to use it a lot nowadays, simply because of the compensation culture and bad publicity generated

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.

They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.

That's where I think that they will decide that due to public reaction - and due to the very serious and very severe impact it may have (on all 3 people involved) -that they will no pursue any prosecution.

then there's the point of Civil Law vs Criminal Law - what may not be under Criminal Law, may be covered by Civil Law and then on the roundabout we go......

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

That's where I think that they will decide that due to public reaction - and due to the very serious and very severe impact it may have (on all 3 people involved) -that they will no pursue any prosecution.

They may not in the end prosecute but Pollock could still end up being offered and accepting a Fiscal Caution, in which case its recorded. Still shows up on Enhanced Disclosure (PVG) etc.

If student Sam goes for a civil writ against Pollock, Pollock will be found guilty of assault, simply because the student didnt attack or show signs of attacking someone.

The award against him though will probably be something like a pound to reflect the moral rightness of his interference.

[MTVN]

Well I think this whole thing could be sorted by a good handshake and an apology (from all of them)

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Well if BT plod find any sort of truth in his story about having been issued two tickets incorrectly, they wont be able to prosecute for fare dodging, however they can use any or all of the above as a bit of a face saver.

They investigate then send the results of the investigation to the Procurator Fiscal with recommendations of what offences they think the person has committed, in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal then decides whether or not to proceed with the prosecution.

You see even when travelling with perfectly valid tickets if a railway official asks you to leave a train you should comply, provided he has valid reasons, one of which is he suspects that you may have obtained the ticket dishonestly etc. They tend not to use it a lot nowadays, simply because of the compensation culture and bad publicity generated

BIB. There is something in the back of my mind, that that will not hold up in court, as it is the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure they check and bring to attention asap any errors.

ie: buying a flight ticket - If I do that in person and the booking agent makes an error: the responsibility lies with me to check and alert to error - if I don't and go to passport desk with incorrect docs - it is I who have to pay to rectify.

I'm sure that is the case - and given that it's been reported several times over that the boyo claims he KNEW he'd been given 2 tickets for the same journey prior to even sitting the exam: he had plenty of opportunity to contact Scotrail to having it sorted prior to boarding the train.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well I think this whole thing could be sorted by a good handshake and an apology (from all of them)

In all fairness: given the publicity this has had - I think that's the best way forward - for all parties.

I suspect father and son are seeing Ł signs otherwise they would just Shut TFU about it , but the notion of compensation is what is pushing them, rather than any real desire for justice being done (in their eyes).

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

They may not in the end prosecute but Pollock could still end up being offered and accepting a Fiscal Caution, in which case its recorded. Still shows up on Enhanced Disclosure (PVG) etc.

If student Sam goes for a civil writ against Pollock, Pollock will be found guilty of assault, simply because the student didnt attack or show signs of attacking someone.

The award against him though will probably be something like a pound to reflect the moral rightness of his interference.

Not too sure about that one either: - rather, I'll rephrase, yes, that could so - but on the other hand: as it could be argued by other side that Main was placing others in a State of Alarm & Distress - (that's not the correct term but it's close) - and therefore Pollock's actions were justified. I have a hunch that something similar is covered by Civil Law?

It's one massive can of worms.

[Pyramid*]

Wonders if Main senior will be buying Main junior some driving lessons and a car for Christmas!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Not too sure about that one either: - rather, I'll rephrase, yes, that could so - but on the other hand: as it could be argued by other side that Main was placing others in a State of Alarm & Distress - (that's not the correct term but it's close) - and therefore Pollock's actions were justified. I have a hunch that something similar is covered by Civil Law?

It's one massive can of worms.

Its fear and alarm, again thats simply a breach of the peace, you aint allowed to interfere, its a plod job.

Its a good thing it will be handled down there anyway, if it was done through Grampian plod and Aberdeen or Inverness PF yob and hero would have already been cautioned and charged.

Its all about Performance Indicators up here. If a crime report is raised for a complaint someone is arrested, a report goes to the PF, if the PF gets a crime report they prosecute, simples. Aberdeen PF (covers all the way over to Nairn) have actually only issued a handful cautions for the whole year - that doesnt include Nov and Dec. Apparently they are aiming to beat their 97.6% prosecution rate.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Its fear and alarm, again thats simply a breach of the peace, you aint allowed to interfere, its a plod job.

Its a good thing it will be handled down there anyway, if it was done through Grampian plod and Aberdeen or Inverness PF yob and hero would have already been cautioned and charged.

Its all about Performance Indicators up here. If a crime report is raised for a complaint someone is arrested, a report goes to the PF, if the PF gets a crime report they prosecute, simples. Aberdeen PF (covers all the way over to Nairn) have actually issued 7 cautions for the whole year - so far.

Oh.....much as I get your drift, I'm not so sure that 'down here' is going to be any saving grace - it doesn't give auto protection because there are more cases going through the PFs office at this end.