[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

ie: in other words: has no oomph therefore can be quoted saying whatever the Daily Record would like him to - for a fee.

Yeah of course he is going to compromise his integrity for a couple of grand aint he?

And risk his 60+grand a year pension and the chance of being asked back to help out by a sheriff principal at 600 quid a day.

Talk about clutching at straws.

Incidentally he is also a former lecturer in Scottish Law at Aberdeen University and spent over 10 years as a sheriff at Aberdeen.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah of course he is going to compromise his integrity for a couple of grand aint he?

And risk his 60+grand a year pension and the chance of being asked back to help out by a sheriff principal at 600 quid a day.

Talk about clutching at straws.

He's retired - he can do and say what he likes as far as his own opinion is concerned (which really holds no valid judgement any longer - given that he is retired).

Since when did many of our law representatives & such authority figures automatically have integrity. Hardly unheard of that there are ones who do get backhanders - same with those within the policeforce - making out as though it doesn't happen and that they are all innocence personified is sheer and utter folly.

Weren't you implying earlier in the thread that the authorities up in the North East were - errr...let's say more driven to reach targets for particular crimes - more interested in figures of another variety ....... which would/could indicate that people are being prosecuted more in that area than further south? Isn't that another way of cooking the books....

[MTVN]

So you think that it's more likely that he's lying because the Record want him to, as oppose to him merely giving his informed opinion on events?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So you think that it's more likely that he's lying because the Record want him to, as oppose to him merely giving his informed opinion on events?

I said whatever he says means that it is HIS opinion and not the opinion shared by all sheriffs. As well we know, what one person is charged with in one court - they can be let off with in another. They don't all met out the same punishments.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I said whatever he says means that it is HIS opinion and not the opinion shared by all sheriffs. As well we know, what one person is charged with in one court - they can be let off with in another. They don't all met out the same punishments.

The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.

Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.

But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.

Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.

But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?

Given that the case won't be heard up in the North of Scotland - if it even goes that far - your Aberdeen retired sheriff etc - it's all really nothing to do with the thread in the first place is it.

I happen to drive - thankfully I don't have to rely on public transport - so your sarcastic snipe was all wasted. Shame.

[Omah]

IMO, it's a rather dubious article attributed to Charles Gall

The so-called "Sheriff" is not identified nor is it clear which, if any, parts of the article are written by or may be attributed to anyone other than the aforementioned Charles Gall - on the one hand, each of the opposing participants is called "the guy and on the other "the chap" - a strange mix of the colloquial and formal

Then there's the weird turns of phrase :

I’m not in any doubt

I’ve absolutely no doubt

I am fairly certain

I suspect

I can well understand

And anyone who thinks "In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach." would be helpful is clearly out of touch with reality - calling anyone "sunshine", especially a drunk, is inviting a fist in the phizzog .....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Omah

IMO, it's a rather dubious article attributed to Charles Gall

The so-called "Sheriff" is not identified nor is it clear which, if any, parts of the article are written by or may be attributed to anyone other than the aforementioned Charles Gall - on the one hand, each of the opposing participants is called "the guy and on the other "the chap" - a strange mix of the colloquial and formal

Then there's the weird turns of phrase :



And anyone who thinks "In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach." would be helpful is clearly out of touch with reality - calling anyone "sunshine", especially a drunk, is inviting a fist in the phizzog .....

Sheriff gives his legal view on the 'Big Man' train incident


THE guy who intervenes is out of order because it’s really a matter between the ticket collector and the student.

The ticket collector would be within his rights to say to this chap, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”.

I’m not in any doubt the ticket collector would be entitled to use reasonable force if this guy wasn’t prepared to go. The collector, I’ve absolutely no doubt, would decide not to bother doing that because that’s the sensible thing to do.

These collectors, I am fairly certain, have a direct line to the British Transport Police. He has it within his powers to lock the doors of the train until the police arrive.
If, for example, the ticket collector had decided that he was going to try to get rid of this chap, and use reasonable force as a result, then our bold hero would still not be entitled to intervene until such time as the collector was assaulted.

In that event, any reasonable citizen would be entitled to take a step forward and say, “Look, sunshine, just cool it here”. That would be the approach.

There are all kinds of situations that would arise before one would think of actually just lifting the guy and throwing him off the train.

I suspect the ticket collector is probably under instruction not to use force at all, even “reasonable force”.

I can well understand if the investment banker is charged with assault.

They would be entitled to charge the man if the student has complained.

Yes Omah - along with the phrase:

These collectors, I am fairly certain, have a direct line to the British Transport Police

- seems that for such a well documented and long serving sheriff - even HE isn't 100% sure - fairly certain doesn't quite cut it.

This sheriff isn't even aware of the situation: since when did an expired ticket come into play? Why on earth would the sheriff state that the conductor would have been within his right to say, "Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”.

Sounds like an article full of BS to me.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The role of a sheriff in any sort of Scottish Court is to decide on points of law, if necessary advising the jury in a trial, if the case is a summary case they decide if the charge is Proven or not.

Punishment is decided on a wide variety of circumstances, that is why punishments vary.

But really its nothing to do corrupt sheriffs etc, is it, its simply you dont like being delayed on public transport and anyone who delays you or others should be hounded out of the country, eh?

All of which very much depends on the sheriff in question actually having the facts to hand, rather than some loose translation of the background to the story (ie: as per the Daily Record's 'source' and that sheriff's comments re, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”)

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

All of which very much depends on the sheriff in question actually having the facts to hand, rather than some loose translation of the background to the story (ie: as per the Daily Record's 'source' and that sheriff's comments re, “Right, you’ll need to get off this train because your ticket has expired”)

Funnily enough, isnt that exactly what you have been doing all through this thread, in your first post of the thread calling the student involved an arsehole and then accusing the student of fare dodging.

Originally Posted by Snowball

For all the people who moan about the price of public transport - it's arseholes like this to blame.
.......
Loads of people get away with fare dodging - this guy got caught -

....

Moral of the story is: If you want to fare dodge and get caught - don't be dickhead about it

You have no real evidence for any of those comments. But Better was yet to come

Actually Jack, it is MY business: even though I wasn't even on the train. Monies from train fares are liable for taxation, which hits the public purse. If those monies are depleted due to arseholes like this guy: the defecit has to be made up from some other sector. In effect: we ALL pay it.

How much of your hard earned wages go into the pubic purse......

Such arse about face logic

Then because the newspapers used different quotes and different stories the student was obviously lying, couldnt stick to the original story etc.

Then it was obviously his parents fault for failing to instil proper values in the boy simply because the father backed up the lads story according to the newspapers

And all of this from a video that doesnt show the full incident(s)

but then after all the venom you managed to heap on the yob, the classic ...

I'll wait to see what actually happens in respect of any charges, and if anyone is actually prosecuted.

Does that only apply in the case of Mr Pollock or isnt the student allowed the same basic human right?

Is it because he is a student?


Incidentally the basic rule of law I referred to in a comment in an earlier post which you so skillfully ignored obviously because it totally undermines all your arguments in this thread and underlines your bias is quite simply:

the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

I take it you dont think it should apply to drunken gobby students eh?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Funnily enough, isnt that exactly what you have been doing all through this thread, in your first post of the thread calling the student involved an arsehole and then accusing the student of fare dodging.

You have no real evidence for any of those comments. But Better was yet to come

Such arse about face logic

Then because the newspapers used different quotes and different stories the student was obviously lying, couldnt stick to the original story etc.

Then it was obviously his parents fault for failing to instil proper values in the boy simply because the father backed up the lads story according to the newspapers

And all of this from a video that doesnt show the full incident(s)

but then after all the venom you managed to heap on the yob, the classic ...



Does that only apply in the case of Mr Pollock or isnt the student allowed the same basic human right?

Is it because he is a student?


Incidentally the basic rule of law I referred to in a comment in an earlier post which you so skillfully ignored obviously because it totally undermines all your arguments in this thread and underlines your bias is quite simply:

the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

I take it you dont think it should apply to drunken gobby students eh?

The student is an arsehole, that's called an opinion - and one which belongs to me. That's why the forum exists - to share opinions. Until he shows he had the correct ticket - he is a fare dodger, therefore my opinion on him being so, will remain as is.

The supposed sheriff that you quoted claims it was an expired ticket, a quote pulled from a newspaper in which it appeared that it gave your own posts held far more credence than anyone else who doesn't agree with you. For someone who bangs on so often about basic rules: basic rules apply to all things: and it can be helpful to read an article and apply a degree of logic to it: especially when the supposed 'sheriff' doesn't even have the basic background to the story on which he is 'allegedly' making comment on.

The article to which you linked and posted here has been shot down in flames.

I will heap whatever venom on the yob I wish to. If you find that so distasteful, that's your issue, not mine.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The student is an arsehole, that's called an opinion - and one which belongs to me. That's why the forum exists - to share opinions. Until he shows he had the correct ticket - he is a fare dodger, therefore my opinion on him being so, will remain as is.

The supposed sheriff that you quoted claims it was an expired ticket, a quote pulled from a newspaper in which it appeared that it gave your own posts held far more credence than anyone else who doesn't agree with you. For someone who bangs on so often about basic rules: basic rules apply to all things: and it can be helpful to read an article and apply a degree of logic to it: especially when the supposed 'sheriff' doesn't even have the basic background to the story on which he is 'allegedly' making comment on.

The article to which you linked and posted here has been shot down in flames.

I will heap whatever venom on the yob I wish to. If you find that so distasteful, that's your issue, not mine.

Yes as we all know opinions are like arseholes, clearly some are full of ****. Not pointing fingers I hope you understand.

I did apply logic to the article, I pasted it in its entirety without altering it or imposing any opinion of my own in it.

After all I wouldnt want you to be able to add any credence to your posts by me incorrectly paraphrasing [that something that journalists often do to quotes from people - I suggest you look it up ] it now would I?

Yes you can pour scorn and venom as whomever you like, be wary though the anonymity of the internet isnt real and wont protect you.

Wasnt it Hermann Hesse that said "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself" ?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yes as we all know opinions are like arseholes, clearly some are full of ****. Not pointing fingers I hope you understand.

I did apply logic to the article, I pasted it in its entirety without altering it or imposing any opinion of my own in it.

After all I wouldnt want you to be able to add any credence to your posts by me incorrectly paraphrasing [that something that journalists often do to quotes from people - I suggest you look it up ] it now would I?

Yes you can pour scorn and venom as whomever you like, be wary though the anonymity of the internet isnt real and wont protect you.

Wasnt it Hermann Hesse that said "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself" ?

I'm glad you agree that I can pour scorn and venom on whomever I like - but please, give it up with the 'be wary though, anonymity won't protect you....' crap. That could at a push be regarded as a threat (from you!!! lol) - could almost be regarded as stalkerish.

As for your quote: I'm cool with that - seeing as I don't hate the yob - I don't have to hate a person I'm reading about to form an opinion on them.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I'm glad you agree that I can pour scorn and venom on whomever I like - but please, give it up with the 'be wary though, anonymity won't protect you....' crap. That could at a push be regarded as a threat (from you!!! lol) - could almost be regarded as stalkerish.

As for your quote: I'm cool with that - seeing as I don't hate the yob - I don't have to hate a person I'm reading about to form an opinion on them.

Moving the goalposts once again eh Pyr, muddy the water to avoid being seen to be losing.

Why would I threaten you about anonymity when I already know your name, email and your phone numbers, after all you gave them to me.

So enough of the half truths and bollocks.

Now going back to the questions I asked earlier shouldnt the student be afforded the same respect as the Big man if you are prepared to wait for one court case you should be prepared to wait for another, or do you always side with bullies?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Moving the goalposts once again eh Pyr, muddy the water to avoid being seen to be losing,

Why would I threaten you about anonymity when I already know your name and email etc, and your phone numbers, after all you gave them to me.

So enough of the half truths and bollocks.

Now going back to the questions I asked earlier shouldnt the student be afforded the same respect as the Big man if you are prepared to wait for one court case you should be prepared to wait for another, or do you always side with bullies and those who sort problems out with brute force and ignorance?

What has my anonymity to do with this thread - or indeed any of my personal details at all. None. Zilch. Nada, Zero. Nowt. Your point is moot.

I've given countless posts on this thread why I feel the Big Man should not be punished and why I feel the yob should. If you have free time, you could spent it raking through them - I'm not repeating myselfl

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

What has my anonymity to do with this thread - or indeed any of my personal details at all. None. Zilch. Nada, Zero. Nowt. Your point is moot.

I've given countless posts on this thread why I feel the Big Man should not be punished and why I feel the yob should. If you have free time, you could spent it raking through them - I'm not repeating myselfl

Top tip of the day: "Opinions" posted on internet forums are still subject to UK libel and Slander Laws.

2nd Top Tip of the day Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it a legal defence that will stand up in court.

Funny that, quite similar to Mr Pollocks plight, Oh except he intimated to the teacher doing the videoing, he thought it was probably illegal, but hey. (thats paraphrased by the way)

Look at that who would ever have though you would get a bogof on TiBB?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Top tip of the day: "Opinions" posted on internet forums are still subject to UK libel and Slander Laws.

2nd Top Tip of the day Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is it a legal defence that will stand up in court.

Funny that, quite similar to Mr Pollocks plight, Oh except he intimated to the teacher doing the videoing, he thought it was probably illegal, but hey. (thats paraphrased by the way)

Look at that who would ever have though you would get a bogof on TiBB?

Strangely enough though: forums run and run on far more serious topics with opinions from every section of society: without massive clousure day in day out. Wonder why that might be. BTW: given the type of medium we are using: it wouldn't be slander - it would be libel given that it is in written form.

Defamation could also be referred to if you were so inclined.

My opinions on the yob remain. As do my opinion on the Big Man.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Strangely enough though: forums run and run on far more serious topics with opinions from every section of society: without massive clousure day in day out. Wonder why that might be. BTW: given the type of medium we are using: it wouldn't be slander - it would be libel given that it is in written form.

Defamation could also be referred to if you were so inclined.

My opinions on the yob remain. As do my opinion on the Big Man.

There have been a few cases where posts on the internet resulted in High Court decisions as to whether they are to be classed as Libel or slander, the rulings were they are both, because of the transitory nature of internet databases.

That is posts can be deleted both by the originating user and also by the staff/admin of the site. They can also be cut and posted elsewhere on the internet very quickly.

Comment was made in one judges ruling that modern software also allowed the written word to be spoken. Though I am not sure if that comment was set into the precedent.

And if you couldnt tell that the warning was a tongue in cheek comment, bearing in mind Sam and his dads speed to talk about claiming compensation etc, totally disregarding the part the lad played in the scenario, then you really do need to see about sorting out your sense of priorities.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

There have been a few cases where posts on the internet resulted in High Court decisions as to whether they are to be classed as Libel or slander, the rulings were they are both, because of the transitory nature of internet databases.

That is posts can be deleted both by the originating user and also by the staff/admin of the site. They can also be cut and posted elsewhere on the internet very quickly.

Comment was made in one judges ruling that modern software also allowed the written word to be spoken. Though I am not sure if that comment was set into the precedent.

And if you couldnt tell that the warning was a tongue in cheek comment, bearing in mind Sam and his dads speed to talk about claiming compensation etc, totally disregarding the part the lad played in the scenario, then you really do need to see about sorting out your sense of priorities.

You are now going completely off tangent - banging on now about Libel & Slander cases - which have nothing to do with the thread or the story.

I'm don't need to do anything about my priorties - certainly not as far as posting my opinions on a forum. You however should at least try to stick to the main topic of the thread - rather than offering your own opinions on other forum members and derailing the thread. It's not about Libel or Slander.

[Pyramid*]

Big Man has been charged with assault -and yob has been also reported to the PF but with no charges as yet.

Tory MP commented on BBC regional news are much that he feels the PF may not prosecute - but may issue a warning. His comments seemed to be almost siding / sympathising with the Big Man - rather than him taking the line of ''The correct course is being taken''

This should be interesting .......... I still do not think he'll be prosecuted.

Police have charged a man with assault after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a passenger.
Mobile phone recordings by a passenger on board the Edinburgh to Perth train on 9 December have been viewed by almost two million people on You Tube.
It shows a man - since dubbed 'Big Man' - throwing a teenager off a train after he argued with a ticket inspector.
British Transport Police said a 35-year-old man from Stirling had been charged with assault.
The man is understood to be Alan Pollock.
Meanwhile the student accused of fare dodging, 19-year-old Sam Main from Falkirk, has also been reported to the procurator fiscal, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.
He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.
The You Tube video shows a passenger speaking to a conductor over an alleged unpaid fare.
He is then removed from the train by another passenger at Linlithgow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-16288101

[Shasown]

Me going off tangent, add dissembling to the evasions then Pyr. PMSL talk about a little christmas street cheer eh?

Should be amusing to see if Sam does get prosecuted for fare dodging.

Should be even more amusing if Pollock gets done for assault.

You see the law isnt there to be popular, its to help things run easier and prevent the collapse into anarchy - supposedly.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Me going off tangent, add dissembling to the evasions then Pyr. PMSL talk about a little christmas street cheer eh?

Should be amusing to see if Sam does get prosecuted for fare dodging.

Should be even more amusing if Pollock gets done for assault.

You see the law isnt there to be popular, its to help things run easier and prevent the collapse into anarchy - supposedly.

Thing is though: it's not up to you or I.

It is as we both are aware, upto the PF - I certainly wouldn't use the word 'amusing' as a fitting description to this - I find the whole thing unsavory - I am however interested in the outcome, rather than finding any of it amusing.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Thing is though: it's not up to you or I.

It is as we both are aware, upto the PF - I certainly wouldn't use the word 'amusing' as a fitting description to this - I find the whole thing unsavory - I am however interested in the outcome, rather than finding any of it amusing.

I think its hilarious, it brings certain areas of the law into question, areas most people arent aware of their own responsibilities and liabilities.

Main gets prosecuted under section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing, Breach of the Peace basically. The Trespass may just get binned, too easy for him to rig a defence now. Bound to be some other numpty willing to give him a ticket issued that morning to prove his defence.

PF's decision is whether its in the public interest to prosecute on an assault to someone who is being very annoying. Would not prosecuting send the wrong message to the general public.

After the publicity and debate raised over the incident, should be interesting to see if they release reasons for non prosecution, they normally dont other that not in the public interest.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I think its hilarious, it brings certain areas of the law into question, areas most people arent aware of their own responsibilities and liabilities.

Main gets prosecuted under section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing, Breach of the Peace basically. The Trespass may just get binned, too easy for him to rig a defence now. Bound to be some other numpty willing to give him a ticket issued that morning to prove his defence.

PF's decision is whether its in the public interest to prosecute on an assault to someone who is being very annoying. Would not prosecuting send the wrong message to the general public.

After the publicity and debate raised over the incident, should be interesting to see if they release reasons for non prosecution, they normally dont other that not in the public interest.

Yob was in fact more than very annoying. He was abusive, was in breach of the terms upon which he used the facilities of Scotrail, and could be done for such as you yourself alluded to earlier in the thread - along with various Bye Laws.

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)

As I say: it will be interesting.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Yob was in fact more than very annoying. He was abusive, was in breach of the terms upon which he used the facilities of Scotrail, and could be done for such as you yourself alluded to earlier in the thread - along with various Bye Laws.



As I say: it will be interesting.

Yes thats why the transport police havent charged him with anything, they leave that decision to the PF, when things are ropey as to what to charge a person with. The PF will look at all possible charges available then prosecute under two or three of the ones most likely to gain a conviction.

However in Mr Pollocks case, they have determined that he may be guilty of an assault and have charged him as such.

Good luck to whichever Depute gets to make the go/no go decisions on those cases pmsl.