Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

View Poll Results: Was the Big Man right or wrong to throw the boy off the train?
Right 23 56.10%
Right
23 56.10%
Wrong 18 43.90%
Wrong
18 43.90%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 21-12-2011, 07:37 PM #651
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown View Post
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.
You have no idea whether that is the case or not - that BT Police have not charged Main for anything because it's ropey and so they are leaving it to the PF.

It could be due to the publicity that this has received that it has been decided between all relevant authorities, that it be dealt with by the PF directly due to the public interest - - rather than several fingers in the pie - and nothing to do with anything being 'ropey'.
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 07:49 PM #652
Shasown's Avatar
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
Shasown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
You have no idea whether that is the case or not - that BT Police have not charged Main for anything because it's ropey and so they are leaving it to the PF.

It could be due to the publicity that this has received that it has been decided between all relevant authorities, that it be dealt with by the PF directly due to the public interest - - rather than several fingers in the pie - and nothing to do with anything being 'ropey'.
Yeah thats right I have absolutely no idea why they have done what they have done.

Call it an educated guess, or better yet call it my opinion, I do believe I am allowed to post that on these forums. It normally happens when the person accused of a crime doesnt make a statement to the police, or the police have a few potential charges they can use, bearing in mind for every charge they do raise against someone they have several forms to fill in (thats from experience). Your turn....

Besides PF doesnt become involved technically until after the intial police investigation, they can then redirect the police to investigate areas of uncertainty, its a legal thing about the inital investigation being fair and unbiased to all parties by the way. (So the police cant be accused of being a prosecuting force, well thats what it says in my notes )

Mind you saying that my educated guesses have been a whole lot more accurate than your opinions so far, didnt you say Pollock didnt commit any assault? Well in your opinion, that is, slightly different opinion to mine, oh and the British Transport Police.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanessa View Post
Thanks.I just didn't want to make a fuss.

Last edited by Shasown; 21-12-2011 at 07:55 PM.
Shasown is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 07:57 PM #653
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown View Post
Yeah thats right I have absolutely no idea why they have done what they have done.

Call it an educated guess, or better yet call it my opinion, I do believe I am allowed to post that on these forums.

Besides PF doesnt become involved technically until after the intial police investigation, they can then redirect the police to investigate areas of uncertainty, its a legal thing about the inital investigation being fair and unbiased to all parties by the way.

Mind you saying that my educated guesses have been a whole lot more accurate than your opinions so far, didnt you say Pollock didnt commit any assault? Well in your opinion, that is, slightly different opinion to mine, oh and the British Transport Police.
Mais qui, of course you can put over your opinion. All I did was merely clarify that it is your opinion - and not actual fact- as many of your posts are worded to appear to give more an indepth knowledge than is the case: and for those who may be skim reading - they may take what you are saying as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: when it is in fact: only your own thoughts.

I said that as far as I was concerned, the big man didn't assault anyone. He's not been found guilty of that charge as yet. Remember that basic premise you mentioned earlier: innocent until proven guilty.

Last edited by Pyramid*; 21-12-2011 at 07:59 PM.
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 08:24 PM #654
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

From the Guardian


Quote:

Two men involved in a dispute about an unpaid train ticket, which was filmed by another passenger and posted on YouTube, are facing prosecution after a police investigation.

British transport police confirmed on Wednesday that Alan Pollock, 35, a financial manager from Stirling, has been charged with assault concerning the incident on the 9.33pm train from Edinburgh to Perth earlier this month.

Sam Main, 19, a student from Falkirk, has been reported to prosecutors under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, which covers threatening and abusive behaviour, and with trespass. He has yet to be formally charged.

Main was allegedly thrown off the train after he failed to have the right ticket for the journey. Footage showing the incident has been watched nearly 1.9m times on YouTube.

A spokesman for the Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution authority, confirmed that prosecutors were considering whether to press ahead with a trial after receiving a report from British transport police.

"The procurator fiscal at Livingston has received reports concerning two males aged 35 and 19, in connection with an incident in Linlithgow on Friday 9 December 2011. The reports remain under consideration by the procurator fiscal," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/de...fare-train-row
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 08:25 PM #655
Shasown's Avatar
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
Shasown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
Nope.

He was asked to leave, he was unable to provide proof of payment for his journey. He was unable to.

He became verbally abusive to an employee of the rail company. He also failed to follow the request of an employee who is there to enforce the conditions of passenger carriage for the rail company. It is therefore fine that he was removed from said train, with force if he refused to leave. That is ALL that happened.

No assault on the yobbo.
Not according to British Transport Police





Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
Why waste public funds .....when a good chuck out suffices?
There is a chance you get charged with assault

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
There's me thinking Scots don't push up with shi*te like this, don't accept youngsters being verbally abusive to someone who is doing their job, that the Scots don't just stand back and let terrorists try to blow up Glasgow airport, andthey don't sit back and give idiots who create FB pages inciting riots & damage to buildings and civil servants just a wee slap on the wrist.

I must have got that wrong then eh?
Very, restraining someone who has tried to blow up an airport is on a slightly different level to throwing a fare dodger off a train.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
The boyo wasn't assaulted. he was removed from a train.
Not according to British Transport Police, Shame that eh? Afer all they deal with enforcement of the law and investigating potential breaches of the law, What the hell do they know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
How do we know that the 'big man' wasn't such a person off duty? How do we know he was not a police officer off duty?
Works as an Investment manager or some such for a bluechip company by the way apparently, well maybe he will be an ex employee.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
Mais qui, of course you can put over your opinion. All I did was merely clarify that it is your opinion - and not actual fact- as many of your posts are worded to appear to give more an indepth knowledge than is the case: and for those who may be skim reading - they may take what you are saying as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: when it is in fact: only your own thoughts.
Mais qui? take it you mean oui? Yes only my thoughts, but reasonably accurate so far wouldnt you say? Gosh darn it almost as if I had a bit of indepth knowledge in the Law, wouldnt you say?

Well I know you wont because you cant seem to be seen as having been worng and you wont back down eh? Or even acknowledging someone with more knowledge in a certain field eh? Lets just say a slightly more educated opinion in legal matters than your good self.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
I said that as far as I was concerned, the big man didn't assault anyone. He's not been found guilty of that charge as yet. Remember that basic premise you mentioned earlier: innocent until proven guilty.
I do remember it, funny old thing I mentioned it to you as you seemed to have totally forgotten it. Its a pity the British Transport Police think the balance of probabilities is that he did assault someone thats why they have charged him with assault.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanessa View Post
Thanks.I just didn't want to make a fuss.
Shasown is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 09:17 PM #656
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown View Post
Not according to British Transport Police







There is a chance you get charged with assault



Very, restraining someone who has tried to blow up an airport is on a slightly different level to throwing a fare dodger off a train.




Not according to British Transport Police, Shame that eh? Afer all they deal with enforcement of the law and investigating potential breaches of the law, What the hell do they know?

Works as an Investment manager or some such for a bluechip company by the way apparently, well maybe he will be an ex employee.



Mais qui? take it you mean oui? Yes only my thoughts, but reasonably accurate so far wouldnt you say? Gosh darn it almost as if I had a bit of indepth knowledge in the Law, wouldnt you say?

Well I know you wont because you cant seem to be seen as having been worng and you wont back down eh? Or even acknowledging someone with more knowledge in a certain field eh? Lets just say a slightly more educated opinion in legal matters than your good self.




I do remember it, funny old thing I mentioned it to you as you seemed to have totally forgotten it. Its a pity the British Transport Police think the balance of probabilities is that he did assault someone thats why they have charged him with assault.
What a shameful waste of all those quotes - given that they are my opinion.

Let's not kid on that you're some legal eagle - you aren't.

He can be charged from here to high heaven and back, the fact remains that as at this point in time, he has not been found guilty as yet.
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 09:18 PM #657
Ramsay's Avatar
Ramsay Ramsay is offline
His blood is bad.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 29,890

Favourites (more):
BBUSA21: Kathryn
BBUSA20: Brett


Ramsay Ramsay is offline
His blood is bad.
Ramsay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 29,890

Favourites (more):
BBUSA21: Kathryn
BBUSA20: Brett


Default

We're still talking about this?
really?
__________________
Ramsay is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 09:19 PM #658
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl View Post
We're still talking about this?
really?
It's a quiet run up to Christmas!
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 10:46 PM #659
Shasown's Avatar
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
Shasown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
What a shameful waste of all those quotes - given that they are my opinion.

Let's not kid on that you're some legal eagle - you aren't.

He can be charged from here to high heaven and back, the fact remains that as at this point in time, he has not been found guilty as yet.
Never said I was a legal eagle now did I?

Trying to put words into my mouth now Pyr?

Nah if you start charging people with offences then sstart changing them or dropping them and reinstating either them or others, a good solicitor (even a lousy one really) will show that the PF or investigation is more of a fishing trip than a legal procedure.

No he hasnt been found guilty yet, but lets face it, he admitted to a witness he knew he could end up in trouble with the law for the actions he carried out.

We dont know what he said in his defence to the police while being interviewed, but lets face it the video is sort of damning.

One other point to consider, because of the video and his comment to the teacher I think which ever solicitor represents him will probably advise him to plead guilty, at the earliest possible time during the various diets and get the minimum sentence the mitigation is there, in the fact it was morally right.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanessa View Post
Thanks.I just didn't want to make a fuss.

Last edited by Shasown; 21-12-2011 at 10:51 PM.
Shasown is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 10:58 PM #660
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown View Post
Never said I was a legal eagle now did I?

Trying to put words into my mouth now Pyr?

Nah if you start charging people with offences then sstart changing them or dropping them and reinstating either them or others, a good solicitor (even a lousy one really) will show that the PF or investigation is more of a fishing trip than a legal procedure.

No he hasnt been found guilty yet, but lets face it, he admitted to a witness he knew he could end up in trouble with the law for the actions he carried out.

We dont know what he said in his defence to the police while being interviewed, but lets face it the video is sort of damning.
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.

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.

My own view is that either both are punished or neither are. That to me, would be fair and reasonable: all things considered and taking all things into account. Hopefully the PF will see it the same way.
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 11:20 PM #661
Shasown's Avatar
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Shasown Shasown is offline
Account Vacant
Shasown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In my house.
Posts: 9,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanessa View Post
Thanks.I just didn't want to make a fuss.

Last edited by Shasown; 21-12-2011 at 11:24 PM.
Shasown is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 11:24 PM #662
Marsh. Marsh. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 79,984


Marsh. Marsh. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 79,984


Default

Marsh. is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 11:28 PM #663
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown View Post
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.


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.
Nothing new here though - this has all been said over and over again.
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 21-12-2011, 11:29 PM #664
Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Pyramid* Pyramid* is offline
Pyramid*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,528


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 08marsh View Post
Now that - I like !!
Pyramid* is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
19, dodger, fare, leave, passenger, refusing, thrown, train, year

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts