[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

Pyra if that was your son how would you honestly feel about it?

Exactly the same as I do now - in fact, probably worse - given that he's turned out to be everything I just said earlier: an irresponsible, lying, law breaking cheeky bastard of a son, who showed no respect to a man who was only trying to do his job - and had now embarrassed me by having the world seeing what an arsehole he was.

That's how I would feel. Honestly.

[Vicky.]

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Nice try but its best not to use outdated UK sources for a legal reference for Scottish Law. (In order to tidy up Scottish Law, The Scottish Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 was introduced. You will notice on the site you referenced its not mentioned at all.) It also good to understand the meaning of certain legal terms before you use them as a defence.

Lets go through what you have highlighted and I will point out your misunderstandings, because there are a few.

"Criminal intent" was shown by Big Man to a witness namely the person who filmed the incident when BM said "if I go to jail..." that means he was aware that what he was about to do could be classed as a criminal act but was going to do it anyway. Thats criminal intent. Ignorance of a law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

"an accidental injury does not amount to assault." Thats very true, however in pushing the yob of the train he caused the injury, a sheriff(or jury) will question is it likely that someone may receive a graze or similar in being pushed off a stationary train, yeah it is likely depending on the force used to push the person off. In that case its not an accidental injury.

"In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others" In defence of who? Who was being attacked etc. Simply because people are being slightly inconvenienced doesnt mean they need someone to defend them.


Just going off the video the yob was guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour, thats section 38 of SCJ&L Act its not an indictable offence therefore its not something a private citizen should "lay hands" on to rectify. (what used to be classed as Breach of the Peace).

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do. We can all google till our hearts are content and pretend we know of things we actually don't - that's not exclusive.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(

As I said to Shasown - let's see if he is found guilty.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do.

If you say so, because its obvious you know all about it dont you?

As I said before if you are going to quote Scottish Law use an up to date reference. Nuff said.

[Benjamin]

Are you lot not bored yet of hashing over the same argument, going round and round in circles?

[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.

[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.

[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

[InOne]

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying

[arista]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

arista stop calling him a punk it's annoying

No

[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 God

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

Bang On Right

[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?

[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.

[Jack_]

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.

And it is these very people that complain regularly about crime levels and how 'disgusting' some crimes are becoming, yet fail to understand what needs to be done to combat the problem, and that in fact their beliefs on stories like these will only continue to inadvertently increase levels of crime because they are advocating such behaviour. It makes me so ****ing annoyed to see such blatant stupidity, but then again the Daily Mail comments section is always worth a laugh.

Originally Posted by Snowball

Here is a simple question. Given that the incident would never have occurred if the 'the kid' (19 year old) - had simply ensured he had the correct ticket: do you honestly feel that it is justified that his actions, and subsequent actions of all invovled - and this yob's pushing it into the media /public in the way he has that the following may (slim) but may happen

1. He ends up charges with several offences, and may end up with a criminal record - which may impact on his career.
2. The Big Man has is charged with assault and ends up with a criminal record and may possibly lose his job (as we have no idea if this could be an impact
3. A Scotrail employee may be fired at such a late stage in his life.

All of which could happen - all because this little bit of scum thought he could get away with fare dogding and all that resulted as a consequence of HIS actions.

Yes, I agree with all of those. Because funnily enough it wasn't just the guy that was in the wrong, so was the 'big man' and train conductor. There's a saying it takes two to tango, well in this case it's three. None of them should be let off because for starters two of them (the guy and the 'big man') committed a crime, one of which is actually worse than the other (physical abuse rather than verbal abuse, again funnily enough), and the train conductor incited all the unnecessary physical force, so perhaps the 'big man' should blame his idiocy in the event that he is charged. Of course it all stems from the guy attempting to fare dodge initially, but that doesn't mean that the other two should are angels here because both of them handled the situation unprofessionally in the case of the train conductor, and illegally in the case of Alan Pollock.

Regardless, you cannot assume that you can blame someone else's actions for yours, you must take responsibility for your own and so that's why all involved are in the wrong and should all face fitting consequences, and again before you begin moaning, that includes the 19 year old.