[Closed] Chav-chucking Big Man gets charged with assault

Time to despair..... Shame they couldn't have done it 'good news/bad news' and 'announced' the little $hit was being prosecuted at the same time.

<sigh>

good
i hope he losses his job.
horrible fat bully.

Write to your MP.

Laws are needed to protect people who help out in such circumstances.

[i]and 'announced' the little $hit was being prosecuted at the same time.[/i]

He is.

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 Mains from Falkirk, has also been reported to the procurator fiscal, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.

epicyclo

ter is plenty of leagal protection for people in that situation. However the use of force must be reasonable. proportionate and commensurate.
using force in that situation was non of the three things. I am suprised its deemed to be in the public interest tho to prosecute.

As every the police get it wrong yet again, it’s the fare dodging scumbag that should be prosecuted.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-world-mad-well-scotland-at-least

Kona TC - Member

As every the police get it wrong yet again, it’s the fare dodging scumbag that should be prosecuted.

Its not up to the police who gets charged - they have to charge if there is evidence of a crime which there is - the PF will decide if it is in the public interest to continue or if there is a reasonable chance of conviction and a court will decide if a crime is committed.

the fare dodger is being prosecuted as well

Laws are needed to protect people who help out in such circumstances.

Laws are needed to prevent any vigilanty from taking the law into their own hands in such circumstances.

He picked the boy up and threw him on his head. Not condonoing what the boy was up to, but the Big Man crossed a line imo. Not only that - he committed a crime - ha assualted someone, he had no right or powers to do what he did.

We live in a civilsed country where we select and train suitable people to deal with these situations, and have courts and due process to try people who are accused in a fair and just way.

To not charge the big man with assualt would be to send a message that it's ok for anyone to use whatever physical force they feel like to sort out a situation they don't like, and if what you are doing is 'popular', you are clear to break the law.

We're a civilised country, and we have laws and due process that are the envy of the rest of the world. The boy would have been dealt with in a way that wouldn't have risked him getting injured.

And it is absolutely right that The Big Man now has to defend himself is a court of law.

He's only been charged at this stage - not found guilty. Clearly the polis and CPS thought there was enough evidence to prosecute. A jury of his peers may find him not guilty yet.

I bet he's very grateful to the guy who took the video and posted it up (who, incidentally, came across as a smug little tosser when I heard him interviewed on the radio.)

EDIT: If not the CPS, then the PF. Not sure how it works up there in Scotchlandshire

I ahd read that. So... to be pedantic.... they haven't announced the fare dodger is being prosecuted (as they have with the vigilante). He's being considered by the PF for prosecution (or not). If they both broke the law and it's in the Public interest, they should both be prosecuted.

Not the same thing, but good linking. Good work 🙂

As every the police get it wrong yet again,

:roll:Errr, nope.

BTP received a complaint regarding the "Big Man's" actions. If there is a sufficiency of evidence to charge and report him to the PF, then (thanks to Youtube) that is what they must do. BTP have no choice in the matter, particularly with such a high profile case. It is now a matter for the state prosecutor and the court to decide if proceedings are in the public interest and if so, whether or not the perpetrator's actions were appropriate or an assault. Even if guilty, the court can admonish or grant an absolute discharge.

Far be it for the course of law to be properly followed in contravention to the brotherhood of keyboard warriors. 🙂

Still no need to throw someone off the train - totally unwarranted and the bloke should be prosecuted for assault.

Still no need to throw someone off the train - totally unwarranted and the bloke should be prosecuted for assault.

As sad as this is, it was predictable.

Hard to see how he did not assault the fare dodger as much as many will have sympathy with his actions.

But frankly a waste of everyone's time and money.

Kona TC - Member
As every the police get it wrong yet again, it’s the fare dodging scumbag that should be prosecuted.

TandemJeremy - Member

Kona TC - Member

As every the police get it wrong yet again, it’s the fare dodging scumbag that should be prosecuted.

Its not up to the police who gets charged - they have to charge if there is evidence of a crime which there is - the PF will decide if it is in the public interest to continue or if there is a reasonable chance of conviction and a court will decide if a crime is committed.

the fare dodger is being prosecuted as well

Ah forgot Scotish procurator fiscal

[b]Police[/b] have [b]charged a man with assault[/b] after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a passenger

Police charged man with assualt

Meanwhile the student accused of fare dodging, 19-year-old Sam Main from Falkirk, has also been [b]reported to the procurator fiscal[/b], which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.

fare dodging scumbag [b]may[/b] be charged if procurator fiscal...

do I remember correctly from the op did the fare dodger refer to his friend stanley?? and maybe he was thinking of using it . hope that comes out in court in defence of big man

for darcy's sake i was not the guy in the video! 😆

the reference to my mate stanley was a subtle reference to when elfin once described carrying his friend stanley around with him when he was younger due to the type of abuse he faced growing up.

TandemJeremy - Member
epicyclo
ter is plenty of leagal protection for people in that situation. However the use of force must be reasonable. proportionate and commensurate...

A member of the public doesn't necessarily have the pc knowledge or training to do the job the way a policeman would have.

People should be able to go to the help of a public officer and not worry about the consequences. It's not as if the conductor said to the big guy that he should back off. The help was accepted.

the reference to my mate stanley was a subtle reference to when elfin once described carrying his friend stanley around with him when he was younger due to the type of abuse he faced growing up.

It's true actually.

Who's coming on the march?

[IMG] [/IMG]

As sad as this is, it was predictable.

Hard to see how he did not assault the fare dodger as much as many will have sympathy with his actions.

But frankly a waste of everyone's time and money.

I've never been able to figure out why the conductor on the train didn't just call for the transport police in the first instance when the little scrote started causing trouble. Thats what they are there to deal with.

Are we really surprised that someone would act like this.
The public are sick to the back teeth of these type of parasites that blight society.
Are we a civilised country? I see plenty of people that would be more suited to be housed in a pig sty.
People take action because the law and the courts fail them.

Chav-chucking

Alan Pollock is a revolting fat bully and I'm pleased to hear that he faces charges for assault.

I believe he makes his living as a banker (although I expect you'll hear his occupation described as 'risk analyst' or something similar).

The bloke is an all round scumbag and I wouldnt mind betting its not the first time hes done something like that. Probably hits his mrs too, and kicks the cat. Fat slob.

Alan Pollock is a revolting fat bully and I'm pleased to hear that he faces charges for assault.

I believe he makes his living as a banker (although I expect you'll hear his occupation described as 'risk analyst' or something similar).

The bloke is an all round scumbag and I wouldnt mind betting its not the first time hes done something like that. Probably hits his mrs too, and kicks the cat. Fat slob.

I take it you're the "victim" in the video then?

i hope he losses his job.
horrible fat bully.

You seem to misunderstand the definition of 'bully', especially as Pollock possibly didn't know how big the guy until he was level with him, was so here you go
[i]1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.[/i]

Any sympathy for the elderly conductor who's blood pressure must have been through the roof and all the other passengers who were delayed and had to listen to the little scrote shouting and swearing in front of children?

[s]Alan Pollock[/s]Sam Main is a revolting [s]fat[/s] little bully and I'm pleased to hear that he faces charges for [s]assault[/s]verbal abuse.

I believe he makes his living as a [s]banker (although I expect you'll hear his occupation described as 'risk analyst' or something similar)[/s] student, although that hardly fits the definition of "making a living" and lives with his mum and dad.

The bloke is an all round scumbag and I wouldnt mind betting its not the first time hes done something like that. Probably [s]hits his mrs too,[/s]swears at anyone he thinks he can get away with abusing and kicks the cat. [s]Fat slob[/s]Waste of Space.

FIFY

The public are sick to the back teeth of these type of parasites that blight society.

What, bankers?

The fare dodger was in the wrong initially but the response has to be proportionate. A bystander dragging the guy off the train and throwing him onto the platform is a far more serious issue than the fare dodging.

Woody, I'm sure you understand that you cant take the law into your own hands and do whatever you deem acceptable to someone who you perceive to have committed an offence.

Just as a side note; is the video footage admissable in court? Over here in Germany a lot of video footage that people have started collecting while driving their cars around looking for driving offences etc have been deemed inadmissable and in some cases an offence in themselves as it is against privacy laws. Just wondering.

The fare dodger was in the wrong initially but the response has to be proportionate.

He was asked to leave the train.

He refused.

Physically removing him was a viable option.

We don't know what the fare dodgers story is, and his situation leading up to this. He might have some disability that doesn't come across in the video, and even if he doesn't the big man wouldn't have known. How do we know this person wasn't down to his last quid stranded away from home and didn't have any other choice.

So in perspective he had no right to chuck the bloke off the train. There are all manner of factors that could have led to the situation in the video which I would imagine none of the commenters are aware of.

In my opinion the conductor was inflaming the situation and it could have been handled much better by either phoning ahead as has been suggested, or if he doesn't have that support letting the matter rest.

Nothing will happen as he has used an alias. When the police asked his name he must have said "I'm A.Pillock" but the policeman was English

We don't know what the fare dodgers story is, and his situation leading up to this. He might have some disability that doesn't come across in the video, and even if he doesn't the big man wouldn't have known. How do we know this person wasn't down to his last quid stranded away from home and didn't have any other choice.

So in perspective he had no right to chuck the bloke off the train. There are all manner of factors that could have led to the situation in the video which I would imagine none of the commenters are aware of.

In my opinion the conductor was inflaming the situation and it could have been handled much better by either phoning ahead as has been suggested, or if he doesn't have that support letting the matter rest.

The fare dodgers side of the story is public knowledge.

All four different versions he's offered so far...

BoardinBob - Member

The fare dodger was in the wrong initially but the response has to be proportionate.

He was asked to leave the train.

He refused.

Physically removing him was a viable option.

why? where ws eh need to use force? what justification for force?

Why? Because his refusal to leave the train was inconveniencing the other passengers.

Listen, stop lecturing us on the ins and outs of the law, when you're incapable of adhering to it yourself.

why? where ws eh need to use force? what justification for force?

it was where the words used by the conductor were not sufficient to remove the nice young man.

Why? Because his refusal to leave the train was inconveniencing the other passengers.

So what?

What if someone had had a heart attack on the train; should Big Man just throw them off cos they're 'inconveniencing other passengers'?

Listen, stop lecturing us on the ins and outs of the law, when you're incapable of adhering to it yourself.

Thing is though, TJ is not claiming he's not breaking the Law when he RLJs or whatever. does not in any way invalidate his statements as to what the Law actually sez, does it?

No.

Seems that the correct authorities have agreed with myself, TJ and others, that this may well be an offence against the Law, and an Assault. Hence, Big Man will get his day in court, if it goes that far, and we'll see what happens.

So, all those who don't think it's 'assault'; will you come back on here if Big Man is convicted, and admit you were wrong?

I was really trying to put this from the perspective of the big man. He knew none of this before taking action. The guy could have been vulnerable and ended in all sorts of difficulty. What if he had been vulnerable and we were now seeing his mum on TV in tears because he's not been seen since? What would we be saying about the big man now?

It sounds like in this instance the fare dodger got what he deserved, but this isn't a civil responsibility moment where you tell some scrote to pick up his litter, it's a step too far.

I dont think the fare dodger was violent or threatening violence towards anyone.

It is completely unacceptable for mr banker to escalate this to a violent incident.

I'm right on this, by the way, although I'm sure some of you angry people will want to disagree. Maybe you want to smack an old ladies face in for breaking the speed limit. Or punch a childs teeth out for riding on the pavement too. Think about this intelligently and get a sense of proportion please because the world you seem to want to live in looks very bleak and lawless.

I'm right on this, by the way,

All together now

OH, NO YOU'RE NOT

Woody, I'm sure you understand that you cant take the law into your own hands and do whatever you deem acceptable to someone who you perceive to have committed an offence.

If you watch the video closely, scroteboy tried to take a swing at the big guy after being removed from his seat by the shoulders/clothing and then pushed off the train. It was only after he forcibly tried to charge past him and the conductor (assault on the conductor?) to get back on that he was 'thrown' back out. Hardly unreasonable in the circumstances.

I really can't summon any sympathy for scroteboy and it was his actions and attitude alone which caused him to be treated the way he was.

BTW KungFu, I think it's you who needs a sense of proportion. I might agree with your viewpoint if the big guy had given him a couple of digs but he didn't. He merely restrained and ejected.

The youth was told by the ticket inspector to leave the train, he refused this and responded with verbal abuse.
This then made him an 'undesirable'(should be in terms and conditions booklet)and as such, the undesirable can be ejected(using reasonable force) from public transport.
The fact the undesirable put up resistence to being removed, caused him to get a little scratch.
The big guy did not throw punches or kick the undesirable, so what is the limit of reasonable force?

If you watch the video closely, scroteboy tried to take a swing at the big guy after being removed from his seat by the shoulders/clothing

Would be perfectly acceptable; self-defence you see. No Pay could well have bin in fear for his life, that a violent crime was about to take place, and wooduv bin well within his rights to use reasonable and proportionate force to prevent a crime from taking place. 😉

Youser getting deseperate now. 😆

Good thing you're not Lawyers, eh?

No Pay could well have bin in fear for his life

The youth should have bee ASKED to leave the train, and stroked lovingly as he agreed to leave.

He prevented a breach of the peace by removing the lad.

The force used was reasonable, the "big man" did NOT beat the young man up, he ejected him as the conductor requested.

Its an anomaly with this forum, we moan when people walk on by and allow criminal activity to take place but when people do the right thing such as this video (he didnt beat the living daylights out of the lad) we condemn them.

I look forward to hearing the judgement of the court 😉

Would be perfectly acceptable; self-defence you see. No Pay could well have bin in fear for his life, that a violent crime was about to take place, and wooduv bin well within his rights to use reasonable and proportionate force to prevent a crime from taking place.

Youser getting deseperate now.

Good thing you're not Lawyers, eh?

You're just on the sympathy vote because you were a little chav **** in your youth too. In fact you're still a chav **** in your old age.

It's you who is desperate elf

Erm, I don't think so; I said from the start it loks very much like assault, the relevant authorities have agreed with me and consider there is a case to be answered, and charged Big Man with assault. 😀

It's you who are clutching at straws, claiming 'oh but No Pay did this', and 'No Pay did that', in a desperate attempt to try and believe that you might not be wrong.

I just put that bit about No Pay possibly being 'in fear for his life' so that you might then have a think about your own perspective a bit more, re 'preventing crime taking place', but you seem to have missed that. Oh well.

Must go; I have a date with a proper lawyer. 😉

[i]"the young man would not produce a valid ticket when asked to do so, he refused to get off the train despite being instructed to do so by the guard on several occasions, and repeatedly swore in front of small children. I became concerned that the guard would not be able to eject the young man on his own and that the situation may become a violent confrontation, I asked the guard if he would like assistance in ejecting him, and subsequently helped the guard by doing so, although the young man violently struggled and tried to force his way back on the train after I ejected him."[/i]

😉

the relevant authorities have agreed with me and consider there is a case to be answered

We'll see what the outcome is but it won't change that I believe the big guy was in the right.

Hahahaha! another cock fight! we're in for a real treat this xmas!

There train could not have waited at the station all night or for very long, as the train needs to make timtabled stops, and if the train is late, scotrail will be fined for late arrival, by network rail.

Most newer rolling stock is fitted with cctv, and recording devices, so the lad could be identified as fare dodger.

No violence was offered by the lad or the conductor, but was by the big man,

The conductor should have rung BTP for help, but seeing as theyre so thinly spread it would be interesting to see how long a responce took, and if a responce was deemed necessary for a petty amount of money,

also what would have happened if the conductor closed the doors, without proper observation of the other doors and gave the ding ding away signal, and somebody was trpped in the doors and got injured or killed.

to be contiued.

No violence was offered by the lad or the conductor, but was by the big man,

Innocent until proven guilty, or in Scotland there is also a 'not proven' verdict available.

Most newer rolling stock is fitted with cctv, and recording devices, so the lad could be identified as fare dodger.

The conductor should have rung BTP for help, but seeing as theyre so thinly spread it would be interesting to see how long a responce took, and if a responce was deemed necessary for a petty amount of money,

also what would have happened if the conductor closed the doors, without proper observation of the other doors and gave the ding ding away signal, and somebody was trpped in the doors and got injured or killed.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

Scrotes these day think they can do what they like

this sort of shite is why they think it!

Junkyard - Member
As sad as this is, it was predictable.
Hard to see how he did not assault the fare dodger as much as many will have sympathy with his actions.

But frankly a waste of everyone's time and money.

THIS

What does that mean JY?

So Zulu - all your previous waffling on about there being no possibility of it being assault is clearly wrong.

The was no violence or threat of violence until the big man intervened. You thin vigilante justice is acceptable. can I punch the next person I see on a mobile phone while driving a car?

steffybhoy - Member

No violence was offered by the lad or the conductor, but was by the big man,

So Project? If you are saying the big man was being violent! What is the limit of using reasonable force to eject an undesirable??

Zero in that sort of instance I would have thought. he has no right or power to remove the scrote. as soon as he touches him it is assault.

Boarding bob -0 inconveniencing passengers is an excuse for removal by force? great. I can remove by force the scrotes that park illegally and delay the bus then

So Zulu - all your previous waffling on about there being no possibility of it being assault is clearly wrong.

Zulu claimed that it wasn't an assault for a load of spurious reasons. if Zulu had been right he couldn't have been charged as there would be no case to answer

Yes TJ - apparently you can kill someone if they tread on your toe too 🙄

Zulu had been right he couldn't have been charged as there would be no case to answer

I was not aware Scotland had reintroduced the grand Jury, or do you still know knob all about the law?

Tell you what - what flavour humble pie would you like to eat when he is cleared 😉

Poly,

Most newer rolling stock is fitted with cctv, and recording devices, so the lad could be identified as fare dodger.
don't think I have even seen CCTV on that service, but CCTV isn't going to provide convincing proof of fare dodging - just how good do you think the resolution is to read the ticket!

The guard would have or should have submitteda report about a fare dodging youth with a ful descripption of waht happened

also what would have happened if the conductor closed the doors, without proper observation of the other doors and gave the ding ding away signal, and somebody was trapped in the doors and got injured or killed.
No idea what this random speculation is about.

People are injured by train doors closing on them and the interlock not properley working, or the conductor dinging the train out, and the passenger trying to gain access to the train once it is departing the platform, as happened recently near me which resulted in the death of a passenger and the conductor being arrested and suspended from duty.

There are specific rules regarding closing doors and departures from stations.

Glad you agree with the rest of what i typed.

OH NO!! Surely we cant go over the same arguments again!

TJ v Zulu - ok, both sides clearly put - case to answer = was 'reasonable force' (as allowed under transport laws) used and is a member of the public allowed to exercise the right under the approval of guard. Simples.

Can we just leave this to the court now?

tumteetumteetumm.....doobeedoobeedooo...........................

[img] [/img]

I'll let you do the Googling on this one. Do all cases where a person is charged lead to a conviction? Or to put it another way, is it possible that an innocent person can be incorrectly charged?
Should we ignore the idea of innocent until proven guilty in all cases?

It would like an attempt have a pop at another forum member, don't you think?

You are not fooling me DS you mean Contador dont you 😉

OT clearly there is some debate as to whether he did or did not use reasonable force or have the right to do so.
Lets see what jury says

Zulu - you really do talksome mince.

KungFuPanda - Member
Alan Pollock is a revolting fat bully and I'm pleased to hear that he faces charges for assault.
I believe he makes his living as a banker (although I expect you'll hear his occupation described as 'risk analyst' or something similar).
The bloke is an all round scumbag and I wouldnt mind betting its not the first time hes done something like that. Probably hits his mrs too, and kicks the cat. Fat slob.
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

I totally agree with this!!
The fat bully was showing off! He obviously thinks he's powerfull being a banker, I bet he does throw his wieght around at home, he's just lucky the lad didn't swing for him! Would have shocked him, with the lad being a lot smaller.
If this was to be allowed then all fat bully's would do it wouldn't they!?
And at the end of the day all the lad did was fare dodge!! Not a major crime now really is it!!? 😕

You are not fooling me DS you mean Contador dont you

Loving your work TJ 😆

Fancy a little wager Tandem darling?

Tenner to charity of your choice from me if he's convicted - if you'll match it? Tenner to charity of my choice from you if he's not.

fair?

Scottish criminal law is different from what I’m used to so I can’t comment on the intricacies of what goes on abroad (so to speak), but as obnoxious as I find MAIN’S behavior, I can’t help feeling that POLLOCK acted beyond his civic responsibilities in the circumstances.

Something to consider is that a visual recording of a section of an event does not usually amount to the entirety of what actually happened - so there might be other factors involved that we’re not privy to.

The relevant authorities clearly believe POLLOCK has a case to answer, but if it goes in-front of a jury I can well imagine them lacking the appetite to return a guilty verdict (appreciating the strange vagaries of a not proven possibility in Scottish law). Look at the views here for example - STW is obviously a microcosm of the public that could be called upon to compose a jury - not a great deal of unanimity is there! I wouldn’t bet on him being convicted that’s for sure.

It will be an interesting case to follow.

I'd like to help out here.
Click [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-world-mad-well-scotland-at-least/page/3#post-3300123 ]here[/url], click my link at the bottom, then click the link above again and you can go round in circles to your heart's content.
For added enjoyment, you can click [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-ticket ]here[/url] and read all the same bollocks again.

I want to know what JHW thinks about this, is he not a lawyer? And 'business core' at that

I'm guessing if he's said nothing in 300 odd posts he ain't flippin interested.