Forum menu
Obviously the police weren't as impressed as his fellow passengers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101
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.
Kona TC - MemberAs 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.
Well he should have been thrown off the train but by the conductor and without using force. It was none of 'Big Man's' business - he deserves all he gets for getting involved in a matter that was none of his business.
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.
Isn't it great people passing comment when they don't know how the system works!
TandemJeremy - MemberKona 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.
THIS
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
sounds like a fine sporting event, where do I sign up?
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.
Interesting perspective there johna tonto and now KungFuPanda. As usual some people would rather protect the person responsible for the disturbance rather than the person who took action to prevent further trouble.
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 - MemberThe 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.