Forum menu
Groundhog Day is on the telly at the moment.
@ Druidh...
[img] 
[/img]
Groundhog Day is on the telly at the moment.
'Twas on yesterday too.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2154 [/img]
It would be funny if big man was not charged and fare dodger got done, I suspect that would be a great outcome for common sense.
Unfortunately, this country is shallow on the good stuff, hence big-man being charged.
What about if I was walking down the street and saw some nob cycling through a red light because he thought he knew better than everyone else.
I hoof him off his bike onto the pavement to stop him breaking the law, because I was protecting the other people using the junction from harm in a collision caused by the arse who thought the law only applies to other people.
Would that be ok. Or am I going to be in the dock next to Big Man ?
That would be unilateral action.
The big man asked the ticket inspector first.
Don't mess wi the Big Man
I'd like to help out here.
Click [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/chav-chucking-big-man-gets-charged-with-assault ]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...
Quite right too, and I hope the conductor gets punted too, for allowing and going along with the assault. Big **** was just taking liberties.totalshell - Member
a bloke stands up, helps out a public servant and HE gets arrested and charged!!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101
Wunundred! 😀
Can't be much fun for Big Man, having this hanging over him for the Festive Season.
Oh whell.
At least he should have time to reflect on the consequences of his actions.
Who knows if the kid was telling the truth and had two singles and showed the wrong one, he wasn't exactly given the chance to prove himself.
Either way, the force used was a little excessive. You can see in the video he was pretty much thrown on his face in a completely unprovoked attack, he was sat there, it's not like he was kicking off and pushing people about.
Surely the evidence of any purchased tickets can be produced, either by the Student or Scotrail.
If ticket was bought and Scotrail issued incorrectly, there should be full apology. However, student could have bought correct ticket on the train and complained later.
If student bought incorrect ticket by accident then well, HE should have apologised to ticket inspector and bought correct one - they do sell them. He could have got refund on his incorrectly bough one later.
If student has not bought a ticket at all and chanced getting away with it, then he is a lying wee toe-rag.
In either scenario he should have been more polite to the Inspector, bought a correct ticket or got off the train. He acted incorrectly and I have absolutely no sympathy for him.
The Big Man took the law into his own hands without knowing if any law was broken or what the consequences would be. It should have been left for teh Police to get a full understaning and take appropriate action. There was no violence before (but maybe some abusive language) so there was absolutely no need for this downright assault.
2 days prison over Xmas for both of them will soon let them reflect on their behaviour.
I'm with TJ, elf and Realman.
Epic's psychic ability to predict violence is a joke, and his argument that big man's actions were ok is laughable, you simply can't have members of the public using force when they feel it's appropriate to enforce what they think is right. Chaos would ensue.
Epic's psychic ability to predict violence is a joke,
Not sure about the rest of the UK but in Central Scotland the line [i]"whit ye gonnae dae abit it?"[/i] is pretty aggressive and you don't need to be psychic to figure what comes next.
He really said that?
He'd hit an old man, a public servant, in front of many witnesses with no escape?
Few of them are that thick.
Hard to hear on the video, but that was what was reported.
Anyways, both of them have been reported to the PF which is probably the correct thing to do in the circumstances. I doubt any prosecutions will follow.
He really said that?He'd hit an old man, a public servant, in front of many witnesses with no escape?
[b]Few of them are that thick.[/b]
Aye?
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Mr McLetchie said the case had “polarised opinion” across Scotland and that any trial was “unlikely to please everyone”.He said: “This may be a case where a warning letter to Mr Pollock would suffice and draw a line under the matter.”
Bob...you've found 1...which surely qualifies as "few"?
Good old Crowe
"Once again it shows the dangers that transport staff face every day and particularly over the Christmas and New Year period.
Nothing to do with the time of year or the guys job. The scum are just that, scum.
Bob...you've found 1...which surely qualifies as "few"?
So that fact that only a "few" do it, the general public should turn a blind eye to an old man getting harassed and intimidated while trying to do his job.
And here's a "few" more incidents
http://www.brmb.co.uk/news/headlines/train-staff-attacked-in-birmingham/
http://www.****/news/article-71035/Attacks-rail-staff-soar.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/drink--and-late-trains--fuel-attacks-on-rail-staff-1191097.html
etc etc
Where did I say a blind eye should be turned? Please don't imply bullshit like that.
My point was it was unlikely that it would turn violent in the circumstances...do the circumstances in any of your links apply? If so, they [i]may[/i] be relevant, but you've only provided isolated stories...how about statistics?
My point was it was unlikely that it would turn violent in the circumstances
Unlikely in your opinion.
Which luckily counts for f' all, as does mine.
I have no evidence, I didn't look, but it has to be less likely than in the generic scenario, and a few Daily Fail style headlines don't change that.
"whit ye gonnae dae abit it?" is pretty aggressive and you don't need to be psychic to figure what comes next.
"F'kken Moooooan 'en" IME.
And yes, you're quite right, he definitely did say that (not the 2nd bit).
Wasn't just a Bliar Bush style preemptive strike?
Excellent to see that the Law relating to 'reasonable force' has bin applied effectively in this case, and Justice has bin served. 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16299750
Violent scum getting what they deserve; losing their livelihoods.
Good luck down the dole office lads! 😆
cynic-al - Member
...Epic's psychic ability to predict violence is a joke..
Wish I was psychic 🙂 If I was shown that as evidence as a jury member, I'd stick with what I've said unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.
cynic-al - Member
...you simply can't have members of the public using force when they feel it's appropriate to enforce what they think is right. Chaos would ensue.
What? not even when it's an 'Arab Spring'?
Excellent to see that the Law relating to 'reasonable force' has bin applied effectively in this case, and Justice has bin served.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16299750
Violent scum getting what they deserve; losing their livelihoods.
Good luck down the dole office lads!
Being violent is part of human nature, no amount of education will ever curb violent behaviour.
Oh! an while you spout yer do-gooder nonsense, what about the old grannie hitting the junkie(who stole her handbag) on the head with her umbrella, should she be charged for violent behaviour?
Epic that's scary how you would let your prejudices take centre stage as a juror - and of course it doesn't make you right, just prejudiced.
And as for the Arab Spring, I guess I could have qualified my statement to "within a democracy" but I didn't realise how desperate you are to point-score...
Epic that's scary how you would let your prejudices take centre stage as a juror
how is it prejudice? It's his [b]opinion[/b]
His opinion, based on the footage, is that there was a risk of violence and the "big mans" actions were appropriate.
You're opinion is different. People are entitled to have different opinions about stuff.
cynic-al - Member
Epic that's scary how you would let your prejudices take centre stage as a juror - and of course it doesn't make you right, just prejudiced.
No, I'm stating the impression I got from watching that video based on my life experiences. Isn't that what people do on a jury?
And I did qualify it by saying
In other minds I would also take into account other evidence.unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.
I can however understand Bigman's actions... he probably just wanted to get home and the little scrote was stopping the train form going anywhere. doesn't make it right though.
*if* the lad was fair dodging the guard should of allowed the train to leave the station and radio BTP to organise a welcome party for him at the next station... this is the best way to deal with the issue and no hamper train - holding the train up and doing nothing was just inviting a have a go hero to do something
Blimey Bob, you think it's impossible for an opinion to be prejudiced?
And you, Epi, think it's impossible for an opinion based on your life experience to be prejudiced?
So in your eyes the Ku klux Clan were not prejudiced?
I give up.
As the scrote refused to get off the train, the conductor should have called forward and arranged for some transport police to meet him at the next stop, and told the scrote to remain where he was until the next stop.
If the scrote had then tried to do a runner the big man could have helped restrain him until the police got there.
cynic-al
- MemberBlimey Bob, you think it's impossible for an opinion to be prejudiced?
And you, Epi, think it's impossible for an opinion based on your life experience to be prejudiced?
So in your eyes the Ku klux Clan were not prejudiced?
I give up.
FFS
its xmas day.
its xmas day.
I'm not Christian and don't celebrate Christmas. Just another Sunday as far as I'm concerned. Are we all meant to behave differently today rather than the rest of the time, for some reason?
cynic-al - Member
I'm with TJ, elf
And Lo; the Trinity of Argue is once again complete. Pity those what challenge the Trinity, for they are forever doomed to be Wrong.
LOL Bob, no come-back, bless! Are you giving your prejudices the day off?
Like Fred and TJ, I'm a big hitter 24/7/365.
Fred...we cannot fail!
Most intelligent souls out there would say that [i]we've already won[/i], Al. 😐
Trinity of Argue? Pah. Trinity of [b]Ego[/b] I'll give you that... 😉
Thing is, the case for the big man will be won or lost on whether the force that he used to eject the scally from the train was reasonable, commensurate. It's a given that there are plenty of people who have formed the opinion that he was over the top, it is also evident that entry of people, (quite possibly more) think that the level of force used was reasonable, justified, restrained even. As TJ has pointed out, an amount of force IS allowed when removing someone who is trespassing on private property, by the owner or an agent of. Which suddenly makes what the scally has been reported for a lot more interesting.
My opinion, and it is just that, is that the big mans use of force, whilst assertive, was not excessive. If the scally had not have resisted, he would not have been injured. The big man did not strike the scally, and actually seems to catch a poorly aimed swing from the scally. If the scally had not tried to force his way back onto the train, then he would not have been put onto the ground. As soon as the scally stopped resisting/being aggressive, big man stopped the use of force. At no point did big man kick or punch the scally. When the objective of removing the scally from the carriage was achieved, big man removed himself from the confrontation.
It did look rough and ready, but big man is a banker, not a trained doorman or police officer. He appeared to do the best he could in difficult circumstances. Personally I applaud him.
Sweet baby Jesus - is this thread still running?
Who's winning?
Sweet baby Jesus - is this thread still running?
Who's winning?
No one can win. It's a lose/lose/lose situation.
My opinion, and it is just that
See, what's important here, is to analyse the situation as objectively as possible, and to consider the [b]Law[/b] above all other things.
It's important to step back and look at the whole situation without allowing yourself to be prejudiced by emotion, anger or resentment towards any actor in this case. Otherwise, your judgement is clouded and unfair.
So, instead of seeing 'some gobby scrote holding everyone up', you have to see only that Big Man used force to bring about a situation that was ultimately only for his own benefit, regardless of his later statements of trying to help others. He personally wasn't under threat from the scrote, what made him 'beleive' that anyone else was, and in what way did he feel that such actions would bring about the best outcome in regard to [b]THE LAW[/b], not his or other people's convenience.
See, that's what the legal system will be looking at, not his or others' desire to get home quickly etc.
I've had no answer to my earlier question, regarding the possible use of appropriate and reasonable force against someone using a mobile telephone whilst behind the wheel of a car; a situation I'd suspect would potentially be far more risk to the safety of other roads users (as well as the driver themselves), than some gobby scrote not having a valid ticket on a train being a risk to other passengers.
Interesting that no-one has yet come up with a reply to that hypothetical question.
Also, I pointed out earlier; what would Big Man do if a person was having a heart attack or something, and similarly holding up the train/inconveniencing people?
Or if No Pay was in fact a great big bloke bigger than himself?
See, what's important here, is to analyse the situation as objectively as possible, and to consider the Law above all other things.
Isn't that what the law is all about though, a load of legal [i]opinions[/i] from people who are trained and trusted and qualified (unlike you or I) to be consistent? And even then it's not often clear cut hence the appeals system, etc. Is it not perfectly reasonable for (unqualified) people to have perfectly reasonable but differing opinions, and for them both to be equally valid?
Isn't that what the law is all about though, a load of legal opinions from people who are trained and trusted and qualified (unlike you or I)
What about a Jury of Your Peers? How many of them will be legally 'qualified'?
Is it not perfectly reasonable for (unqualified) people to have perfectly reasonable but differing opinions, and for them both to be equally valid?
Normally I'd say yes, but the fact that [b]the Trinity has spoken in unison[/b] means that all other onions are wrong.
I'm sorry, but that's how it is I'm afraid. 😐