[Closed] is the world MAD?? well scotland at least

In a sense the law is just opinions...but they are the only opinions that matter, so that analysis is a bit pointless.

No one has yet satisfied me that it was necessary to eject no pay.

No one has yet satisfied me that it was necessary to eject no pay.

In my opinion that's conclusive, and lent additional weight by the fact that the scally has been reported to the PF for trespass.

...but they are the only opinions that matter, so that analysis is a bit pointless.

In a sense the law is just opinions...but they are the only opinions that matter, so that analysis is a bit pointless.

So when homosexuality was illegal and it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women or different ethnic groups then they were the only opinons that mattered?

is the world MAD?? YES!!

For newcomers to this thread, I’ve attempted a summary.

Posters who think that the Big Man’s actions to be applauded (6):
Deus; Epicyclo; Motivforce; thebikechain; BoardinBob; FalkirkMark.

Big Man’s actions understandable / not excessive (but not necessarily to be condoned) (7):
D0nk; Ourmaninthenorth; Passtherizla; Cheersdrive; Davidrussell; User-removed; V8ninety.

Those who feel the Big Man’s actions to be OTT (9):
tragically1969; TJ; Cynic-al; Elf; Woody2000; Mattoutandabout; Jimbobrighton; Realman; Junkyard; seosamh77; gsp1984; feenster.

Interested in facts, to a greater extent than opinions (4):
poly; Deadlydarcy; thegreatape; Wallace1492.

Miscellaneous observations:
1. Any truly objective analysis of any situation will find you in agreement with Elf
2. It is possible to talk cynic-al around to your viewpoint, when it differs from his (no, really it is)
3. Dog owners not controlling their dogs are asking for it
4. …As are people who park illegally,
5. …jump red lights…
6. …incorrectly identify bullet points…
7. …and/or video stuff in public on their iPhones

Thanks for the summary overthehill,you should do this on all threads that run for more than 3 pages save me having to read the same old entrenched hackneyed tosh from the same old posters who are all so clearly right all the time .
BTW -My miscellaneous observation on this, like so many current affairs things discussed on here ,is that the legal professionals are laughing all the way to the bank as usual while the poor taxpayer picks up the bill. We pay them a fortune to draw up the law then another to find the loopholes and tear it apart.

thanks nick, it's a pleasure to serve...

1. Any truly objective analysis of any situation will find you in agreement with Elf

This is actually true. 🙂

v8 if you had a clue about law you would realise your analysis about big man being an agent is incorrect.

MY point about opinions to matter meant that the law is fixed and as such is the distillation of lawyers (mostly judges) opinions-those being the ones that matter if you are arguing a case. That's fundamental to common law.

Oh and who talked me round to their view?

v8 if you had a clue about law you would realise your analysis about big man being an agent is incorrect.

I didn't say that the big man was an agent of the owner though, I said the conductor was, and that he gave permission to the big man to act on his behalf. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that, I'm writing covertly, so as not to upset the inlaws...

Happy Christmas, by the way! Xxx

Exactly, Al, exactly.

Elf, oh how I tremble before the mighty STW triumvirate, please allow me to blow some more smoke up your collective arse's. On the other hand please remove your pontificating countenance from my presence forthwith you melodramatic pedantic malodorous pariah. 😈
Small pond, [u]Small[/u] fish 😉
All the best for the New Year, me old china.

I think I may have had my irony settings up a little high on my earlier post.

Elf, do you [u]really[/u] think any position that you hold has a monopoly on objectivity? That's what I was driving at

V8 i know, its still guff though...and i think you/someone mentioned trespass earlier? More guff - not a crime in Scotland, nor a civil claim, only the latter in Englandshire...and as for expressing opinions on law...well up to you...99% of the internet does appear to be guff...

Inbred...do you think Fred was being serious? Some of you guys need to take us less seriously.

Overthehill...I'm quite happy not to be persauded that every mouthy teenager is violent, thank you very much.

Elf, do you really think any position that you hold has a monopoly on objectivity?

Yes.

He's right you know.

cynic-al - Member
i think you/someone mentioned trespass earlier? More guff - not a crime in Scotland, nor a civil claim,

I was pretty sure that trespass was still an offence in Scotland if it involved MOD land or railway land.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101 ]

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

He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.

Interesting....if a narrow exclusion 😀

Oh and LOL at the tag...as if I care, saddo!

Are you into saddo-masochism, Al?

cynic-al
 - Member

v8 if you had a clue about law

LOL

V8 i know, its still guff though...and i think you/someone mentioned trespass earlier? More guff - not a crime in Scotland, nor a civil claim, only the latter in Englandshire...and as for expressing opinions on law...well up to you...99% of the internet does appear to be guff...

I wasn't expressing opinions on the law as such, more the general issues surrounding the event. As for the trespass thing, it's not guff, it's what he's been reported for, feel free to check if you like. Mind you, you are right about the 99% thing, and Ole Elf himself personally sees to [b]at least[/b] 75% of that personally!

Edit; weird timing Bob... lol at me or Al?

Al

Why are you having a pop at Al? Do you actually know what his profession is?

Trust me; the LOL's on you... 😆

As for having a pop at me; it just shows you know I'm right, are angry and frustrated, and need to displace some of that anger by launching ad hominem attacks over tinternet. Because that's about all you've got left.

Deep down, you know the Trinity is Right, and there's nothing you can do or say about it.

It's probbly easier to just accept it, unclench and go about your daily life now.

eh? who's popping at who? Whatcha on about?

What am I on about? Your comments, which you seem to have forgotten rather quickly.

Mind you, you are right about the 99% thing, and Ole Elf himself personally sees to at least 75% of that personally!

If you actually read my input carefully, you would discover that it's all bin carefully thought through and with great consideration for the Law, unlike a lot of the other silliness on here, and in fact is simply stating the truth.

Why not have a go at answering one of my questions, seeing as no-one else has bin able to? I'd be inertested to see what you thought.

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?

Why are you having a pop at Al? Do you actually know what his profession is?

I couldnt give a toss but im assuming he's a lawyer.

The important thing is I'm only stating my opinion.

Al has stated his opinion then tried to introduce facts, which turned out to be bullshit. That's worth a LOL. if hes a lawyer and he got the law wrong, here's another LOL

Sure I got the trespass law bit wrong - in general (in the loose sense, not teh strict mathematical sense) there is no delict/tort of trespass in Scotland and no crime of such in UK - bar these very narrow statutory circumstances.

Not the first time I've got it wonrg nor admitted to it.

Laugh all you like Bob, it appears to be all you have, given the prejudice and nonsense you've posted to date...

Mind you, you are right about the 99% (of the internet seems to be guff) thing,and Ole Elf himself personally sees to at least 75% of that personally!

If you take that as a pop, Mssr Elf, then I suggest that it's you that needs to 'unclench' not me. it was a light hearted, tongue in cheek comment, albeit one that probably represents a fair bit of commonly held opinion on here. (people do think you go on a bit, don't they?)I do read your input carefully and I find it incredible how much of your opinion you dress up as fact. it[i]is[/i] carefully thought out for the most part though, I'll give you that...

Al's a lawyer? should know better then, eh?

Edit, fair play for admitting it though.

Edit 2; Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in answering your rambling, convenient example question. Elf, sorry.

Cynic-al pictured yesterday

[img] [/IMG]

Al has stated his opinion then tried to introduce facts, which turned out to be bullshit. That's worth a LOL. if hes a lawyer and he got the law wrong, here's another LOL

All he's done is make a slight technical mistake, which considering this is only tinternet and not a courtroom, is not something I'd be worried about. His other comments carry more weight than your onions though, as they are in fact based on Law and not just personal prejudiced onion.

Notice how this tends to stray away from Big Man's 'crimes', and onto No Pay's transgressions? Is that cos you know, ultimately, that Big Man does in fact have to answer for his actions? Are you saying that charging him with an offence is wrong, then?

What you've done, is fallen into the common trap of imagining the Law supports your own onions, rather than taking a step back and being more objective.

As much as I can understand the depth of public sympathy for Big Man, and the support for his actions, I feel that the application of Law must override any personal onions and prejudices in order that true Justice is served.

Otherwise we might as well have a free for all...

Tell you what

if big man's convicted I'll donate £20 to a charity of your choice.

If you take that as a pop, Mssr Elf, then I suggest that it's you that needs to 'unclench' not me. it was a light hearted, tongue in cheek comment, albeit one that probably represents a fair bit of commonly held opinion on here. (people do think you go on a bit, don't they?)I do read your input carefully and I find it incredible how much of your opinion you dress up as fact.

I was not clenched at all. In fact I've just had a nice poo thank you very much. 😀

My onions are often actually facts. As in this case. I said from the beginning, that Big Man was very possibly likely to have committed an assault by using a disproportionate amount of force. Lo and behold, he's bin charged with the very crime I stated he had possibly committed.

Now, the courts will be presented with a lot more evidence than any of us have seen, and hopefully Justice will be served.

My onions are often actually facts.

See, this is your main problem, you [i]really[/i] believe this to be the case, your ego won't allow you to consider the possibility that anyone elses onions are as important as yours. But thats just you, and I guess you're loved for your faults... 😉

As for the rest of your post, well, yep that pretty much sums up what I think too, ie that the only actual point of discussion is whether the level of force used was reasonable, and that will be decided by a court, or by the PF. I said words to that effect [i]pages[/i](ok, apage) ago, but apparently it was 'guff' when i said it, lol x

Edit; look here it is:

V8ninety - member
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 (trespass on railway property) a lot more interesting.

See, this is your main problem

It's not actually a 'problem'; I am quite happy and content being right. 🙂

Oh I [i]see[/i]; a problem for [i]others[/i]. Sorry, din't see that, very selfish of me. 😳

(Elfinsafety) It's not actually a 'problem'; I am quite happy and content being right.

FFS, would someone PLEASE reel in the effiner?
He's been played for far to long now!
Time to reel him in and be chapped on the head.

BoardinBob - Member

Tell you what

if big man's convicted I'll donate £20 to a charity of your choice.

My favourite charity fights against prejudice, small mindedness and red tolps like the Daily Mail 😎

FFS, would someone PLEASE reel in the effiner?

What on Earth are you wibbling on about? Do you even know [i]yourself[/i]? 😕

Which suddenly makes what the scally has been reported for (trespass on railway property) a lot more interesting.

In what way? The assault charge will be dealt with on it's own merits; what No Pay may or may not be charged with has absolutely no bearing on this, as it's a completely separate issue. The only thing that is at all relevant in this case, is wether or not Big Man did indeed act with appropriate and reasonable force in order to stop/prevent a crime/protect the safety of others.

Just watched the vid again; he grabs a seated person who up until that point does not in any way appear to have made any threatening gestures whatsoever, bar a few arsey sweary comments, from behind then really quite roughly throws him off the train. Then seems to roughly shove No Pay as he attempts to get back on. In fact, another bloke appears to tell Big Man to back off or something, sort of intervenes.

I'm still really struggling to see what threat, if any, No Pay offers. I've seen a fair bit of violence and aggression in me time, and he really does not in any way strike me as someone who constitutes a threat serious enough to warrant being roughly manhandled off a train then thrown to the ground. He's a scrawny lad with no real fight in him, that much is true.

As for Cameraman; seems that he unwittingly may well have been the catalyst that helped create the situation as we know see it; had he not filmed everything, I very much doubt any action wooduv bin taken or considered against anyone. Ironic, that he may well have brought about the demise of Big Man, and have provided evidence which could help convict the very person he admired....

The 'big man' was putting other passengers in danger. The wee guy could easily have pulled out a knife and started plunging away.

Another scenario, if it had been someone more his same size, well I doubt the other passengers would have been clapping so much if it was a 20 stone hefter sitting there and the resulting scrap saw them fly about the seats.(Though I suspect the 'big man' wouldn't have been so brave).

In short, it was dangerous what happened, the big man should be charged with taking liberties and unprovoked assault(which it clearly was, it was the BTPs responsibility to eject the passenger, it had nothing to do with him). And the ticket inspector should be punted for allowing it all to happen and going along with it(and indeed causing the situation). Surely there are procedures in place for dealing with awkward customers? I doubt that involves getting hauners from the nearest fat ****.

All of this is true imo, regardless of the right or wrongs of the wee guy.

Amen to that.

😆

The 'big man' was putting other passengers in danger. The wee guy could easily have pulled out a knife and started plunging away.

Hope you're not on the jury with rationale like that.
The wee guy pulls a knife and starts plunging away and it's the big guy's fault-classic!

I doubt that involves getting hauners from the nearest fat ****.

'Hauners'? I do not understaynd. 😐

But I mostly agree with what you're saying there.

I bet Big Man wishes he'd done nowt, now. Had the guard just gone 'sod this for a laugh', called the bizzies, and allowed the train to move off, then none of this silliness wooduv happened.

Mind you, we'd have one less good argument on STW.

Sigh....

Hauners'? I do not understaynd

Hauners

A colloquial Scottish term meaning to give someone a hand (haun)

As in

"Fuxake, I'm getting battered, geez hauners"

Ah right, cheers.

There;' I've learned a bit of Scottish today. 🙂

The wee guy pulls a knife and starts plunging away and it's the big guy's fault-classic!

I'm wondering how much more than the five pound fare this is all going to cost ScotRail, not to mention the public cost of all the legal shenanigans...