Epic that’s scary how you would let your prejudices take centre stage as a juror

how is it prejudice? It’s his opinion

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

unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary.

In other minds I would also take into account other evidence.

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
 – Member

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.

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 we’ve already won, Al. 😐

Trinity of Argue? Pah. Trinity of Ego 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 Law 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 THE LAW, 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 opinions 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 the Trinity has spoken in unison means that all other onions are wrong.

I’m sorry, but that’s how it is I’m afraid. 😐

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.

Fair enough, but it’s not you (or me) that has to be convinced. I would say that the right to eject a trespasser from private property using appropriate force has that one covered, that the conductor was ordering the scally ‘off’, and that the big man asked the conductor (as an agent of the owner) if he would like assistance in ejecting the scally, to which he was answered yes.

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.

Proper lol. Wouldn’t it be lovely if it were that simple? We could collectively save billions on expensive lawyers, all billing hundreds an hour to analyse and offer differing views on points of law…

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 don’t profess to have more than an incidental knowledge of the law, I am merely expressing my thoughts and opinion on the matter, as is always interesting to do when it differs from someone else’s.

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, Small 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 really 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.

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 at least 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?