[Gordon EF]

archie guevara, on 21 December 2011 - 15:22, said:

As suspected we are just seeing the same arguments as the last thread. Meh.

To move it along, consider this...What Would Jesus have Done?

He would have shot lasers out his eyes and killed the lot of them.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

Bring Back Paddy Flannery, on 21 December 2011 - 14:01, said:

And quite rightly so.

'The big man' has also been correctly charged. Dunno why flinging some drunken wee student half your size off a train for swearing at a conductor makes you some sort of hard man/celeb. I'm sure the conductor was perfectly capable of doing his job himself.

But it wasn't for swearing at the conductor, it was for holding up a train. And causing train delays across the board as a result. And for not having paid for a ticket. And for not explaining the story he pulled out of his ass later about having been given two singles to the inspector, preferring instead to say he'd paid for his fucking ticket and wasn't budging, end of story. And for doing the job that the Transport Police, incompetents that they are, should have been there far sooner to do.

Other than that you're spot on.

This post has been edited by Thistle_do_nicely: 21 December 2011 - 16:00

[chuckles]

Thistle_do_nicely, on 21 December 2011 - 16:00, said:

But it wasn't for swearing at the conductor, it was for holding up a train. And causing train delays across the board as a result. And for not having paid for a ticket. And for not explaining the story he pulled out of his ass later about having been given two singles to the inspector, preferring instead to say he'd paid for his fucking ticket and wasn't budging, end of story. And for doing the job that the Transport Police, incompetents that they are, should have been there far sooner to do.

Other than that you're spot on.

" And for doing the job that the Transport Police"

Which, as the rail company indicated at the time , and no doubt the PF will soon confirm, he was neither entitled or qualified to do.

This post has been edited by chuckles: 21 December 2011 - 16:08

[MattBairn]

Thistle_do_nicely, on 21 December 2011 - 16:00, said:

But it wasn't for swearing at the conductor, it was for holding up a train. And causing train delays across the board as a result. And for not having paid for a ticket. And for not explaining the story he pulled out of his ass later about having been given two singles to the inspector, preferring instead to say he'd paid for his fucking ticket and wasn't budging, end of story. And for doing the job that the Transport Police, incompetents that they are, should have been there far sooner to do.

Other than that you're spot on.

The student didnt hold up the train, the conductor did. It was the conductors decision.

[vikingTON]

Good to see both criminals being dealt with by the justice system.

[MattBairn]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:10, said:

Good to see both criminals being dealt with by the justice system.

Pretty much how I see it.

[vikingTON]

Thistle_do_nicely, on 21 December 2011 - 16:00, said:

But it wasn't for swearing at the conductor, it was for holding up a train. And causing train delays across the board as a result. And for not having paid for a ticket. And for not explaining the story he pulled out of his ass later about having been given two singles to the inspector, preferring instead to say he'd paid for his fucking ticket and wasn't budging, end of story. And for doing the job that the Transport Police, incompetents that they are, should have been there far sooner to do.

Other than that you're spot on.

I'm sure the 'but he was causing train delays across the board!' reason will stand up to scrutiny in court.


Guess he has nothing to worry about then, right?

This post has been edited by vikingTON: 21 December 2011 - 16:12

[Ad Lib]

 assault.png (279.03K)
Number of downloads: 9

[T_S_A_R]

the only winners here are lawyers. there is no injury to any party here and no one was aggreived enough to complain prior to the media attention. the taxpayer is going to spend a shit load of money telling two adults they were naughty wee boys and handing them a punishment who's only effect is to hinder their (and therefore in a small way the countries) future economic prospects.

when you ask a lawyer if something go to court you are effectively asking them should there be more work for people of your proffesion.

it's a self perpetuating industry, it's like asking the head of the navy if we need more ships.

[Nizzy]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:11, said:

Guess he has nothing to worry about then, right?

Hopefully not.

I don't think it's been widely reported, but apparently ScotRail has CCTV footage that shows the fare dodger attempting to trip the conductor - the act which led to the confrontation.

"Strong oppressing the weak"
"disproportionate act"

Seems like some of the accusations levelled at Mr Pollock can be applied to our picaresque hero, Mr Main.

[hamish_ict]

chico, on 21 December 2011 - 15:30, said:

Throwing a drunk abusive fare dodging student off a train is a public minded act.

Charging a good samaratian with assault will mean that no one will now lift a finger on a bus or train and anti social behaviour will get worse.

Have to agree with Chico on this. It will put people off doing similar acts, and gives neddy wee fuckers a carte blanche to sit on the train knowing nobody will put them off (unless the police are called)

[Nizzy]

Ad Lib, on 21 December 2011 - 16:18, said:

...

"Let me see your cum face...urgh...that's a cum face..."

[Ad Lib]

Nizzy, on 21 December 2011 - 16:21, said:

Hopefully not.

I don't think it's been widely reported, but apparently ScotRail has CCTV footage that shows the fare dodger attempting to trip the conductor - the act which led to the confrontation.

"Strong oppressing the weak"
"disproportionate act"

Seems like some of the accusations levelled at Mr Pollock can be applied to our picaresque hero, Mr Main.

Total non-sequitur. The mere fact as to who initiates the confrontation has no bearing on whether or not an assault charge can be levied.

[Nizzy]

Ad Lib, on 21 December 2011 - 16:24, said:

Total non-sequitur. The mere fact as to who initiates the confrontation has no bearing on whether or not an assault charge can be levied.

I'm not talking about the merits of the assault charge - I'll leave that to the Rumpoles in training - rather highlighting that more and more of Mr Main's story appears to be unravelling.

Now fuck off, son.

This post has been edited by Nizzy: 21 December 2011 - 16:31

[thisal]

Ad Lib, on 21 December 2011 - 16:18, said:

assault.png

We'll see. Innocent till proven guilty. So put your pitchfork down and go and sit the f**k down son.

[forameus]

Sad day really. This isn't taking a side in terms of who was in the right, or wrong, as you can easily argue (as we all have) that both sides are in the wrong. The thing that annoys me is that ...
1) People fare dodge fairly regularly I'm sure. Some get caught, some don't. The ones that do probably either pay the fare, leave the train when requested, or get away with it thanks to a conductor who can't be arsed to do his job. Bottom line, it happens, and no-one hears about it.
2) People probably commit more flagrant acts of assault and don't get punished. It could probably be argued that guy did commit assault, but I think it was made to look a lot worse than it was.
3) As a combination of 1 and 2, it seems as though now that the case is in the public eye, both men will have some kind of punishment. But do you know who won't? The guy who filmed it, and brought it into the public eye in the first place. What did he get? A shot on BBC News. f**k me.

[young buck]

videoing strangers for gratiication is surely some sort of violation. See also at concerts, at football games, at parties. put yer phucking fones in yer sky rockets ya utter wallopers. Beadles got a lot to answer for

[Tamdunk]

I was going through a crappy work security/fair use presentation the other day and there was a bit on theft of time. I was thinking, how can this possibly be a crime, how do you steal time? So maybe if the train was being held up cos the wee ned wasn't getting off, big man could just say he was protecting his time from being stolen by said bam's antics.

Pretty sure that would hold up in a court of law.....

[MattBairn]

Whats with all the abuse for Ad Lib?

He's entitled to his opinion.

[vikingTON]

forameus, on 21 December 2011 - 16:30, said:

3) As a combination of 1 and 2, it seems as though now that the case is in the public eye, both men will have some kind of punishment. But do you know who won't? The guy who filmed it, and brought it into the public eye in the first place. What did he get? A shot on BBC News. f**k me.

Probably because he didn't commit a crime.

[Ad Lib]

Nizzy, on 21 December 2011 - 16:26, said:

I'm not talking about the merits of the assault charge - I'll leave that to the Rumpoles in training - rather highlighting that more and more of Mr Main's story appears to be unravelling.

Now fuck off, son.

 notonefuck.png (276.51K)
Number of downloads: 0

thisal, on 21 December 2011 - 16:29, said:

We'll see. Innocent till proven guilty. So put your pitchfork down and go and sit the f**k down son.

I'm not the court. I don't need to go through procedure to express internet triumphalism.

[Ad Lib]

MattBairn, on 21 December 2011 - 16:36, said:

Whats with all the abuse for Ad Lib?

He's entitled to his opinion.

I dared to express the view that "the Big Man" committed an assault, to much consternation among the crypto-authoritarian would-be have-a-go heroes on the site. Evidently the Procurator Fiscal thinks that I'm right. This is most pleasing.

[Nizzy]

MattBairn, on 21 December 2011 - 16:36, said:

Whats with all the abuse for Ad Lib?

He's entitled to his opinion.

It's due to the manner in which he dismissed a poster on another thread. One who I'm guessing he presumed had no knowledge of law, but one who put up a hell of an argument.

[Thundermonkey]

Matt - folk get abused on here all the time for expressing their opinion. Like when you claim Zidane>Maradona

Charging Alan Pollock with assault is bullshit.

[Nizzy]

Ad Lib, on 21 December 2011 - 16:41, said:

I dared to express the view that "the Big Man" committed an assault, to much consternation among the crypto-authoritarian would-be have-a-go heroes on the site. Evidently the Procurator Fiscal thinks that I'm right. This is most pleasing.

Wrong. It's because you acted the complete cunt with someone you quite obviously believed was lacking the mental fortitude to take you on. Craven acceptance seeker to internet bully in the space of a few years. It's some turnaround.