[jamamafegan4]

Disgraceful decision to charge him IMO. They should have just left it the way things were. The wee fanny was rightly kicked off the train, the passengers were happy - move the f**k on.

[Ad Lib]

Nizzy, on 21 December 2011 - 16:42, said:

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.

But who, in the opinion of the Procurator Fiscal, is wrong. One eagerly anticipates the judicial installment of the legal response to this thug.

[vikingTON]

jamamafegan4, on 21 December 2011 - 16:45, said:

Disgraceful decision to charge him IMO. They should have just left it the way things were. The wee fanny was rightly kicked off the train, the passengers were happy - move the f**k on.

Well so long as the passengers were happy then I guess we should just throw out all the laws of the land then.

[xbl]

DA Baracus, on 21 December 2011 - 14:07, said:

No. It isn't.

Oh it really is. Its embarrassing. Having a spine or courage is clearly a bad thing in the eyes of many...


...maybe thats why we're not an independent country yet? Lack of courage and bravery. The craven scotch.

[Ad Lib]

Nizzy, on 21 December 2011 - 16:45, said:

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.

No. The man asked a loaded question, got an answer which was actually correct (at least in the eyes of the Procurator Fiscal as it has subsequently emerged) and was told to sit the f**k down for his troubles.

Oh and "acceptance seeker"? "Internet bully"? Now who's laying on the melodrama?

[Nizzy]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:47, said:

Well so long as the passengers were happy then I guess we should just throw out all the laws of the land then.

I propose an amendment to that - the pie and bovril users were happy. I can then shoot you at the Dundee/Morton match.

[Unitedlad]

Absolute disgrace he is being charged, an example of this pansy PC-gone-mad world we live in, and it will no doubt be at significant cost to the taxpayer for something that doesn't need to go to court. Christ, I used to see much worse every single day in the school playground!

I really hope that anyone who criticised the actions of the Big Man finds themselves in a similar situation to the mother in the video with her very young children and this little student pr1ick is sitting swearing in full voice. Then we'd see if you were glad that someone came along and chucked him off the train. The fact the other passengers clapped the guy shows how much of a relief it was to them, and they could get on with their journey. Sure, the conductor could have dealt with it himself, but that would have meant sitting at the station until the BTP turned up (they could have been as far away as Edinburgh) - causing significant to delay to not only that service, but others on the same line.

Agree with the comment about the decision to charge the 'Big Man' with assault as carte blanche for these little neds who seem to be on every train at night

[jamamafegan4]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:47, said:

Well so long as the passengers were happy then I guess we should just throw out all the laws of the land then.

Who wasn't happy then? The wee fanny? f**k him, he got what he deserved. What about the law, were they happy? Evidently not. This is what's wrong. Didn't need to get involved, as I said, they should have forgotten about it and moved on.

[vikingTON]

Unitedlad, on 21 December 2011 - 16:51, said:

Absolute disgrace he is being charged, an example of this pansy PC-gone-mad world we live in, and it will no doubt be at significant cost to the taxpayer for something that doesn't need to go to court. Christ, I used to see much worse every single day in the school playground!

I really hope that anyone who criticised the actions of the Big Man finds themselves in a similar situation to the mother in the video with her very young children and this little student pr1ick is sitting swearing in full voice. Then we'd see if you were glad that someone came along and chucked him off the train. The fact the other passengers clapped the guy shows how much of a relief it was to them, and they could get on with their journey. Sure, the conductor could have dealt with it himself, but that would have meant sitting at the station until the BTP turned up (they could have been as far away as Edinburgh) - causing significant to delay to not only that service, but others on the same line.

Agree with the comment about the decision to charge the 'Big Man' with assault as carte blanche for these little neds who seem to be on every train at night

Copy and pasting straight from the Daily Mail comments section isn't going to wash here.

[Unitedlad]

In addition, I'm sure I read in the paper yesterday that what was on film wasn't all that happened on the journey, apparently the conductor had already been asking the guy for his ticket and went away, and that the ned tried to trip him up with his leg as well.

Either way, seeing Sam Main looking all innocent and victimised in the papers was absolutely embarrassing, although judging by his Facebook he's loving all the attention. He wasn't the hard man when he was landing on the station platform face first.

[vikingTON]

jamamafegan4, on 21 December 2011 - 16:51, said:

Didn't need to get involved, as I said, they should have forgotten about it and moved on.

Erm yes they did. A complaint was made about the completely unauthorised use of force to eject someone from a train, by a complete nobody.

If that happened to you on a train tomorrow that is against the law, regardless of whether you were arguing with the conductor or singing Steps' Greatest hits at the other end of the carriage. I can't see why anyone would be surprised by the offender being charged and we'll see how the court views it.

[MattBairn]

Thundermonkey, on 21 December 2011 - 16:43, said:

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

LoL. Dont hate me coz Im awesome

Thundermonkey, on 21 December 2011 - 16:43, said:

Charging Alan Pollock with assault is bullshit.

In your opinion.

Devils advocate here...

Some people may feel that he had absolutely no right to get involved.
It was the conductor who decided to hold up the train so would it have been OK for him to throw the conductor to the ground?

Its been mentioned that the conductor deliberately held up the train so the other passengers would get annoyed and perhaps embarrass the student into leaving the train. It could be argued that the conductor should had allowed the train to carry on, contacted the Transport Police to meet the passenger at the next station and let them deal with it there.

Just because the conductor was holding the train up, it didn't give the 'big man' the right to manhandle the student off the train.

[MattBairn]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:55, said:

Erm yes they did. A complaint was made about the completely unauthorised use of force to eject someone from a train, by a complete nobody.

If that happened to you on a train tomorrow that is against the law, regardless of whether you were arguing with the conductor or singing Steps' Greatest hits at the other end of the carriage. I can't see why anyone would be surprised by the offender being charged and we'll see how the court views it.

This is exactly the point. The guy had no right whatsoever to get involved.

[vikingTON]

Nizzy, on 21 December 2011 - 16:50, said:

I propose an amendment to that - the pie and bovril users were happy. I can then shoot you at the Dundee/Morton match.

Depends Nizzy, are you confident of bringing a bigger gun than me to the show? Do you feel lucky enough in a three-second duel?

[MattBairn]

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 16:48, said:

Oh it really is. Its embarrassing. Having a spine or courage is clearly a bad thing in the eyes of many...

Courage? The 'big man' was about 3 times the size of the student. No courage whatsoever required from him.

[xbl]

MattBairn, on 21 December 2011 - 17:00, said:

Courage? The 'big man' was about 3 times the size of the student. No courage whatsoever required from him.

Yes, but many people, even in situations like that (as we saw on the craven scotch embarrassment thread) would still avert their eyes and not do anything. It takes courage to actually stand up for yourself and others, regardless of size. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people (regardless of size) would not have had the courage to stand up for decency. So yes, I think it takes courage. Not only that, but now he's being punished for it. Disgusting.

And he had every right to get involved. It was his train journey that was being ruined. I mean can you believe that one solution on the other thread was just to let people travel for free if they want? Have you ever heard such nonsense? "You won't pay, no charge for you then".

[vikingTON]

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 17:04, said:

I mean can you believe that one solution on the other thread was just to let people travel for free if they want?

I believe that 'one solution' on your side was to string fare-dodgers up and be done with them.

I mean can you believe that? Taking the most ridiculous extreme of an argument and peddling it as the mainstream alternative? Have you ever heard such dishonest nonsense being peddled in an argument in all your life?

[Nizzy]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 16:57, said:

Depends Nizzy, are you confident of bringing a bigger gun than me to the show? Do you feel lucky enough in a three-second duel?

I'll shoot you on the count of two.

[vikingTON]

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 17:04, said:

And he had every right to get involved. It was his train journey that was being ruined.

Interesting theory.

My train journey gets ruined all the time by the incompetence of First Scotrail. I guess that gives me legal immunity to evict all their employees from their headquarters and from the trains as and when I feel like it?

[xbl]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 17:07, said:

I believe that 'one solution' on your side was to string fare-dodgers up and be done with them.

I mean can you believe that? Taking the most ridiculous extreme of an argument and peddling it as the mainstream alternative? Have you ever heard such dishonest nonsense being peddled in an argument in all your life?

I agree, its absolutely absurd. And I'll happily acknowledge it as such. Although I tell you what, they wouldn't fare dodge again, so in effect it will at least be a long term solution. You can't say that about the other extreme.

[rajpelt]

Think this decision proves the theory that if you are going to assault someone, then best to do it properly.

[xbl]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 17:08, said:

Interesting theory.

My train journey gets ruined all the time by the incompetence of First Scotrail. I guess that gives me legal immunity to evict all their employees from their headquarters and from the trains as and when I feel like it?

No. I can't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. Show your working.

[MattBairn]

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 17:04, said:

Yes, but many people, even in situations like that (as we saw on the craven scotch embarrassment thread) would still avert their eyes and not do anything. It takes courage to actually stand up for yourself and others, regardless of size. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people (regardless of size) would not have had the courage to stand up for decency. So yes, I think it takes courage. Not only that, but now he's being punished for it. Disgusting.

And he had every right to get involved. It was his train journey that was being ruined. I mean can you believe that one solution on the other thread was just to let people travel for free if they want? Have you ever heard such nonsense? "You won't pay, no charge for you then".

Whilst I take your point about courage in general, in this case there was no bravery im my opinion and doing nothing was exactly what he should have done in this situation.
At most maybe talking to the guy and try to embarrass him into leaving the train.

The conductor was the person stopping the train, no-one else.
Far from allowing him to travel for nothing, the conductor should have contacted the Transport Police to collect the student at the next station and allowed the train to carry on.

[vikingTON]

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 17:10, said:

No. I can't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. Show your working.

Quite straightforward really, here's your justification:

xbl, on 21 December 2011 - 17:04, said:

And he had every right to get involved. It was his train journey that was being ruined.

Two weeks ago my train journey was ruined because First Scotrail couldn't run a service in a little bit of cold weather (in December, I know). I presume then that as it was my journey being ruined that I also should have every right to set about someone at First Scotrail until the problem goes away.

Well imagine my shock then if I were prosecuted for my illegal actions. Disgusted of Arbroath.

This post has been edited by vikingTON: 21 December 2011 - 17:14

[MattBairn]

vikingTON, on 21 December 2011 - 17:13, said:

Quite straightforward really, here's your justification:




Two weeks ago my train journey was ruined because First Scotrail couldn't run a service in a little bit of cold weather (in December, I know). I presume then that as it was my journey being ruined that I also should have every right to set about someone at First Scotrail until the problem goes away.

Well imagine my shock then if I were prosecuted for my illegal actions. Disgusted of Arbroath.

And given the fact that it was the conductor who was holding up the train (not the student), perhaps he should have knocked the conductor out?