Board logo

The Big Man Is Charged!
scootz - 21/12/11 at 04:47 PM

How feckin predictable!!!

Linky

Iaing - 21/12/11 at 05:06 PM

Unbelievable, what is the world coming to!! The little scrote deserved everything he got!

mistergrumpy - 21/12/11 at 05:08 PM

Lawful eviction! I hope it gets thrown out of court!

spiderman - 21/12/11 at 05:11 PM

Everything in this country seems to be arse about face these days. Those who want to protect their own properties/rights are the ones prosecuted and the scum get let off only to sue those who were in the right.
I just hope my plans to move to N.Z. come off and I can leave all this madness behind

[Edited on 21/12/11 by spiderman]

stevec - 21/12/11 at 05:12 PM

I had a feeling that would happen, I hope he gets off with it.

Steve

scootz - 21/12/11 at 05:21 PM

Classic modern issue of passing the buck!

The police top-bods will have been terrified of criticism for knocking it on the head early doors, so they've instructed that it be played by the book and referred it to the courts.

He'll likely be found guilty, but hopefully the Sheriff will have a bit of gumption and admonish him!

T66 - 21/12/11 at 05:47 PM

Like we have all discussed before Scott - anyone in a position to pull the plug wont, and will let it go to court to make the magistrate/Judge ( Or Procurator Fiscal) to discontinue the case.


He will elect for trial at the crown court, and get off with it - costing the taxpayer at least £100k



I need to move to Spain , what a load of shite

mccsp - 21/12/11 at 06:19 PM

The response of the guy thrown of the train in the video didn't help him! But he claimed to have bought I return ticket and some how ended up with two one way tickets, so maybe he didn't deserve to get thrown off, maybe not!

I agree with most the comments, but what if it was a genuine mistake and he was assaulted?

JoelP - 21/12/11 at 07:12 PM

To play devils advocate, the big guy had no legal right to manhandle anyone, and he used excessive force by throwing him onto the platform. Prosecution was always going to happen. You could argue it is also in the public interest, to discourage vigilantism.

However, el scrote did need to be removed from the train, both due to his lack of a ticket and his poor manners. However, the rail company should have had effective proceedures in place for this scenario, to promptly get the train moving. They should have arranged to have police meet at the next station, and our legal system should have been set up that the scrote got a prompt conviction for public disorder offenses.

Its always going to be the case though that fare dodging and swearing are less serious offenses than assaulting someone.

oldtimer - 21/12/11 at 07:48 PM

I thought the government didn't want people to walk away from trouble? He is firmly in the have-a-go-hero department in my book. He even asked the guard if he wanted him off and the guard said yes....

bi22le - 21/12/11 at 07:50 PM

I got punched in the face about 3 weeks ago during a road rage incident that i did nothing wrong in. the police are yet to even take a statement from me!

It shows how much power the media have over our police force.

bobinspain - 21/12/11 at 08:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
To play devils advocate, the big guy had no legal right to manhandle anyone, and he used excessive force by throwing him onto the platform. Prosecution was always going to happen. You could argue it is also in the public interest, to discourage vigilantism.

However, el scrote did need to be removed from the train, both due to his lack of a ticket and his poor manners. However, the rail company should have had effective proceedures in place for this scenario, to promptly get the train moving. They should have arranged to have police meet at the next station, and our legal system should have been set up that the scrote got a prompt conviction for public disorder offenses.

Its always going to be the case though that fare dodging and swearing are less serious offenses than assaulting someone.




You appear not to be playing devil's advocate, but merely siding with the strict legal interpretation of the law in finding the perpetrator of the original offence the wronged party here.

In a perfect world, laddo with the invalid ticket would have behaved correctly, apologised for his error and agreed to make good the matter at the first opportunity. That would have been the end of it, but it wasn't because the lad got verbally aggressive and swore at the ticket inspector and was beligerent and rude on a crowdwd train with children present. I heard no attempt by the student to settle things amicably, nor was any apology proffered.

Now, here's where really take issue with your statement, 'you could argue it is also in the public interest to discourage vigilantism.' no you couldn't. Vigilantism is defined as when the public take the law into their own hands. The action of the big man was by the public against one man--the wrongdoer. Vigilantism occurs when individuals are so hosed-off with a system that doesn't work, that they take matters into their own hands.

You say 'they should have arranged to have police meet at the next station'------- thereby preventing the ticket inspector from doing his job and tying up two policemen (they're too frightened to work singly) for a misdemeanour charge of a few pounds. So three public servants are on stanby on the off-chance a drunken student lout gets lippy on a train? That's what you appear to be advocating.

It's the sandal-wearing pseudo liberal, human-rights-spouting idiots who have got us into this mess. We live in a country unrecognisible from the one I grew up in. I grew up to respect others, especially my elders. I practised courtesy and manners and respect, and yes, summary justice had its place too. A well placed clip round the ear or a whack with a cane when necessary at school did children far more good than it ever did harm.

I'd welcome thousands like the big man in my society and I'd publicly flog morons like the fare dodging, miscreant student (and his father who sided with him when he was patently in the wrong).

T66 - 21/12/11 at 09:20 PM

To add another twist - If the police had been called, and they laid hands on this idiot to acheive the same result, then they too in this Liberal , museli eating, hairy toed sandal wearing country, would also be charged with an assault.


Accountability has been taken to extreme lengths in this country, where everyones rights are paramount, however the vast majority of the passengers on that train who were inconvenienced by this idiot, are not even a consideration.


The UK is broken, because everyone in authority, actually does not have any authority anymore, this is down to the Liberal sandal wearers completely undermining that authority. Nothing wrong with a level of accountability, but what the UK has evolved into is reams of people not making decisions anymore.

If I choose to ring for an ambulance every night of the week, because I am drunk, the ambulance service will send an ambulance every night, I use this as an example of what the UK has become.


Nobody says "NO" anymore ...

austin man - 21/12/11 at 09:31 PM

Said scroat should have had a clip round the ear as was done in my youth then chucked off the train and clipped again. All the passengers shoul claim against him for his vulgar language as there where also young children on the train. No money you aint coming on.

A high percentage of todays youth have no respect for anything which in my opinion is one of the reasons the country is in the state it is. To many cheeky kids and too many do gooders.

I think we should all foster either a cheeky kid or a do gooder and hope that we hit them with all four cans

gottabedone - 21/12/11 at 09:34 PM

One of Mr Cameron's latest vote winners was to advocate the general public not running away - this is hardly going to instill confidence in the law abiding public to stick up for themselves.
How many times have we seen a "Mr Big" get knifed or shot for helping out - it took guts for the guy to stand up in the first place and all that our soft as sh1te country can to to thank him is make a criminal out of him

I'd chip into the pot to pay the bloke's fine!


Steve

Ninehigh - 21/12/11 at 09:48 PM

quote:
Originally posted by T66
Nobody says "NO" anymore ...


True, even I rarely say no.. I do say "get f**ked" a lot though

JoelP - 21/12/11 at 09:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bobinspain
Now, here's where really take issue with your statement, 'you could argue it is also in the public interest to discourage vigilantism.' no you couldn't. Vigilantism is defined as when the public take the law into their own hands. The action of the big man was by the public against one man--the wrongdoer. Vigilantism occurs when individuals are so hosed-off with a system that doesn't work, that they take matters into their own hands.



So judge and jury is unnecessary in your perfect society? You think its ok when the public take the law into their own hands? Do you have any idea how ignorant many people are, yet you'd be happy for them to decide peoples fates? What if the scrote smashed his head open on the platform and died, you'd think that was a fair penalty for his crimes?

What if there was no 'big man' on the train, would the old chap have to pull out a taser and do the job himself?

Im sure the police are busy. If criminals had to cover the cost of their own arrest and conviction, they maybe wouldnt be so eager to cause trouble.


I often get annoyed with people breaking the law. Here's my solutions for people who recently pissed me off:

chucking litter out of a car - i ram them off the road.
let off fireworks in the middle of the night, waking my kids up - petrol through their letter box.
speeding down my road - brick through your windscreen.

Job done. Thats my idea of summary justice. What do you mean thats over the top? I have a short fuse and a violent disposition, but according to you, since the police are busy, im good to go.


So i think that in reality, there must be a happy medium somewhere between one extreme and the other, where the police and courts are actually effective enough that no one needs to get pile drived into a station platform, and indeed the people brought up with no manners dont dare misbehave anyway.




And regarding the clip round the ear for kids, i can assure you violence isnt necessary for disciplining children, if you do the job properly from the beginning. And id rather my sons respect me rather than fear me. But in true vigilantee form, the first person who does clip my kids will get stabbed!

In addition to the changes needed to police and courts, we also need a system of parenting licenses, where you simply cant have kids if you cant prove you are up to the job. Because there is a trend at the minute where bad people 'tend' to have more kids and good people 'tend' to have fewer (im not for a minute implying that large families are bad or small ones good), so the ratio of bad people to good is increasing, since bad parents tend to produce bad kids. This situation needs changing.

bobinspain - 21/12/11 at 10:06 PM

JoelP.

You need no wordy reply from me, for you are hoist by your own petard. (in your case, your penultimate paragraph).

gazza285 - 21/12/11 at 10:15 PM

Well said Joel I thought, although the irony was lost on some.

T66 - 21/12/11 at 11:39 PM

Thing is Joel - The young lad didnt die, nor was his head fractured. If this was the case, then the big man should go on a charge sheet. The guy asked the conductor if he would like him put off the train, the answer was yes. The guy then had the authority to assist the conductor eject him from the train.


My point is - We all know he is going to get off with assault, but my ramblings earlier on this thread I allude to the reasons why he is charged. He is charged because nobody has any authority anymore to say "NO".



So your extreme measures have no place either, I realise your not serious, but theres not many here would condone that sort of retribution anyway.


The young lad represents quite well, what I would expect from a young person, not all I might add, but a general lack of respect, morality and on the whole selfish.


Im of the era when my mum threw me off the bus seat, when a woman or oap got on the bus.



This should not have got as far as it has, it is a complete waste of money, all because nobody can say "NO" anymore.

bobinspain - 22/12/11 at 08:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by gazza285
Well said Joel I thought, although the irony was lost on some.


"Turned out nice again!"

Now that's irony

JoelP - 22/12/11 at 08:48 AM

My general point is basically that we live in a society under the rule of law. Most people would agree, once they stop spouting shite about hating the police, that in fact laws are quite a good thing and without them the country would be ruled by wolves. Deciding to ignore some laws is a slippery slope, so its right that the official line is that all laws must be enforced. Its just a shame that our system of governance isnt really that efficient when it comes to correcting or tweaking laws promptly.

Re the big man, i suspect if he had just lifted the lad up and put him on the platform, he would have been in a much better position legally. However, if it gets to a jury trial, there's a good chance he wont be convicted.

MikeRJ - 22/12/11 at 09:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
My general point is basically that we live in a society under the rule of law. Most people would agree, once they stop spouting shite about hating the police, that in fact laws are quite a good thing and without them the country would be ruled by wolves. Deciding to ignore some laws is a slippery slope, so its right that the official line is that all laws must be enforced. Its just a shame that our system of governance isnt really that efficient when it comes to correcting or tweaking laws promptly.

Re the big man, i suspect if he had just lifted the lad up and put him on the platform, he would have been in a much better position legally. However, if it gets to a jury trial, there's a good chance he wont be convicted.


And I suppose these laws don't apply to the gobby youth who was swearing, being generally abusive and refusing to comply with the guards requests? Obviously this poor little lamb is a victim of society and must be protected at all costs.

Sorry to almost completely disagree with you, but there comes a point where you can't just sit back and let people get away with this sort of behaviour. Would you be happy if I sat next to your kids on a train using foul language? I suspect not, you'd probably stab me.

[Edited on 22/12/11 by MikeRJ]

bobinspain - 22/12/11 at 09:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP


Re the big man, i suspect if he had just lifted the lad up and put him on the platform, he would have been in a much better position legally. However, if it gets to a jury trial, there's a good chance he wont be convicted.







I beg to differ.
Assault is assault. That's the whole point. 'Common sense', reasonable force, proportioante action, it all flies out the window now that the judicial wheels have been set in motion. The full weight of the law will be employed against a guy who, in the eyes of most right-thinking people behaved as a good-samaritan. ie. He acted on behalf of a sixty-something railway guard. He acted on behalf of a family with young childred who were well within earshot of his foul and abusive language, (and his refusal to acknowledge the error and apologise). He acted on behalf of all fare-paying passengers who behave reasonably as socialised human beings should. And, I dare say he wanted to get home to his wife and kids after a hard day at the office. What's wrong with that?

As I said previously, I'd welcome any number of 'big men' into my society and I'd have no place for gobby law-breaking, bevvied up young men, (student or no).





"If he gets to jury trial, there's a good chance he won't be convicted."


Why waste £100k and line the pockets of lawyers and waste everyone else's time? (Incidentally, I don't share your optimism re' non-conviction).

Drink may have played a part in this, (by the student's own admission). Though drunk or sober, when I was a student, I would no more think about 'cheeking my elders' than I would think about stabbing someone in the eye.

It would appear that the student's father in no way condemns his errant son's behaviour. Sad, though totallly predictable in this day and age.

whitestu - 22/12/11 at 10:15 AM

quote:

As I said previously, I'd welcome any number of 'big men' into my society and I'd have no place for gobby law-breaking, bevvied up young men,


Young lads, with all that testosterone flowing around, do tend to get a bit gobby when they have had a few. I can't honestly say I haven't behaved in ways I would now be ashamed of when young - it is in the nature of young men to behave like this, and generally take risks and be a bit daft.

Young lads need men to like the bloke on the train to keep them in line and safe. Being kicked off the train might make the lad think twice next time and could save him a lot of aggro in the future. In fact if the lad had thought it likely that one of the men on the train would kick him off he probably would have been much more polite.

scootz - 22/12/11 at 10:18 AM

It won't be a jury trial... just a Sheriff, or even a JP for simple assault in Scotland.

I can understand the police problem... damned if they do and damned if they don't, so they just take the simple route and do it by the letter of the law. That way they can only be criticised for 'doing their job'.

In Scots Law it's clearly an assault, so going by the letter of the law he will in all likelihood be convicted. It then comes down to what mood the Sheriff is in on the day! If he's read the mood of the majority right, then the Sheriff will convict him and admonish him with some wise-words. If the Sheriff is an arse, then he might well clobber him to prove a point of law!

Either way, I just wish the police and the Procurator Fiscal had shown a bit of balls and agreed to record the crime, issue a warning and knock it on the head. People would most likely have still been up in arms that the Big Man had even been 'warned', but it would have covered all bases with the minimum of fuss!

PS - Do you guys down south and elsewhere know why he's being called 'The Big Man'??? If not, then check out the link below to the Scottish comedy 'Chewin The Fat'. The 'Big Man' is a gangster type who sorts people problems!

Probably NSFW Big Man Link

bobinspain - 22/12/11 at 10:54 AM

Hi Scott.

In 63 years you get about a bit, (Yes, even Bonnie (and not so Bonnie) Scotland.
I have a mate in Plains with whom we stayed for hogmanay many years ago. He's a retired 'R.N. Stoker' and showed me the delights of 'the bells' and first footing 'til 8a.m. Everybody's 'big man' there. As in, "ye wan' a wee chaser wi' that big man?'

Season's best.
Bob.

JoelP - 22/12/11 at 05:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
My general point is basically that we live in a society under the rule of law. Most people would agree, once they stop spouting shite about hating the police, that in fact laws are quite a good thing and without them the country would be ruled by wolves. Deciding to ignore some laws is a slippery slope, so its right that the official line is that all laws must be enforced. Its just a shame that our system of governance isnt really that efficient when it comes to correcting or tweaking laws promptly.

Re the big man, i suspect if he had just lifted the lad up and put him on the platform, he would have been in a much better position legally. However, if it gets to a jury trial, there's a good chance he wont be convicted.


And I suppose these laws don't apply to the gobby youth who was swearing, being generally abusive and refusing to comply with the guards requests? Obviously this poor little lamb is a victim of society and must be protected at all costs.

Sorry to almost completely disagree with you, but there comes a point where you can't just sit back and let people get away with this sort of behaviour. Would you be happy if I sat next to your kids on a train using foul language? I suspect not, you'd probably stab me.

[Edited on 22/12/11 by MikeRJ]



Of course the scrote should be charged with a pubilc order offense, or maybe even outraging public decency if they think it would stick. If you reread my comments, i havent remotely suggested he was in the right. I've said before that the decay in moral values needs tackling, and in the past ive suggested many simple measures to alleviate the problems that society faces.

If someone was swearing next to my kids, i dont know what id do. I'll cross that bridge if i ever get to it. According to a judge recently, swearing is ok now because so many people do it.

T66 - 22/12/11 at 06:51 PM

Joel

The swearing judgement was with reference to cops, who because of their contact with the great unwashed. Cannot be offended.