LC Geezer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-16288101

And this is why GB is going down the crapper. We are all in fear of dealing with abusive little ****es not because of little darlings but because of the stupidity of the law etc. As society, we are powerless to intervene.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Yep a few days later conductor gets a knife in the bag for challenging two yobs over paying. Bet he wished the big chap had been about then.

5t.

birchy2010

iTrader: (12)

FFS! What a joke!

scud8

iTrader: (1)

The student involved, Sam Mains from Falkirk, is not doing his future employment prospects any good by pressing charges. No employer with any sense would want to touch him with a barge pole after this. Someone really should talk some sense into him.

Snazy

JOKE !

DCI Gene Hunt

If that ****** that dodged the fair had anything about him he would insist that all charges against the big man were dropped.... I hope it goes to court and I equally hope it gets (what that fcukwit got) thrown out.

53

iTrader: (41)

I wouldn't be so sure, emotional distress and NWNF Injury firms would be all over it!

JTaylor

If it hadn't been filmed, the 'Big Man' is unlikely to have been charged. Nonetheless, the public have been awaiting a response. Taken from A Man for all Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

I hope the law finds in favour of The Big Man.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

If you feel strongly that this is a bad decision email BTP at first_contact@btp.pnn.police.uk to tell them.

Saxo Boy

I agree, and this is something that I think will, one day, form part of a major legal challenge that will shape the way evidence is gathered/used in the future.

Recently, both the big-man and train-racist have been charged for crimes committed in circumstances where they were being filmed without their permission. In both cases, it is almost certain that no criminal proceedings would have come to light had footage not been taken. They were only prosecuted on account of the fact that both clips went viral.

While, we like to bury our heads in the sand and think that these things don't go on; there are probably many other "big-mans" and "train-racists" committing these 'crimes' each and every day. Yet, the vast majority are never even spoken to by the police because - crucially - nobody filmed them.

With absolutely every electronic device now shipping with HD quality filming capabilities, I think it's just a matter of time until someone mounts a strong challenge to the idea that you can whip out your phone and film whatever the hell you want.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

Alan Pollock would have a good case under English law, not sure about Scottish law. The student is being charged with trespass, and there is a common law right for landowners to evict trespassers using as much force as necessary to remove them. In the film it is clear that Mr Pollock asks the conductor if he needs help and the conductor is supportive of his actions, so he can argue he was acting on behalf of the landowner. He only uses as much force as is necessary to remove the student - the fact that the student is injured is because he resists.

specialx

I'm with you on the above comments but as far as I'm aware you cannot copy write your own face hence why the paps get away with taking unwanted pics and selling them for cash. I don't see how we can stop being filmed without our permission. CCtv does it all day everyday.



Ads

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Solicitors are just cashing in as per ****ing usual.
There really is not much left in this country to be proud of now is there?

Saxo Boy

Perhaps, but there are surely many other areas for challenge. CCTV, for example, has a specific purpose. Whipping your camera out is quite different. If you pitch up at a play park with a long-lens SLR you can probably expect to be questioned/arrested - so it's definitely not a free for all with regards to what you can/cannot film.

Of course, the other big area of challenge is surely the notion that you can publish what you capture on the internet. It's one thing to take a video for your own amusement and for private viewings. It's quite another to publish easily identifiable people.

I'm not saying that I know the law in this area - I don't. Instead, I'm suggesting that someday soon, somebody is going to mount a reasonable challenge to it.

Davey96wrx

iTrader: (1)

Absolute madness, the yooof of today are a different breed im sure of it, some just have no morals at all.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Let's start a fund for him.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

for the Fuzz ...

TX.

DCI Gene Hunt

Yep, us raising "**** all" will be a good start

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

So the spoilt, petulant little daddies boy gets off scot free after causing this and the bloke that wades in to help gets done for assault, wrong on all levels, I wish now that big man had given him a pounding rather than just escorting him, as gently as possible. Would hope that the assault charge doesnt affect his life too much, in fact I would hope his actions actually help him and he makes a few quid somehow, this country needs to see the little turd getting some comeuppance and Mr Pollock not having any negative consequences as otherwise it is validating being a ****head in public.

Here is another little ponce that thinks the world revolves round him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-16288257

DCI Gene Hunt

Merry Christmas Matthew

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Its starting. Why do you think anyone up to no good wears a hoody or a guy fawkes mask? No its not some pathetic cartoon representation supporting the fall of governments and rise of anarchy; Its purely because they don't want to be held to account for their actions should someone whip out thier camera phone.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Its got to be hard for the kid's dad but he must understand his boy was being an awkward sod.

I heard the dad on radio 2, clearly distressed and trying to convince the listeners his lad was in the right.

The thing is, when I was a lad if I'd have been in that situation I'd have been so embarrased as soon as the conductor checked my 'wrong' ticket. I'd have been off the train with a red face and stratight to the ticket office for the next train. And I think any decent person would be the same.

The fact this kid is so hateful when confronted removes any sympathy I have, even if it was originally a genuine mistake. To be confronted by an entire carraige of people willing you off and to be so cocky and rude shows his true colours. He deserved everything he got.

I do think a lot of the blame for 'big man' getting involved actually rests with the guard. I was very surprised he bothered arguing for that long, the sensible thing to do would have been to inform the kid the transport police will be waiting for him at his destination.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

He is 19 so why was he sent to a young offenders institute and not to Wormwood Scrubs?

specialx

21 for a proper nick.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

So at 18 you can be charged as an adult and tried in an adult court but you don't go to an adult nick?

JTaylor

The kiddy shouldn't be doing time, either. This isn't justice, it's theatre - a tragic comedy. As Saxo Boy says, we, and The Law, need to adjust to the age of the camera phone.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Judging by his attitude to the legal system, he should never be asked to sit on a jury again either. Or did you think this was the fare-dodger again?

JTaylor

I thought it was for the alleged fare-dodger kiddy, thanks for pointing it out.

leecalcars

iTrader: (37)

Picture the scene your on a flight and a drunkered is causing trouble the cabin crew cant control him so joe public steps in and apprehend the man under citezins arrest!

Question are you then brought up in court for assault against the drunk yes ,this country has a lot to answer to and laws need to be changed or everyone will live in fear of the thought of so called criminal injustice.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

it would depend on who's airspace you where over at the time , i would of thought . i may be wrong ?