Though he suffered cuts and bruises after being thrown off the train, he made no complaint to police. But officers contacted him after a small number of people who viewed the video complained that Main had been assaulted.What happened to Scotland's laws, that other people can make a complaint? And get taken seriously by the police?
Is there a law requiring a ticket to travel? Yes. Is the ticket collector correct in requiring him to leave the train? Yes. Was he capable of doing the removing? No. So a law-abiding member of the public 'assisted' the lawful authority in it's lawful actions. The injuries were sustained by the unlawful resistance (and lets be honest because he was too drunk to stand up).
ReplyDeleteI have been in a similar position a number of times. I have assisted (simply by my presence in support) but also by restraining a criminal attacking a police officer attempting to arrest him (is it me or are police getting smaller?).
It is not a right to act in such a manner, it is a requirement. If you see a crime and allow it to go unchallenged (when in a position to do so), morally and legally are you part of the crime? Yes.
For 'daddy' and the 'usual suspects' to complain is not unexpected, as in their world obeying the law is for other people (he'll be some left-wing hero to some of the idiots I'm sure for standing up to 'the man').
If, as he claims, he had two identical tickets then an adult would have approached the ticket office/conductor to ask for their assistance (which from personal experience) they would have given.
If there are educational/employment consequences for the lout, perhaps he will think before acting in a 'criminal' manner again.
If Scotrail punish the ticket collector for lawfully following their requirements I for one will never use their service again. And don't spinelessly claim he should have called for the police, his authority was sufficient, and with assistance, all that was needed.
If the courts, as no jury would, act to punish the 'big man' then they will not only undermine the law but their own irrelevance/corruption.
I'm with Able wunhunnpersen! But I'm not surprised!
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse common sense with the law.
ReplyDeleteNo one can 'consent' to be assaulted and victimless prosecutions are more prevalent with the advent of technology. The police may well have received complaints and are duty bound to investigate. The conclusion of that enquiry will hopefully be that force was lawful or the matter not in the public interest to prosecute.
Police are getting smaller, they used to have height requirements and a lot of ex-forces. Both numbers are dwindling to meet 'diversity'.
Anonymous 15.42
ReplyDeleteI will bow to those with more legal knowledge than my mere laymans, but:
Was not the ticket collector acting as "when the law imposes a duty to act". He was 'required' to detain and/or remove the 'criminal' from the train.
Since he was obviously an older gentleman, and:
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Was not Mr Pollock entirely correct, legally and morally, in supporting the ticket collector in his action to prevent a crime?
Whilst I am fully aware that Mr Pollock had no 'duty' to intervene under the current interpretation of the law he had a legal right and justification to do so. Why is it that in standing by and allowing certain crimes is judged 'morally indefensible' and yet not others?
The issue I, and I suspect most, find inappropriate is that he, in supporting the legal actions of the ticket collector, faces investigation and possible prosecution. It is precisely this reason that so many crimes go unchallenged, after all why do so when a law-abiding citizen faces (relatively) stiffer sentences than the criminal. The suspension of the ticket collector, and the investigation into Mr Pollock, are precisely why in future, whatever the outcome, others will not intervene and ticket dodgers (and other criminals) will be left unchallenged.
Yes, an investigation is required but since all the evidence is freely available such could have been concluded in minutes. yet both will face days, if not weeks, of problems for, and lets be honest here, political as opposed to legal reasons.
The legal ins and outs of this incident are many but the most important FACT is that the Big Man first asked the Ticket Inspector if he required assistance in the removal of the fare dodger from the train. The Ticket Inspector said that he did, and it was only after being told this that the Big Man laid hands on the fare dodger.
ReplyDeleteThe request by an officer of the train company, who is legally empowered to remove a passenger for non payment of the fare, for assistance renders that physical assistance lawful.
@ Able
ReplyDeleteYour twin comments may assume support on this blog, not least from JuliaM. However I cannot support any assumption that the student was a ticket dodger.
You are also entitled to your opinion that the actions of 'model citizen' were not in the least thuggish. Mature assessments must fall short of your adulation of Fat Man.
A salt and battered
ReplyDeleteHmm, so you 'cannot support any assumption that the student was a ticket dodger'?
So he just couldn't be bothered to show his ticket (and showing a ticket for another journey does not count)? He was making a political statement? He didn't need a ticket as poor destitute (not counting all the money he spent on booze) student? What?
You also are allowed your opinion, however, 'mature assessment' is far from what you are actually, as opposed to claiming to be, doing. If he is not a ticket dodger, which plainly he is, at least have the gumption to justify that fallacious statement.
For the record, it is not 'adulation', what it is is respect. Respect that a man stood up for, what most people see as, what is right, despite all the possible negatives involved. Perhaps you have a different perspective? Although I suspect it is grounded more in political rhetoric and (rainbow and unicorn fart powered) wishful thinking, than in reality.
(Done the same yourself have you? Worried it might be you next time?
There was an old piece of research done which showed that those who supported lenient sentences for certain crimes did so partly because they could see a situation in which they could commit that crime. Conversely those crimes they could never envisage committing, they demanded harsh sentences for. Think (a new experience I'm sure) about it.
^ Gadget dogma pills sold here.
ReplyDeleteThe latest is that another Ticket Inspector has been stabbed following another 'no ticket incident'.
ReplyDeleteWonder what the Guardian CIF will make of that one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075430/Ticket-inspector-stabbed-train-challenging-teenagers-fare.html#socialLinks
@ Able
ReplyDeleteI compliment the purity of plodness evident in your attitude, reasoning and English.
A salt and battered
ReplyDeleteOh dear is that it?
Thank you for the compliments.
'Plodness'? For the record, I am a nurse. One of the majority of people who work to support myself and mine. Who obey rules and laws. Who pays their bills (and buys the appropriate tickets).
Contrary to the beliefs which you and your 'fellow travellers' espouse, not everyone who acts responsibly is a shill for the establishment. In fact I can guarantee I have more issues with the current government and laws than you do. The difference is I, as do the majority, don't think that gives me the right to act as a criminal whenever I disagree with the rules or the law (or in this case couldn't be bothered and spent my money on booze).
You infer criticism of my reasoning. Despite what your Marxist lecturers and Guardian reading friends have told you, reasoning is not based on 'I want it to have been like this, so it was'. That is the action of one with a narcissistic personality disorder.
“Reason - to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. “
Facts, this person attempted to travel on a train for which he knew he didn't have a valid ticket. He attempted to bluster and lie to force the ticket collector to let him travel for free. He then inconvenienced not only everyone on the train, but disrupted the train schedule causing potentially hundreds of people to be delayed, by refusing to leave. His bluff was called.
You disagreed, I asked for the facts and rationale on which you based that disagreement. So nice to see that you follow the usual Left-wing method of argument – if you can't dispute the facts, default to name calling or insults (however politely phrased).
Oh, and the police are one of the groups who have most to say against members of the public acting to uphold the law in this manner – so who exactly, you or I, is showing 'plodness' here?
"If you see a crime and allow it to go unchallenged (when in a position to do so), morally and legally are you part of the crime? Yes."
ReplyDeleteIn France, you've a LEGAL duty to assist, too.
"Police are getting smaller, they used to have height requirements and a lot of ex-forces."
I've seen uniformed police women - real ones, not PCSOs - who are shorter than me!
"Why is it that in standing by and allowing certain crimes is judged 'morally indefensible' and yet not others?"
Good point. If he'd been racially abusing a black ticket inspector, I wonder what the Guardianistas would say?
Probably some variant of 'Someone should have intervened!'..
"...but the most important FACT is that the Big Man first asked the Ticket Inspector if he required assistance .."
It seems that may land HIM in trouble too! It's an increasingly mad world...
"However I cannot support any assumption that the student was a ticket dodger. "
ReplyDeleteHe might not have been, it might indeed have been a mix-up at the office issuing, as he claims.
But his manner of dealing with this left much to be desired.
"For the record, it is not 'adulation', what it is is respect. Respect that a man stood up for, what most people see as, what is right..."
Hear, hear!
"The latest is that another Ticket Inspector has been stabbed following another 'no ticket incident'."
My train line too :(
Interesting how many of the 'Mail' comments are along the lines of 'Now what say you all you critics of 'The Big Man'..?'
Heh!
"Despite what your Marxist lecturers and Guardian reading friends have told you, reasoning is not based on 'I want it to have been like this, so it was'. That is the action of one with a narcissistic personality disorder."
I bet there's a hell of a lot of crossover between those groups!
Dear Able,welcome to the anti "salt and battered" gang AKA MTG.If you dare to disagree then you are automatically "plodness" or a "gadgetista".
ReplyDeleteJust pat him on the head and ignore him like the rest of us.Eventually he will change his name again in shame.
Jaded
"He might not have been (a ticket dodger) it might indeed have been a mix-up at the office issuing, as he claims."
ReplyDeleteOh, really?
To acknowledge the possibility is wonderfully condescending, JuliaM. The easier option is to mirror Gadget and erase offending text with potential to undermine your Chronicles.
Jaded
ReplyDeleteThanks, I do know that I shouldn't really 'feed the trolls' but I just find them endlessly fascinating (from a mental health perspective that is).
In the quiet moments between their right-on, politically correct, I'm entitled, It's a ooman right, down with authority (but give me my benefits), horrible nasty oppressive white men, rants - I sit and (wrong of me I know)try and decide which is the correct clinical diagnoses of their particular mania.
Whether they're one of the sad 'over educated but under-informed, I want to be a rebel, so I'll follow all the others' student types or one of the even sadder middle aged 'I'm still a sandle wearing, tofu eating hippy, and look all that acid I did in the sixties didn't do me any harm because I'm a guardian journalist/lecturer/diversity coordinator/etc' type'.
Oh, alright I admit it, I do it because it's fun watching to see how long they can sustain their, rather sad, pathetic and skewed, attempts at rationale argument before returning to their default position of diatribe and insult.
Does this make me a bad person? :-)
Conjoined for as long as they can remember, twins Able and Jaded contend with many psychological issues, exacerbated by refuge in the fragile hypothesis that everyone else is mad or just plain odd.
ReplyDeleteA spell on the motorway places a huge strain upon everyone. You see, Jaded the pistonhead lost her licence by accumulating the necessary speeding points. Able has convictions for failing to make reasonable progress but still holds a licence... a situation which gives rise to the quirky anomaly of banned speedster behind the wheel provoking motorway plod with digit-only gestures.
Able, who for legal purposes is the driver, screams 'Maniac!' at anyone driving faster and Jaded screams 'Idiot!' at anyone travelling slower. Mercifully, the ordeal comes to an end when the fuel tank runs dry and they are towed home.
Oh dear, I'm cut to the quick - well I might be if you'd thought (that is 'using your brain for something other than keeping your ears apart' - as you do) of something original.
ReplyDeletePlagiarism as a tool to try to attack someone is a double edged sword because we've all just seen how sad, unoriginal and uneducated you really are.
Melvin?Salt and battered? Now anonymous....doesn't matter which name you use,I still can't understand a bloody word you write.
ReplyDeleteReading between the lines I assume you think everyone apart from you is an uneducated buffoon?
Have you started to "sundown" even earlier than normal Melvin?
Jaded