Jump to content

My Scotrail Experience


Big Man

Recommended Posts

You're a solicitor right? So I'm assuming that your boss is a solicitor right? So you're a witness to either a crime, or preventing someone getting charged with a crime? And your solicitor boss tells you to stay away from it?

 

Quite frankly that's a fucking disgrace.

 

Fatshit, cool it with the synthetic indignation.

 

 

No further comment can be made at this time.

Link to comment

Ticket inspector stabbed after he asked a puckle o' 18 year-olds to leave the train after discovering they did not have a valid ticket (in London):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-16229921

 

Desperately sad stuff...

Aye, sad stuff indeed, still, some witnesses stand by and let these guys do what the fuck they like eh? I'm sure your boss will be proud of your continued silence. Big Man, more like cowardly prick.

Link to comment

Aye, sad stuff indeed, still, some witnesses stand by and let these guys do what the fuck they like eh? I'm sure your boss will be proud of your continued silence. Big Man, more like cowardly prick.

 

Fatshit, you ken absolutely nothing about it...

 

 

Get down of your moral high-horse.

 

Nothing more to say to you on the issue.

Link to comment

Fatshit, you ken absolutely nothing about it...

 

 

Get down of your moral high-horse.

 

Nothing more to say to you on the issue.

Indeed Big Mong, apart from what you've posted on here, the video, the first hand account, and your bosses instructions, apart from that I ken fuck all. :tumbleweed:

Link to comment

What the fuck is your problem?

That after posting said video of "Big Man" rightly getting rid of an anti-social lout, now our "Big Man" is washing his hands completely of the affair, to such an extent that he is happy to possibly see an entirely innocent man charged, despite being part of the legal establishment and a first hand witness. Nae hard to understand is it?

Link to comment

That after posting said video of "Big Man" rightly getting rid of an anti-social lout, now our "Big Man" is washing his hands completely of the affair, to such an extent that he is happy to possibly see an entirely innocent man charged, despite being part of the legal establishment and a first hand witness. Nae hard to understand is it?

The police know who the assailant is. They know who the "victim" is. They know who the conductor is. They even have a video of the incident and have interviewed the video taker. The video shows the faces of the other passengers, and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a police appeal for them to come forward (although admittedly I did miss this weeks edition of Crimewatch). And even if they did, I'm not sure what more they could possibly offer. And if I'm wrong, and the police think more evidence could be of some value, it wouldn't take Poirot to track the Big Man down. And, besides. There is no doubt what happened, the only variable is a moral argument, which is probably only applicable out with the legal system. However, I'm now intrigued. What possible crucial bit of evidence do you think our Big Man possess that will stop that Big Man from being charged? I presume it's the Big Man you are referring to as the innocent party? Because I'm not sure what he's entirely innocent of.

Link to comment

The police know who the assailant is. They know who the "victim" is. They know who the conductor is. They even have a video of the incident and have interviewed the video taker. The video shows the faces of the other passengers, and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a police appeal for them to come forward (although admittedly I did miss this weeks edition of Crimewatch). And even if they did, I'm not sure what more they could possibly offer. And if I'm wrong, and the police think more evidence could be of some value, it wouldn't take Poirot to track the Big Man down. And, besides. There is no doubt what happened, the only variable is a moral argument, which is probably only applicable out with the legal system. However, I'm now intrigued. What possible crucial bit of evidence do you think our Big Man possess that will stop that Big Man from being charged? I presume it's the Big Man you are referring to as the innocent party? Because I'm not sure what he's entirely innocent of.

What the fuck is YOUR problem?

 

OUR Big Man has already said this was going on for some time before the posted video, so there's plenty of evidence no doubt outstanding. Notwithstanding that, are you seriously suggesting that it's better for a witness not to give his account than to hide it because his boss tells him to? If so, you're as big a fuckwit as our Big Man.

Link to comment

What the fuck is YOUR problem?

 

OUR Big Man has already said this was going on for some time before the posted video, so there's plenty of evidence no doubt outstanding. Notwithstanding that, are you seriously suggesting that it's better for a witness not to give his account than to hide it because his boss tells him to? If so, you're as big a fuckwit as our Big Man.

Outstanding? Do you not think the police now have a picture of what went on? And I doubt it really matters. The charges Sam is pressing is the bit caught on video. The whole argument of whether or not the boy had a ticket or what he said to the conductor prior to that is immaterial. And what I'm suggesting is that the police will have witnesses they want or need to interview, and will no doubt broaden that if they feel it's necessary. Which, given the extremely minor nature of the incident I'm sure they won't. Tell me. You must have seen a fight or two in your time. Have you gone to the police on every single occasion? I've seen much worse, and the only time I've offered myself forward I was told to forget it as they were hoping it would all blow over. Which is something I've no doubt the authorities are currently praying for in this case.

Link to comment

Outstanding? Do you not think the police now have a picture of what went on? And I doubt it really matters. The charges Sam is pressing is the bit caught on video. The whole argument of whether or not the boy had a ticket or what he said to the conductor prior to that is immaterial. And what I'm suggesting is that the police will have witnesses they want or need to interview, and will no doubt broaden that if they feel it's necessary. Which, given the extremely minor nature of the incident I'm sure they won't. Tell me. You must have seen a fight or two in your time. Have you gone to the police on every single occasion? I've seen much worse, and the only time I've offered myself forward I was told to forget it as they were hoping it would all blow over. Which is something I've no doubt the authorities are currently praying for in this case.

I agree, so I repeat, what is YOUR problem? Our Big Man wants to do as little as possible to hel pout the big man, yet you seem to have wet your knicker at the prospect of doing what he should do.

Link to comment

I agree, so I repeat, what is YOUR problem? Our Big Man wants to do as little as possible to hel pout the big man, yet you seem to have wet your knicker at the prospect of doing what he should do.

I don't have a problem. If you can remember that far back, it was me that posed the question to you. You seem to think our Big Man can help out that Big Man, yet you presumably saw what happened as well as the rest of us. So I ask again, what do you think our Big Man can offer that will help the Big Man out? Perhaps some hypnosis or black magic was performed during the missing five minutes that led to the Big Man's actions? And I ask again, if you saw a minor street fight would you go to the police the next day? Because I'm really not sure why you are acting like a sanctimonious prick towards our Big Man.

Link to comment

That after posting said video of "Big Man" rightly getting rid of an anti-social lout, now our "Big Man" is washing his hands completely of the affair, to such an extent that he is happy to possibly see an entirely innocent man charged, despite being part of the legal establishment and a first hand witness. Nae hard to understand is it?

 

:applause:

 

 

Correct.

 

Thought it was all fun and games when he got to slag off a "ned" on here, now not quite so much fun and he appears to have gone home with his ball.

 

Indefensible position

Link to comment
Police have charged a man with assault after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a passenger.

 

Mobile phone recordings by a passenger on board the Edinburgh to Perth train on 9 December have been viewed by almost two million people on You Tube.

 

It appears to show a 'Big Man' throwing a teenager off a train after the youth argued with a ticket inspector.

 

British Transport Police said a 35-year-old man from Stirling had been charged with assault.

 

The man is understood to be Alan Pollock.

 

Meanwhile the student accused of fare dodging, 19-year-old Sam Main from Falkirk, has also been reported to the procurator fiscal, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.

 

He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.

 

The You Tube video shows a passenger speaking to a conductor over an alleged unpaid fare.

 

He is then removed from the train by another passenger at Linlithgow.

Link to comment

Thought this would have been the outcome.

 

Had the wee prick kept his head down and not said anything to the press, I bet he would never have reported.

 

And also if Big Man's mate hadn't been filming the whole thing and posted it for the world to see thus affecting the lives of the conductor, Big Man and the little fud forever.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...