'Big man' vs Sam Main incident (final decision: no charges for either)

[Nym]

I see it every day with students, and this is 3rd and 4th years at University! No wonder graduates are finding jobs harder to get with idiots like this kicking about.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This is an appaling statement. I know diabetics and none of them have ever acted like this buffoon and would never do so. Please do not suggest otherwise.

It is a medical fact that hypoglycaemia can cause aggressive behaviour. You may not like it, but nevertheless it is a fact - you should not suggest otherwise!

In fact, there are cases where diabetics who have failed to take their insulin have been found not guilty by way of insanity / automatism because of their medical condition.

(Note, I am not saying that the person in the video was having a hypo, but it some people it would manifest in this kind of behaviour).

 

[Flamingo]

It is a medical fact that hypoglycaemia can cause aggressive behaviour. You may not like it, but nevertheless it is a fact - you should not suggest otherwise!

In fact, there are cases where diabetics who have failed to take their insulin have been found not guilty by way of insanity / automatism because of their medical condition.

(Note, I am not saying that the person in the video was having a hypo, but it some people it would manifest in this kind of behaviour).

It's not failing to take their insulin / tablets that is the problem, it's failing to ensure adequate food intake after taking medication that causes a hypoglycaemic attack, and the subsequent symptoms and behavioural changes.

But like drunks, some people get aggressive when drunk, most don't.

 

[68000]

I wonder what the posters who are condemning this, and saying the guard should have waited for police (which the guard was willing to do) would be posting if they had been on the train, or the one behind, held up for 30 minutes waiting for BTP to turn up, and then sweet-talk the passenger into leaving while he drunkenly insists "I have a **** ticket".

They would be moaning and swearing at the 'railway'. Hypocritical ****ers

 

[Oswyntail]

.... I know diabetics and none of them have ever acted like this buffoon and would never do so. Please do not suggest otherwise..

I am diabetic, and, as I posted about 5000 posts ago, I have had incidents of uncharacteristic aggressive behaviour, particularly extreme shortness of temper.
The video was originally presented as being of a typical, fare-evading chav. Most contributors to the thread accepted this description, and condemned his behaviour. Now, as more information emerges, the picture (as usual with any incident) is becoming fuzzier. We do not know whether this is because of deliberate misinformation from either party, third parties chipping in with "helpful" detail, or because the story was not as cut and dried as originally presented. The only place this can legitimately be sorted out is in court; if it does not reach that far, then none of the parties involved can be considered guilty of anything

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's not failing to take their insulin / tablets that is the problem, it's failing to ensure adequate food intake after taking medication that causes a hypoglycaemic attack, and the subsequent symptoms and behavioural changes.

But like drunks, some people get aggressive when drunk, most don't.

There are two leading cases in this; Hennessey and Quick. One is where he failed to take his insulin and was found not guilty by way of insanity, and one where he failed to eat after taking his insulin and I think was able to successfully claim automatism.

But yes, as you say, most will not present like that. But some will do. Of course there is no evidence that he was suffering a hypo at the time.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[yorkie]

IF,IF,IF,IF,IF.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Sam Main was proven guilty when he did not provide a valid ticket - he has not yet.

True. But is that the issue?

I'm quite prepared to accept that Sam Main may well have bought valid tickets (though there are inconsistencies regarding whether he was travelling between Linlithgow & Edinburgh Park or between Falkirk & Edinburgh Park), but he did not show them and did not appear to posses them, he did not explain the situation (which he has now done, though we have multiple different versions of it, and not everything he and his family says can be correct as there are numerous contradictions!) and did not conduct himself in a way that any normal person reasonably would.

Regardless of the ticketing matters, he can clearly be seen committing byelaw offences.

I
The "big man" has been proven guilty of nothing.

Agreed, and I see no evidence of any crime by the "big man".

I
The guard has been proven guilty of nothing.

Agreed, there is no chance of the guard being "guilty" of anything.

 

[Flamingo]

He may have not taken insulin, but it must have been for a hell of a long time, as it takes quite a while for the blood chemistry to go that haywire!

Not eating after taking medication hits quite quickly.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This chav doesn't appear to know how to communicate in a respectful manner. I hope he gets the book thrown at him, and my thoughts are with the big man and the guard, I hope common sense prevails (not always the case with legal matters sadly).

You are correct.
But much will depend, if it does reach a Hearing in Court, on how the matter is presented. OT but comparable, I've been attending a high-value claim from an idiot who confesses to having violated several statutes in a reckless manner, who suffered traumatic and permanent injury as a result, and claims to have lost his memory in the process, has now instructed some very eloquent and impressive Counsel to pursue a claim against the arbitrary other party who was present at the time of the incident, and appears to have recovered his memory to an astonishing degree of clarity. The High Court is listening to his (his eloquent QC) argument.

My point is this: our analysis is irrelevant. Even the facts are contentious. In the event that this matter ever becomes a dispute in law, then much, perhaps all, will depend on the ability of Counsel to find relevant authorities which support their client's claim, and can maintain that ability at every challenge. And it would be challenged robustly on evidential and canonical grounds.

Let's hope if any of you that do go on trial for a crime get a jury that looks for proof rather than go on hearsay.

I cannot see what charge is likely, by any party, that would lead to a trial by Jury. This matter appears, in Law, to be quite simple.
Why do you think it would be heard by a Jury?

 

[Chew Chew]

I can picture now the thread on here if someone got thrown off a train violently when they had a valid ticket for their journey by a member of the public.

If someone presented a valid ticket, wasn't under the influence of alcohol, wasn't abusive to the examiner and never swore in front of children then people would be rightly upset if someone was put off the train.

When the public start endorsing a vigalante style of justice a very thin line between what is right and wrong has happened.

If only Edward Woodward was still alive.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surely any crime which would materialise from this matter would be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court...

I don't personally believe it'll get that far.

 

[Chew Chew]

Surely any crime which would materialise from this matter would be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court...

I don't personally believe it'll get that far.

It'll be held in Scotland.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's quite possible the guy did originally purchase the correct tickets, but his attitude, behaviour and language was disgraceful and constituted at least one byelaw offence. For that alone, irrespective of tickets held/purchase, he should be removed from the train and he should move when told.

I disagree. He escorts him off the train in a peaceful manner, yes there is a stumble, but it is only because Sam Main resists (which he had no right to) and because Sam Main repeatedly attempts to illegally board (trespass) that he ends up being hurt.

If someone constantly tried to enter your front door, and you kept chucking them out, I doubt you'd be impressed if someone accused you of assault.

Sam Main kept coming back for more, wasn't really hurt as he thought it was all a big joke, then started crying to the media when his Daddy told him that there may be some compensation in order if he acts like he's been badly hurt.

Disgusting.

I would certainly hope no-one here would spend 5 minutes swearing at a guard, irrespective of tickets held or not held.

And this is the problem, chavs know that most people will let them do whatever they want and are too scared to intervene. In reality, people are not just scared of the chavs, but scared of legislation and what people who defend the chavs will say. Quite a sad state of affairs and it just lets the chav problem get worse as they think they are invincible!

The guy's foul language was unacceptable even if as a result of drinking when diabetic. That said the Scotrail employee did not follow company procedures when dealing with a situation like this.

An independant member of the public had no right or jurisdiction to remove Sam from the train regardless of whether it was done in a peaceful manner or not.

Neither did anybody have any right to throw a bag (containing a laptop ?) from the train to the platform.

To my knowledge nobody posting on this thread was on the train. None of us have any proof as to whether Sam was joking or was ill or if he had the correct tickets or not. We do not know what happened before or after he was removed from the train. I am very therefore very surprised that people seem to be qualified to come to a conclusion as to what is right and wrong in this matter.

Hopefully, now that the BTP are investigating the matter they will bring charges to anybody found guilty of an offence, be that fare dodging, public order offences or assault.

I do think however, if the guard had followed procedures which I am assuming would involve the police being called, the matter could have been resolved on train or off train. Sadly I suspect that commercial operating pressures prevented the guard from doing so.

 

[yorkie]

This video is interesting:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16130075

This 19 year old bloke describes himself as a "young boy" and then, despite refusing to get off the train when instructed by the guard, admits that if the "big man" had asked him to get off the train, he would have. What an absolute loser and pathetic individual!

And, if you watch the original video again, it looks too me like Sam Main turns round and is trying to hit the big man, but the big man prevents him by holding onto his fists. Therefore, clearly, Sam Main caused himself to fall over in the carriage by turning round trying to throw a punch. Only quick, brave thinking by the big man prevented his punch being successful.

Personally I can't understand why a grown man would attack a young boy from behind and asault and throw him off the train.

Quite the big man, If he'd... tapped me on the soulda, and turned round and said "could you please leave the train?" then I'd have seen he was a big man and I would have got off the train,

I can't understand why a bloke would use move a chav like me off the train, as I thought I was invincible. It may look like I tried to hit him, but my fists were actually a high-five and when he grabbed my wrists, I thought he was really quite mean for refusing it.

I have no respect when a 64-year-old guard asks me to leave the train, and I think I am above the law and can do what I want, however if I felt there was a risk that someone stronger than me may actually force me off, then I would have co-operated with such a person. I know the guard can't touch me, and I don't expect anyone else to touch me, but if there's a risk of that, then I'll accept defeat - but until then, I'll do as I please.

 

[68000]

I do think however, if the guard had followed procedures which I am assuming would involve the police being called, the matter could have been resolved on train or off train. Sadly I suspect that commercial operating pressures prevented the guard from doing so.

It is very unfortunate that following procedure would inconvience the vast majority of the public

 

[Flamingo]

The guy's foul language was unacceptable even if as a result of drinking when diabetic. That said the Scotrail employee did not follow company procedures when dealing with a situation like this.

An independant member of the public had no right or jurisdiction to remove Sam from the train regardless of whether it was done in a peaceful manner or not.

Neither did anybody have any right to throw a bag (containing a laptop ?) from the train to the platform.

To my knowledge nobody posting on this thread was on the train. None of us have any proof as to whether Sam was joking or was ill or if he had the correct tickets or not. We do not know what happened before or after he was removed from the train. I am very therefore very surprised that people seem to be qualified to come to a conclusion as to what is right and wrong in this matter.

Hopefully, now that the BTP are investigating the matter they will bring charges to anybody found guilty of an offence, be that fare dodging, public order offences or assault.

I do think however, if the guard had followed procedures which I am assuming would involve the police being called, the matter could have been resolved on train or off train. Sadly I suspect that commercial operating pressures prevented the guard from doing so.

Do you work for Scotrail, or any other railway company?

I just ask as this is not the first post where you have said the guard did not follow his company's procedures.

I'm wondering why you keep saying this, and what your background is that qualifies you to keep making this assertion?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I love yorkie's blatant lack of impartiality here

 

[AlterEgo]

I love yorkie's blatant lack of impartiality here

Yes - those moderators, always sitting on the fence!

I actually agree with Yorkie though - clearly Mr Main's behaviour (whatever the reason) is wholly unacceptable. I'm sorry he got hurt (as he alleges), but he got what was coming to him and I have no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[Greenback]

The guy's foul language was unacceptable even if as a result of drinking when diabetic. That said the Scotrail employee did not follow company procedures when dealing with a situation like this.

What are the company procedures?

An independant member of the public had no right or jurisdiction to remove Sam from the train regardless of whether it was done in a peaceful manner or not.

Do you have a source for this?

Neither did anybody have any right to throw a bag (containing a laptop ?) from the train to the platform.[?QUOTE]

What statute would the act of depositing a bag on a platform contravene? I imagine, as DaveNewcastle has mentioend above, that it is very arguable whether the bag was thrown or dropped with sufficient cause to cause any dmaage

To my knowledge nobody posting on this thread was on the train. None of us have any proof as to whether Sam was joking or was ill or if he had the correct tickets or not. We do not know what happened before or after he was removed from the train. I am very therefore very surprised that people seem to be qualified to come to a conclusion as to what is right and wrong in this matter.

On eperosn who was on the trainw a son television giving his 'evidence' this morning, which contradicted much of what has been claimed by the alleged fare evader.

What people cannot help but do is to look at whatever evidence ther eis, including eye witness accounts and video footage, and come to a conclusion as to which version of events is, on balance, more likely.

Sometimes people can change their conclusion, either as a result of new evidence emerging or because of doubts over what first appeared to be accurate. Ths happened in the wheelchair saga at manchester last year. It may happen here, but so far, I think it more likely that the person who was removed was drunk, abusive and guilty of several byelaw offences at the very least.

Hopefully, now that the BTP are investigating the matter they will bring charges to anybody found guilty of an offence, be that fare dodging, public order offences or assault.

I agree.

I do think however, if the guard had followed procedures which I am assuming would involve the police being called, the matter could have been resolved on train or off train. Sadly I suspect that commercial operating pressures prevented the guard from doing so.

No doubt the matter would have been resolved, but at the cost of a big delay tot he service. It's not so much the comemrcial pressure as the desire not to delay othe rpassengers, who had already been subjected to several minutes of foul language according to a witness, any more than necessary.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hopefully, now that the BTP are investigating the matter they will bring charges to anybody found guilty of an offence, be that fare dodging, public order offences or assault.

The police do not find anyone guilty.

The police's job is to apprehend people whom they suspect of committing crimes, and gather evidence to support a possible case.

In England, the Crown Prosecution Service will usually be passed the case to decide on whether a criminal charge is appropriate. They would then bring the case to court, if they feel there is sufficient evidence.

A court will decide who is guilty.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is very unfortunate that following procedure would inconvience the vast majority of the public

True, but then if you start to not follow procedures so as not to convenience the public you are going down a slippery slope.. what other procedures (safety critical for example) are you going to ignore to save time/avoid inconvenience.

 

[68000]

This is not safety critical, this is a ned who wants a free ride and will inconvience the vast majority of people for his free ride

 

[Cliveblackpool]

If the 'big man' had not helped to eject the weasel, would have the other passengers just sat there calmly & quietly awaiting for arrival of the police?
I think not............

 

[Darandio]

As someone who has swayed between both sides, I would rather sway towards the "big man" on matter of principal, it's just how I feel given the information so far.

However, despite what Yorkie has posted, as much as I tend to always agree, I worry that his posts in this thread are nothing more than an "Internet Hit Parade", trying to post the exact name in as many threads as possible and in almost every sentence. This results in an internet search cropping up results for the benefit of the forum, or Yorkie on what is now a recognised search string.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is not safety critical, this is a ned who wants a free ride and will inconvience the vast majority of people for his free ride

What proof do you have of this fact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are the company procedures?



Do you have a source for this?

Neither did anybody have any right to throw a bag (containing a laptop ?) from the train to the platform.[?QUOTE]

What statute would the act of depositing a bag on a platform contravene? I imagine, as DaveNewcastle has mentioend above, that it is very arguable whether the bag was thrown or dropped with sufficient cause to cause any dmaage


No I do not know what the companies procedures are. I am assuming from the Scotrail statement that they were not followed because it they stated they do not expect members of the public to step in. So on the fact that the guard endorses a member of the public to remove him from the train I am assuming the procedures have not been followed. Obviously happy to be proven wrong though.

Also on the assumption that the law in Scotland is the same in the UK I am going on the definition of assault as being uninvited physical contact. At no time can I see Sam Haim giving permission for such contact but as has been stated before just have to wait and see what the BTP find out.

 

[WelshBluebird]

We can argue about this till were blue in the face and still not come up with an answer that the majority of us agree on, I am not trying to condone the kids behaviour, but if he is telling the truth and he suffers diabetes, then that is a serious misjudgment the Guard has made and probably dug himself deeper in the brown stuff by letting a member of the public manhandle him off the train, if the kid is telling the truth then thr guard should be discipline, it as simple as that and the big fella spoken to by BTP, there is no excuse for swearing and belligerence towards the guard, so the kid should be spoken to by BTP no matter what, there really is no need for a bad attitide after all.

But having diabetes is not an excuse for:
1 - Not having a valid ticket
2 - Being abusive towards the guard.
Both of which are offences.

Make of that what you will. For me it leads to more questions than answers

Agreed.
1 - It really is not that difficult to give the right ticket. Even after you have had a few pints.
2 - Being drunk is not an excuse for breaking the law.
3 - Why was he laughing about it and gloating on facebook if he really is the "victim".

 

[marks87]

But having diabetes is not an excuse for:
1 - Not having a valid ticket
2 - Being abusive towards the guard.
Both of which are offences.

I'd argue that in certain circumstances, it is a valid excuse for both.

If someone is having a hypo, having got on at an unstaffed station, they could fail to realise they need to buy a ticket. Similarly, if they're prompted to buy a ticket, they can easily become abusive.

Note that I'm not talking about the specific case that's the subject of this thread. This is in general.

 

[EM2]

The big man says 'Is there a problem here?'
The guard says 'Yes'.
At no point does the guard ask him to remove the offender. Therefore, AFAICS the guard does nothing wrong, except maybe asking the man to refrain. But, that may result in arguments with others about delaying the train.

 

[marks87]

The big man says 'Is there a problem here?'
The guard says 'Yes'.
At no point does the guard ask him to remove the offender. Therefore, AFAICS the guard does nothing wrong, except maybe asking the man to refrain. But, that may result in arguments with others about delaying the train.

The subtitles are wrong. "Big man" clearly says "do you want me to get him off for you", to which the guard says "yes".

 

[scotsman]

The subtitles are wrong. "Big man" clearly says "do you want me to get him off for you", to which the guard says "yes".

The exact words were "Do you want him off?" - very important