• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
These are all YOUR assumptions based on seeing a small piece of video. You are clearly not aware of the full story yet you seek to do precisely what you profess to dislike. Trial by media.

Please will you say WHY the Conductor was incapable of doing his job, and please say how you have assessed that the "Big Man" was a thug ?

The inspector was incapable of doing his job because he initiated a violent confrontation on a train. He literally gave it the go ahead.

The "big" man was a thug and a bully because he physically imposed himself on a much smaller, non-violent person. Had the kid been a large man, then the situation would have ended much more peacefully.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
That's a bit ironic, considering the stuff that's been directed towards Sam Main in this thread.

Sam Main acted like an idiot, and the video shows that.

The rest of what happened was as a result of his attitude. He basically brought everything on himself.

The fact that he may have actually been mis-sold a ticket is almost irrelevant. He must know more than anyone else that if he'd acted better, he would have unlikely been thrown off. He needed to explain to the conductor about the problem with his tickets, not try and trip him (as the other story suggests).

What idiot who actually didn't intentionally do anything wrong and was let down by another member of rail staff would act like that? Perhaps it was the drink, in which case he should hold his hands up and say 'Yes, I was drunk and I regret my actions'.

I would hope that the guard and Big Man could then apologise, but still know that what they did at the time - given what was presented in front of them - was justified.

in the case of where I used to live and or work, I'd have shot it.

We'll soon see how many trolls there are, as I bet someone will now take what you said and twist it to suggest you (or everyone) is now suggesting that Mr Main should have been shot. :p

The inspector was incapable of doing his job because he initiated a violent confrontation on a train. He literally gave it the go ahead.

Have you seen what happened before the video then?

It's the job of a conductor/guard/RPI to ask to see a VALID ticket. That's what they do. With very few exceptions, they do this without any fuss. Or should I say, no fuss to those who present their valid tickets. Funnily enough, the ones without tickets are usually the gobby ones who start to wind up staff - as if to say 'what are you going to do about it?' because, a lot of the time, they get away with it.

Take the c2c incident where an RPI was stabbed. Do you wonder if that member of staff had perhaps initiated the action simply for doing his job?
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,862
Location
LBK
These are basics.


Some things we can tell from the video:

The conductor was incapable of doing his job

Wrong. That is subjective, not a fact. I do not agree that "the conductor was incapable of doing his job". I do however agree that he was rather silly in allowing the Big Man to intervene. That is different.

Obvious troll trolls obviously.
 

marks87

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
1,636
Location
Dundee
Sam Main acted like an idiot, and the video shows that.

The rest of what happened was as a result of his attitude. He basically brought everything on himself.

The fact that he may have actually been mis-sold a ticket is almost irrelevant. He must know more than anyone else that if he'd acted better, he would have unlikely been thrown off. He needed to explain to the conductor about the problem with his tickets, not try and trip him (as the other story suggests).
There is no evidence that shows him tripping the conductor.

There's also no evidence to suggest he didn't try and explain the situation.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,506
Location
Somewhere, not in London
We'll soon see how many trolls there are, as I bet someone will now take what you said and twist it to suggest you (or everyone) is now suggesting that Mr Main should have been shot. :p

I'll give it 20 - 30mins...

Anyone else have a "Stop Digging!" sign to hand they could donate to show to our forums' new member?

Especially considering he/she doesn't respond to any reasonable reasoning or argument and simply comes up with a new soundbite...
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,862
Location
LBK
There is no evidence that shows him tripping the conductor.

There's also no evidence to suggest he didn't try and explain the situation.


There's no evidence either that Mr Main isn't a horrible little man with a foul mouth and no respect for the public. ;)

There's no evidence that he even had a ticket, or the means to pay for one.

Swings and roundabouts!
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
There is no evidence that shows him tripping the conductor.

There's also no evidence to suggest he didn't try and explain the situation.

No evidence means you have no evidence, and neither do I. The people on the train will have seen or heard what happened, and if it goes further be asked to make statements.

How do you know he didn't try and trip the conductor? I haven't got a clue as I wasn't there. Neither were you. It has been said in print, so someone has suggested it. I have no idea who, so we'll have to wait and see.

Clearly something happened before, to prompt someone to begin filming. Just as something had happened before Emma West was caught on a London tram. That is unless we are to believe that people now opt to film absolutely everything they see and do 24/7 in the hope of capturing something 'good' for YouTube!
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
Wrong. That is subjective, not a fact. I do not agree that "the conductor was incapable of doing his job". I do however agree that he was rather silly in allowing the Big Man to intervene. That is different.

Obvious troll trolls obviously.

You agree that he was silly in instigating a violent confrontation in a carriage full of people but you also feel he is competent in his job?
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,862
Location
LBK
You agree that he was silly in instigating a violent confrontation in a carriage full of people but you also feel he is competent in his job?

Yes. Bang on.

One mistake does not an incompetent fool make. Have you ever made an error of judgement at work? Does that make you incompetent, or unsuitable for your job?
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,506
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Someone needs a dictionary before he/she tries to use big words that he/she clearly doesn't understand, the conductor did not instigate in any way big man to do anything about the situation, the instigator of this action in this case is the ned...
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
The inspector was incapable of doing his job because he initiated a violent confrontation on a train. He literally gave it the go ahead.
Please can you explain how the Conductor "initiated confrontation".

The "big" man was a thug and a bully because he physically imposed himself on a much smaller, non-violent person. Had the kid been a large man, then the situation would have ended much more peacefully.
So am I to understand then that he is a thug and a bully (now) simply because he "imposed himself on a much smaller person" ? Presumably this would be the case had the Conductor decided to remove the person from the train ? The logical extension to this line of reasoning is of course to suggest that only like for like sized people can "impose" themselves on those similar in build to themselves. So extending that a little further there is no way that anyone who is small can ever be taken to task and removed from a train or other situation by someone larger than themselves - otherwise the people doing so will be thugs and bullies ? Truly confused now.

Had the kid been a large man, then the situation would have ended much more peacefully.
How do you determine this would have been a likely outcome ? Do you have experience of confrontational situations involving railway tickets ?
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
I'll give it 20 - 30mins...

Anyone else have a "Stop Digging!" sign to hand they could donate to show to our forums' new member?

Especially considering he/she doesn't respond to any reasonable reasoning or argument and simply comes up with a new soundbite...

Give me a reasonable argument to respond too then. All I am getting is irrational hatred for a person you know nothing about, hero worship for some random thug and commendation for a conductor who told a passenger to assault someone else.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,506
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Theres plenty, and with that, I'll leave you to the rest of the forum, stupidity tolerance only travels so far with reasoning...
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
Please can you explain how the Conductor "initiated confrontation".

So am I to understand then that he is a thug and a bully (now) simply because he "imposed himself on a much smaller person" ? Presumably this would be the case had the Conductor decided to remove the person from the train ? The logical extension to this line of reasoning is of course to suggest that only like for like sized people can "impose" themselves on those similar in build to themselves. So extending that a little further there is no way that anyone who is small can ever be taken to task and removed from a train or other situation by someone larger than themselves - otherwise the people doing so will be thugs and bullies ? Truly confused now.

How do you determine this would have been a likely outcome ? Do you have experience of confrontational situations involving railway tickets ?


He initiated it by fuelling what was an already volatile situation and then giving his permission to the thug, when he asked if he should chuck him off. He essentially handed his control over to a member of the public and authorised violence.

The thug, is a thug and a bully because he used his bulk to dominate the situation. It was nothing to do with him, the situation wasn't violent, he had no part in it, yet he took it upon himself to assault the kid.

I believe it would have ended differently had the victim been a large male because I feel that people wouldn't have thought they could impose their physicality on the victim.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
Give me a reasonable argument to respond too then. All I am getting is irrational hatred for a person you know nothing about, hero worship for some random thug and commendation for a conductor who told a passenger to assault someone else.

I don't hate the kid. Does anyone care that much? (besides you - who we know nothing about).

He should man up and accept he was drunk and acted out of character, learn from it and move on.

His actions started the chain of events that saw him thrown off the train. That is unless you have evidence that Big Man actually does it as a hobby, or the conductor has some magical way of kicking things off by the way he says 'tickets please'.

You talk of trial by media, and you have a point, but you clearly have some irrational love for Mr Main for reasons only known to you.
 

Sapphire Blue

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
451
Can I just add at this point, Mr Furore, that if you regard the actions as "violent" then, in my opinion, you have no concept of the meaning of the word.

None at all.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
Also, if the conductor was to have called the BTP and then hold the train for 20-30 minutes, would this have ended more peacefully?

I am sure we can imagine that the whole train would have 'ganged up' on Mr Main, who would have no doubt continued to be abusive and potentially violent. How could anyone know for an absolute fact that he wouldn't get violent?

There's a good chance Mr Main would have at the very least been arrested there and then for his behaviour, then charged with some public order offence (whatever applies in Scotland).
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
I don't care about the kid, I have no knowledge of him. For all I know he could be a drunken fare dodging chav.

What I care about is this mob mentality and his slanderous media portrayal.

My experiences of violence have no bearing on this argument. To bring it up, is more tough guy posturing than relevant point.

I don't know what would have happened if the conductor had contacted the transport police. I don't know how the situation would have resolved itself. I only know, that's what should have been done.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
I don't care about the kid, I have no knowledge of him. For all I know he could be a drunken fare dodging chav.

He was drunk.
He may not have been fare dodging, but at the time failed to produce a valid ticket.
He acted and appeared to be a chav.

That's what the video showed.

Everyone makes a judgement based on the facts present at the time.

If I ever get short changed or mis-sold something, I'll have to try the drunk, abusive approach to get it resolved instead of keeping calm and being polite - but firm - with people to get things resolved. I'm sure it would be much better, especially if the best advice would be to have the police called.

You go with your theory; I'll go with mine.
 

Sapphire Blue

Member
Joined
17 May 2010
Messages
451
I don't care about the kid, I have no knowledge of him. For all I know he could be a drunken fare dodging chav.



My experiences of violence have no bearing on this argument. To bring it up, is more tough guy posturing than relevant point.

As it was yourself who repeatedly used the terms "violence", "violent" and "violent thug" can we assume that it was just "tough guy posturing" from yourself then?

"Don't feed the troll" and "Jog-on WUM" are the expressions that spring to mind.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
He initiated it by fuelling what was an already volatile situation and then giving his permission to the thug, when he asked if he should chuck him off. He essentially handed his control over to a member of the public and authorised violence..
On what basis do you make the comment that it was an "already volatile situation" ? Under the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 the Guard was perfectly entitled to request assistance from any other person, Indeed I believe it was also an offence under the same Act for a person so requested to fail to come to the assistance of Railway staff.


The thug, is a thug and a bully because he used his bulk to dominate the situation. It was nothing to do with him, the situation wasn't violent, he had no part in it, yet he took it upon himself to assault the kid..
So if he had been the same size as the person removed that is alright then? and by extension of that logic the Conductor would also have been a thug and a bully then ?

I only saw "reasonable" force used to eject the person.

I believe it would have ended differently had the victim been a large male because I feel that people wouldn't have thought they could impose their physicality on the victim.
So the train would have stood there until doomsday then ?


May I ask what experience you have of dealing with such situations ? Do you work and of so what as, or are you at school ?
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
He was drunk.
He may not have been fare dodging, but at the time failed to produce a valid ticket.
He acted and appeared to be a chav.

That's what the video showed.

Everyone makes a judgement based on the facts present at the time.

If I ever get short changed or mis-sold something, I'll have to try the drunk, abusive approach to get it resolved instead of keeping calm and being polite - but firm - with people to get things resolved. I'm sure it would be much better, especially if the best advice would be to have the police called.

You go with your theory; I'll go with mine.

How do you work any of that out? Re-watch the video. You cannot derive that he is drunk nor a chav from the video.

You hear him state that he has paid and that he will just sit there. He starts swearing when some big thug grabs him from behind and starts shoving him about. That's all we know.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
29,511
Location
UK
How do you work any of that out? Re-watch the video. You cannot derive that he is drunk nor a chav from the video.

For someone so interested that they're now living on the forum waiting for every response, you do know that things have happened since the video?

He has admitted he was drunk, and there was also the suggestion that he is diabetic and that made him worse. In fact, funnily enough, that's all mentioned in this very thread if you care to go back and read through.

Okay, fair enough, the video itself doesn't show someone is drunk (I am not sure how it could) but his actions are clearly those of someone who is drunk, or otherwise an extremely nasty person. Being drunk is bound to be his defence to any charges that may come his way.
 

furo1

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2011
Messages
16
On what basis do you make the comment that it was an "already volatile situation" ? Under the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 the Guard was perfectly entitled to request assistance from any other person, Indeed I believe it was also an offence under the same Act for a person so requested to fail to come to the assistance of Railway staff.


So if he had been the same size as the person removed that is alright then? and by extension of that logic the Conductor would also have been a thug and a bully then ?

I only saw "reasonable" force used to eject the person.

So the train would have stood there until doomsday then ?


May I ask what experience you have of dealing with such situations ? Do you work and of so what as, or are you at school ?


Did you know it is illegal to be drunk in a bar? Or that I am legally entitled to shoot a Welshman, providing I use a bow and arrow and it's after midnight?

Society changes, often laws are left behind. Relics of a time when they were applicable. Common sense has to prevail.

I used the victims size as opposed to that of his aggressor, to point out that this was a clear case of thuggery. He was an easy target and because of that, people felt they could impose themselves upon him physically to resolve the situation.

I don't know what would have happened had the situation been handled properly. Presumably, the train would have just carried on and the youth would have been dealt with by police at the next opportunity, or maybe he would have just got off with his supposed crime. That is a better resolution than what actually happened.

My experience has nothing to do with this issue. Professionally, I work in a Drug rehabilitation clinic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For someone so interested that they're now living on the forum waiting for every response, you do know that things have happened since the video?

He has admitted he was drunk, and there was also the suggestion that he is diabetic and that made him worse. In fact, funnily enough, that's all mentioned in this very thread if you care to go back and read through.

Okay, fair enough, the video itself doesn't show someone is drunk (I am not sure how it could) but his actions are clearly those of someone who is drunk, or otherwise an extremely nasty person. Being drunk is bound to be his defence to any charges that may come his way.

Living on the forum? From a person with over 6000 posts who has responded to every one of my posts, that's some strange condemnation.

My issue is with what actually happened in the video and how people have construed it.

I don't see a nasty drunken chav. I just see some inspector failing to do his job and some kid getting assaulted.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
...Or that I am legally entitled to shoot a Welshman, providing I use a bow and arrow and it's after midnight?..
MMmmm now that IS useful to know, there are one or two circumstances in which I would have liked to have availed of that Law. Please do tell more !

...Society changes, often laws are left behind. Relics of a time when they were applicable. ..
Most of our existing laws are still based upon historical law. Murder for example, having been made illegal some many hundreds of years ago. Age of a Law does not suddenly negate its applicability or relevance, and indeed recent Law is of such poor quality as to be constantly under Appeal in many cases. Change for change sake is hardly a prescription for managing anything that works let alone the Law

...I used the victims size as opposed to that of his aggressor, to point out that this was a clear case of thuggery. He was an easy target and because of that, people felt they could impose themselves upon him physically to resolve the situation...
No-one imposed themselves upon the person. The passenger asked the Guard of he wished the person removed from the train, presumably taking the age of the Guard into account. The fact that he is a Guard does not necessary mean he was endowed with the ability to physically remove the person from the train. What if it had been a lady Guard ?

The Railway Byelaws are quite clear in authorising a person to be removed from a train (or other Railway premises) using whatever force is considered necessary. The person made an attempt to rejoin the train and was prevented from doing so, again this is legal.

...I don't know what would have happened had the situation been handled properly. Presumably, the train would have just carried on and the youth would have been dealt with by police at the next opportunity, or maybe he would have just got off with his supposed crime. That is a better resolution than what actually happened.

My experience has nothing to do with this issue. Professionally, I work in a Drug rehabilitation clinic..
With respect you are hardly in any position to say that the situation was handled properly or improperly. You can have your opinion but that is all it can ever be. Had you been able to demonstrate some experience in dealing with such situations then maybe your opinion may hold a greater weight, unfortunately you do not have the experience to fall back on, neither do you seemingly have all the facts relating to the lead up to this.

Because of this I find it quite ironic that you seek to do the very thing that you have professed a dislike of.

...Presumably, the train would have just carried on and the youth would have been dealt with by police at the next opportunity, or maybe he would have just got off with his supposed crime. That is a better resolution than what actually happened...
There is no "supposed crime". The person concerned was in breach of the Railway byelaws and Conditions of Carriage. Had he been a little more astute or even had the intelligence he claims to be endowed with if he is attending University, then he would have been far better in managing his dealings with the Guard. I have little doubt that had he explained the circumstances around him buying the tickets in the first place, that the Guard may well have been disposed to let him travel on. As with all things in life attitude and approach have a very high bearing upon how a Guard/Conductor/TM will treat you. Very few of them go to work looking for unnecessary trouble and conflict.

......My experience has nothing to do with this issue. Professionally, I work in a Drug rehabilitation clinic..
On the contrary it has rather a lot to do with the issue.

You have entered onto a Forum that has many Railway staff on it, who have done many years service in such situations and many indeed still work in such roles.

You have then proceeded to (and continue to) state very firmly that the Guard was wrong, did not handle the situation very well, etc, etc.

Now in a lifetime of Railway work I have been involved in a number of similar situations, although most of my colleagues on here have substantially more experience in these matters than I do. What I have learnt both through the job, and in passing through life, is that there are two sides to every story, and that selective and incomplete filmed footage or indeed photograph, can actually convey a completely inaccurate image of an event.

I have not really taken part in the discussions here mostly because at this time the full facts are not necessarily known. The one thing I would NOT do is to raise any criticism of the Guard unless I really had good reason to do so, and that this criticism would be based upon my own experience in being involved with such situations. I have not criticised the Guard.

With great respect to yourself, you do not have this experience and therefore your opinion is speculative at best, and offensive at worst, not only to the Guard concerned but also to my on-train colleagues.

Now opinions may change in the fullness of time of course but at this stage no-one who has experience in dealing with these situations is saying much, and I think that the shrewd readers here will understand why this is the case.

From my own perspective I do HAVE a view but that is a private opinion that I would wish to validate in due course. As to the removal of the person concerned this would certainly appear to have been an appropriate course of action given the facts that are clear so far.
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
He initiated it by fuelling what was an already volatile situation and then giving his permission to the thug, when he asked if he should chuck him off. He essentially handed his control over to a member of the public and authorised violence.

The thug, is a thug and a bully because he used his bulk to dominate the situation. It was nothing to do with him, the situation wasn't violent, he had no part in it, yet he took it upon himself to assault the kid.

I believe it would have ended differently had the victim been a large male because I feel that people wouldn't have thought they could impose their physicality on the victim.

So what you're saying is it's okay to be abusive and to swear at staff doing their job but if a member of the public steps in to assist the staff member then it's not okay and is in fact bullying :roll:

If you watch the video, you will note the staff member numerous times asked to see the passenger's ticket - The passenger in return got abusive and would not accept they were not showing a valid ticket even though the staff member was trying to explain that his ticket was not valid which to me regardless of if the passenger was drunk or not then it should have been enough for the passenger to realise he was handing over the wrong ticket to be checked.

A member of the public realising the staff member could do with some assistance then removed the passenger from the train, this may have been over the top but if the guard did nothing and was not assisted then I'm sure complaints would have flooded in complaining that passengers no longer felt safe on these trains.

Therefore I can only offer my best wishes to both the member of public assisting and the staff member thus hope that the passenger in question learns a valuable lesson and is not abusive in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top