Abusive language should NOT be tolerated. There are no excuses; drunk, ill or whatever. People like Mr Main show a lack of RESPECT. People can defend him all they like, but no member of staff should be subjected to that.
Certainly on an aircraft, language and attitude like that would mean removal of the person involved. Crew members instructions must ALWAYS be obeyed and that is law in the skies.
I don't see why a train should be any different.
You are right abusive language should not be tolerated but then to the same extent neither should violence. Two wrongs here most definitely do not make it right and you cannot say that someone deserved to be the victim of an assault just because he got gobby.
As a passenger, especially on the last Friday night trains out of London I have been held up several times by the time the police have been called to a disruptive passenger.
If the BTP are as unreliable as railway staff say then their (powerful) unions should put pressure on the TOCs to correct that and make their work places a safer enviorement to work. Not endorse little more than petty violence by a passenger so that everybody gets home on time.
Nobody should have to put up with verbal assault but then neither should anybody have to put up with physical assault either.
Fortunately we have the laws of the land in this country and if they are broken we have a system that can deal with it.
The sad thing is here that the 3 people involved will probably not come out of this too well and will have to deal with the consequences of their actions or lack of and the knock on effect of the same.
Mr Pollock will have difficulty with visas for Australia and America just on the basis of being charged with assault even if no further action materialises. This might also impede his work if business trips are needed here.
If I recall correctly in the spiel that you get when phoning for car/motor/travel insurance you have to declare if you have any convictions or investigations which is going to make his insurance premiums be higher if indeed companies want to cover him.
The guard has probably worked his last shift before his retirement has prematurely started and who knows what will become of Sam Main after this..will he have difficulty getting a job after uni if he is charged and/or convicted ?
One thing that hasn't been commented on much apart from in the early days of this thread is the person that posted it to you tube in the first instance.
All he wanted from this was the fame and glory of getting a video to go viral and he certainly has that without thinking of the consequences of the 3 people involved. Indeed if you see his interview on BBC Breakfast Time he is revelling in the fame and glory that he is getting until he is brought down a peg or 2 by the presenters.
No winners here at all just hopefully valuable lessons to be learnt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am just trying to highlight an important issue here. It shouldn't be acceptable to respond in a way that Mr Main did here. Those who defend him don't seem to acknowledge that. Verbal abuse on public transport should be treated just as seriously as physical abuse, but sadly (IMO) it does not receive the same recognition.
Deliberate verbal abuse is identifiable. My mention of 'illness' was in response to Main's mention of Diabetes. I wasn't talking about Tourettes and so on, which has very little to do with the situation here.
Neither should it be acceptable for Mr Pollock to allegedly assault Mr Main. I support Sam Main though I do agree his actions were unreasonable and way out of order BUT that in my opinion in no way justifies the subsequent assault.
I would hate to be in the shoes of the Scottish Equivilent of the CPS as there are 1.9 million pairs of eyes watching to see who will come out on top gobby student or have a go hero big man.
