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

[Nonsense]

Not just verbally abusive. It has been alleged that on Scotrails CCTV camera he can be seen trying to trip the guard up.

I am amazed that on a forum like this some see it as acceptable to allegedly attempt to assault and verbally abuse a member of train crew - and appropriate that members of the public should be vilified for trying to come to the aid of staff.

Is it open season on train crew?

You're amazed because you're not grasping the point of the opposing view and seem unable to separate the two very different issues.

One issue is the abusive fare dodger make life difficult for the rail staff.

The other is the excessive intervention of Pollock.

Being appalled by the treatment of the Chav is not the same thing as endorsing his behavior. And its ridiculous to claim that it is.

Violence solves nothing, I'm surprised that anyone here doesn't get that. Especially those that believe that 'he got what was coming to him..' but still claim moral superiority over the lowlife chav. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think you need to check the definition of assault and come back to tell us what it is.

We do not know what happened before the phone footage was captured. The guard clearly was saying that everybody would be waiting there until the matter was sorted. It does not excuse either Sam Main's actions or that of Allan Pollock if the TOC had a better relationship with the BTP a protocol would be in place and there would be a short delay whilst the police attend to deal with the matter... nobody likes that and they all want to get home but sadly we have to wait when someone is taken ill on a train.

Whilst I am sure forum members would not be abusive to a guard I bet they would be up in arms if they were forcibly removed from a train late at night after they beleived they paid the correct fare.... They would be writing to the TOC and Passenger Focus for compensation many times over the value of the fare paid.

Whether we like it or not we have the law of the land to deal with situations like this. Two wrongs never make a right but being a gobby ****e does not warrant an assault.

Where do you draw the line.. he was shouting and swearing so I threw him off the train and broke his leg..... he was being obnoxious so I manhandled him off the train and he fractured his skull as he fell awkwardly.....

Lets make it clear regarding the BTP

There is nowhere near enough of them..Period!

they take forever to turn up

and are really no use as a Transport police Force

Mr Chav.. I mean Main/Pain/a**hole got manhandled off the train, to the celebration of the majority of the passengers, he got what he deserved the only Victim is Mr Pollock as he is being lambasted by such a small Minority to the levels of "Mindless Thug" "Animal" etc etc when the one person who deserves to be lambasted and treated with contempt some people are protecting, please folks to the people who are on Mr Main's side beware what you wish for because if some foul mouthed Chav is having a go being verbally threatening and intimidating lets hope everyone turns around and walks away because in reality that is what you will get!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're amazed because you're not grasping the point of the opposing view and seem unable to separate the two very different issues.

One issue is the abusive fare dodger make life difficult for the rail staff.

The other is the excessive intervention of Pollock.

Being appalled by the treatment of the Chav is not the same thing as endorsing his behavior. And its ridiculous to claim that it is.

Violence solves nothing, I'm surprised that anyone here doesn't get that. Especially those that believe that 'he got what was coming to him..' but still claim moral superiority over the lowlife chav. Talk about hypocrisy.

THE Issue is the verbally abusive behaviour of Mr Main

and the other is the rightfully correct intervention by Mr Pollock who on seeing an aged member of staff being intimidated and verbally assaulted decided to take action.

Some people really need to see what the real world is like after taking off there rose tinted specs!

 

[Greenback]

if the TOC had a better relationship with the BTP a protocol would be in place and there would be a short delay whilst the police attend to deal with the matter... nobody likes that and they all want to get home but sadly we have to wait when someone is taken ill on a train.

It is nothing to do with protocol. The BTP are simply unable to attend every incident they may be needed at with only a 'short delay'. Trouble makers know this only too well, which is partyl why they feel that they can shout and swear their way through situations without any comeback on them.

Whether we like it or not we have the law of the land to deal with situations like this. Two wrongs never make a right but being a gobby ****e does not warrant an assault.

If the law does not recognise that assisting in the removal of a criminal from a premises is not assault, then the law needs to be changed.

Where do you draw the line.. he was shouting and swearing so I threw him off the train and broke his leg..... he was being obnoxious so I manhandled him off the train and he fractured his skull as he fell awkwardly.....

It would be for prosecutors to determine whether any action shouldbe taken, giving due regard to the circumstances, the behaviour of the injured person, and the acounts of witnesses.

In fairness, we don;t know what the outcome is or will be here, as far as I know.

You're amazed because you're not grasping the point of the opposing view and seem unable to separate the two very different issues.

One issue is the abusive fare dodger make life difficult for the rail staff.

The other is the excessive intervention of Pollock.

Being appalled by the treatment of the Chav is not the same thing as endorsing his behavior. And its ridiculous to claim that it is.

Violence solves nothing, I'm surprised that anyone here doesn't get that. Especially those that believe that 'he got what was coming to him..' but still claim moral superiority over the lowlife chav. Talk about hypocrisy.

What do you think should happen in cases were someone has been ordered to leave the train and will not do so?

 

[yorkie]

Whilst I am sure forum members would not be abusive to a guard I bet they would be up in arms if they were forcibly removed from a train late at night after they beleived they paid the correct fare.... They would be writing to the TOC and Passenger Focus for compensation many times over the value of the fare paid.

Oh come on, if anyone on this forum acted in the way of Sam Main and shouted and swore at the conductor and thinking saying things like "I've paid!" counts as a constructive discussion about why they are holding a ticket for the wrong direction, then quite frankly they'd deserve to be removed from the train. Only an absolute scumbag behaves in such a disgraceful manner and such scumbags rarely get what they deserve. But occasionally, in rare occurences, they do get what they deserve.

This really isn't about a ticketing matter, and if Sam Main had approached the guard and explained normally like any reasonable person would, then this whole incident would never have happened.

 

[Ferret]

Greenback, I've yet to see an answer to my question from earlier on, when I asked those arguing that Big Man is bang out of order why ordinary law-abiding people should be seriously inconvenienced by a loud-mouth thug. I find that fascinating.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Oh come on, if anyone on this forum acted in the way of Sam Main and shouted and swore at the conductor and thinking saying things like "I've paid!" counts as a constructive discussion about why they are holding a ticket for the wrong direction, then quite frankly they'd deserve to be removed from the train. Only an absolute scumbag behaves in such a disgraceful manner and such scumbags rarely get what they deserve. But occasionally, in rare occurences, they do get what they deserve.

This really isn't about a ticketing matter, and if Sam Main had approached the guard and explained normally like any reasonable person would, then this whole incident would never have happened.

That's what it all boils down to though, if someone comes up to me, speaks to me with respect they will get treated with the utmost respect back, no exceptions, I don't care if you are drunk, drugged yadda yadda, respect me and you will get it back, Mr Main was verbally abusive, intimidating and a complete and utter rude obnoxious little tw*t, the passengers and the staff had enough and a passenger manhandled him (assualt my ar*e) to get him off the train, Mr Main didn't like the fact his bluff was called! tough sh*t game over
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Greenback, I've yet to see an answer to my question from earlier on, when I asked why those arguing that Big Man is bang out of order why ordinary law-abiding people should be seriously inconvenienced by a loud-mouth thug. I find that fascinating.

You noticed that too :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

 

[Minilad]

Greenback, I've yet to see an answer to my question from earlier on, when I asked why those arguing that Big Man is bang out of order why ordinary law-abiding people should be seriously inconvenienced by a loud-mouth thug. I find that fascinating.

You will probably be waiting awhile as people like that are big on rights and what the law says but not so big on real world occurrences and how to react to them

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The thing is, everyone is basing their opinion on video footage that starts once the incident is well under way. How do we know he didn't start off trying to explain the situation and the guard refused to listen?

Mr Main, you know the one who was 'assualted', claims that the video started 'seconds' after the guard came to check his ticket (whilst in a station with the doors open and no-one boarding or alighting). The video taker says they were at it for minutes before he started filming.

If Mr Main had had time to explain his predicament, he would not have said it was such a short time, as clearly there is no explanation in the video.

 

[marks87]

Mr Main, you know the one who was 'assualted', claims that the video started 'seconds' after the guard came to check his ticket (whilst in a station with the doors open and no-one boarding or alighting). The video taker says they were at it for minutes before he started filming.

If Mr Main had had time to explain his predicament, he would not have said it was such a short time, as clearly there is no explanation in the video.

You assume that the explanation was attempted at that point.

Is it beyond all possibility that he tried to explain earlier, but it wasn't until the train was stopped that the guard revisited him to throw him off?

 

[Ferret]

You will probably be waiting awhile as people like that are big on rights and what the law says but not so big on real world occurrences and how to react to them

And of course it's easy to sit there behind a computer screen saying that I know best when it comes to dealing with abusive yobbery. Wonder how the 'holier than thou' brigade would react if confronted with it for real though.

 

[Nonsense]

What do you think should happen in cases were someone has been ordered to leave the train and will not do so?

I think that they should be shot, and all guards be issued with cattleprods.

Seriously though. I don't have the answers, and would never claim to.

Step back from this particular instance though, look at the big picture and understand what you're advocating. Can you not see how it would backfire? The consequences of giving free reign to anyone to right a wrong, as they perceive it? Ask questions later? Can you not see how it could be abused? What is being called for here, and supported by the 'majority', is known as vigilantism, and its outlawed for very good reasons.

This about a lot more than a fare dodger shouting at a guard, far more, and absolutely nothing to do with supporting a fare dodger.

 

[Minilad]

And of course it's easy to sit there behind a computer screen saying that I know best when it comes to dealing with abusive yobbery. Wonder how the 'holier than thou' brigade would react if confronted with it for real though.

Lets hope for their sakes they never have to. It could get messy

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh come on, if anyone on this forum acted in the way of Sam Main and shouted and swore at the conductor and thinking saying things like "I've paid!" counts as a constructive discussion about why they are holding a ticket for the wrong direction, then quite frankly they'd deserve to be removed from the train. Only an absolute scumbag behaves in such a disgraceful manner and such scumbags rarely get what they deserve. But occasionally, in rare occurences, they do get what they deserve.

This really isn't about a ticketing matter, and if Sam Main had approached the guard and explained normally like any reasonable person would, then this whole incident would never have happened.

How do we know that didn't happen and the guard was having none of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is nothing to do with protocol. The BTP are simply unable to attend every incident they may be needed at with only a 'short delay'. Trouble makers know this only too well, which is partyl why they feel that they can shout and swear their way through situations without any comeback on them.



If the law does not recognise that assisting in the removal of a criminal from a premises is not assault, then the law needs to be changed.

Then in your opinion the law needs to be changed. As it stands now it does not legally permit someone to be manhandled from the train.

It would be for prosecutors to determine whether any action shouldbe taken, giving due regard to the circumstances, the behaviour of the injured person, and the acounts of witnesses.

In fairness, we don;t know what the outcome is or will be here, as far as I know.



What do you think should happen in cases were someone has been ordered to leave the train and will not do so?

If this happens frequently then the TOC should employ travel safety officers.. of course they are not going to do so because of the cost and the disrespect they have for their staff.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I think that they should be shot, and all guards be issued with cattleprods.

Seriously though. I don't have the answers, and would never claim to.

Step back from this particular instance though, look at the big picture and understand what you're advocating. Can you not see how it would backfire? The consequences of giving free reign to anyone to right a wrong, as they perceive it? Ask questions later? Can you not see how it could be abused? What is being called for here, and supported by the 'majority', is known as vigilantism, and its outlawed for very good reasons.

This about a lot more than a fare dodger shouting at a guard, far more, and absolutely nothing to do with supporting a fare dodger.

Vigilantism and helping out a fellow human being who is being verbally abused and initimidated by someone well over half his age should be applauded, this isn't the start of vigilantism as you put it but 1 person saying "you are bang out of order" and doing something about it, this isn't gangs of people calling for someones head or the like this is just 1 person helping out a fellow human being, there is a tremendous gap between that and vigilantism, may I suggest putting yourself in a member of Traincrews position, you have been threatened, spat at, been treated like sh*te by numerous "chavs" even been assaulted once or twice over the years! why because no one would stand up for decency, Mr Pollock did and the guy deserves a shake on the hand, he isn't a vigilante, he just has morals
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do we know that didn't happen and the guard was having none of it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As said previously by myself and quite a few others, respect = respect back Mr Main had zero respect for anyone not the guard or anyone else on the train


If this happens frequently then the TOC should employ travel safety officers.. of course they are not going to do so because of the cost and the disrespect they have for their staff.

Cost, not disrespect for their staff as Staff on the sick costs them more, you can't have security on every train, just isn't practical of course if you want Security on all trains the costs can be passed onto the passenger.

But same scenario happens again

Security throws him off

Same argument all over again

 

[michael769]

Lets face it. If a police constable ejected someone in these circumstances as an alternative to arrest they would probably also be accused of being heavy handed.

As they would if they arrested him.

Incidents like this are lose-lose for everyone involved.

 

[Greenback]

Seriously though. I don't have the answers, and would never claim to.

Step back from this particular instance though, look at the big picture and understand what you're advocating. Can you not see how it would backfire? The consequences of giving free reign to anyone to right a wrong, as they perceive it? Ask questions later? Can you not see how it could be abused? What is being called for here, and supported by the 'majority', is known as vigilantism, and its outlawed for very good reasons.

This about a lot more than a fare dodger shouting at a guard, far more, and absolutely nothing to do with supporting a fare dodger.

I am looking at the big picture. I am looking at a society where some people believe that they are entitled to anything that they want, and that they can get it by behaving in a foul mouthed and abusive way because no one can touch them.

It is not vigilantism to assist in the maintenance of rules and order. Vigilantism is more like people going out and looking for trouble, and then acting as judge and jury and administering their own style of punishment.

What happened on the train was not that. There was a situation where a member of staff had instructed Main to remove himself from the train because he did not have a ticket, he refused to buy and became abusive. He did not leave the train. Main was abusing the member of staff, in full view of other passengers, one of whom offered their assistance in order that everyone could continue their journey with as little inconvenience as possible.

How do we know that didn't happen and the guard was having none of it.

The evidence that is available is very suggestive that it didn't happen, which is about as much as can said, usually, unless an individual is present in a given situation ie an eye witness. This exactly what happens in court, when evidence is presented and the jury make a judgement based on that evidence.

In this case, both eye witness accounts and the video evidence supports the view that Main was drunk and abusive. This is in itself a violation of railway byelaws. If he had not been drunk and abusive, if he had had a valid ticket and behaved in a reasonable and civilised manenr, there would have been no need for any intervention to remove him from the train. In fact, there would have been no need for him to leave the train at all. Therefore, he is very much the architect of his own downfall.

 

[table38]

Perhaps Alan Pollock had read this:

There is no legal definition of a citizens arrest in Scotland, however common law states that anyone committing an offence can be detained using the minimum force necessary in the circumstances.

and thought it said "detrained"

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Perhaps Alan Pollock had read this:


and thought it said "detrained"

Ouch! me and you need to have a good argument over a pint lol

Buffet bar in 10 lol

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You assume that the explanation was attempted at that point.

Is it beyond all possibility that he tried to explain earlier, but it wasn't until the train was stopped that the guard revisited him to throw him off?

Maybe it was possible, but Mr Main also claims there was no previous discussion.

 

[Geezertronic]

And of course it's easy to sit there behind a computer screen saying that I know best when it comes to dealing with abusive yobbery. Wonder how the 'holier than thou' brigade would react if confronted with it for real though.

Been there, done that. Asked quite a few inconsiderates to stop talking loudly on their mobile in the quiet coach, asked a few chavs to turn their music off on WM buses before - get the usual "I'm not doing anything wrong response", only had one issue on a bus where the man's MP3 player ended up down the other end of the bus (he was about the same age and build as me for the record). Not happy that happened but some people just don't react to a pleasant request and tend to give verbal back in return.

 

[34D]

I was once in a waiting shelter on a platform in england. A chav (older than me, also with a child) came in smoking. I asked him to smoke away from my son. He put it out.

Mr Pollock deserves a pat on the back from all decent people for doing something to kerb the rise of our chav underclass. Personally I think Scotrail need to send him a formal thank you aswell.

Wasn't the 'law' on reasonable force to maintain order/protect property supposed to have been clarified?

 

[LondonJohn]

Vigilantism and helping out a fellow human being who is being verbally abused and initimidated by someone well over half his age should be applauded, this isn't the start of vigilantism as you put it but 1 person saying "you are bang out of order" and doing something about it, this isn't gangs of people calling for someones head or the like this is just 1 person helping out a fellow human being, there is a tremendous gap between that and vigilantism, may I suggest putting yourself in a member of Traincrews position, you have been threatened, spat at, been treated like sh*te by numerous "chavs" even been assaulted once or twice over the years! why because no one would stand up for decency, Mr Pollock did and the guy deserves a shake on the hand, he isn't a vigilante, he just has morals
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Cost, not disrespect for their staff as Staff on the sick costs them more, you can't have security on every train, just isn't practical of course if you want Security on all trains the costs can be passed onto the passenger.

But same scenario happens again

Security throws him off

Same argument all over again

You don't know that will happen.

People have mentioned bouncers on this thread well pretty much all licensed establishments have bouncers or door staff in attendance at their own cost (which I am sure gets passed on to the consumers).

They are trained and regulated and have to pass exams in confrontation management, restraint etc and could deal with situations like this. If however excessive force is used then they are also subject to the laws of the land he WAS assaulted.

As things stand, Mr Pollock's actions did not go down well with his employer who I guess in his life are more important than train crew of the UK or the passengers on the train. His best intentions were foolish in the least and will cost him inconveniences in travelling to places such as the USA, South Africa and Australia should he ever want to go to these places IF they let him in. He may also have problems in other countries as the Border Control staff will just see arrested/charged with assault they wont get the background/moral of what he did was right or wrong.


As has been said here neither the guard, Sam Main nor Mr Pollock have come across in a great light.

The TOC of the land are pretty poor employers if they allow their staff to be subjected to this as Mr Main's actions were totally out of order and unacceptable but according to the laws of the land (incidently nobody has been able to produce their definition of assault yet),

So if TOC staff think it is acceptable to use force and violence to get a disruptive passenger off the train then they need to lobby their MPs to get the law changed to do so as thinking its morally OK to do and being within the law are not the same thing in this case.

Anybody who follows SouthEastern Trains' twitter feed will see numerous times over the weekend train delayed xx mins due to disruptive passenger. I am assuming because they have called the police cause I haven't seen any more videos on You Tube.

 

[Ferret]

Mr Pollock has only come across in a bad light to those who get outraged by people who refuse to conform to the leftist mantra that standing up for what is right is a bad thing.

Honestly - talk of Pollock being a vigilante?! He hardly got together with a group of mates to beat seven bells out of the abusive male did he?! For me, use of the word 'vigilante' proves that the argument has been lost by those who just don't get it.

 

[jon0844]

Nor did he get off the train and 'deal' with Mr Main. He merely got him off the train, and stopped him getting back on (and at the time, Mr Main was trespassing so had no right to get back on to the train).

It may well be a problem to get into some countries if he's found guilty and gets an assault charge on his record - but this will only serve to stop anyone ever daring to help in the future. Something to think about when someone is killed one day and everyone around just stood around looking at the floor.

 

[Nonsense]

Mr Pollock has only come across in a bad light to those who get outraged by people who refuse to conform to the leftist mantra that standing up for what is right is a bad thing.

Honestly - talk of Pollock being a vigilante?! He hardly got together with a group of mates to beat seven bells out of the abusive male did he?! For me, use of the word 'vigilante' proves that the argument has been lost by those who just don't get it.

You have a very twisted view of what is right.

OK. So we let Pollock get away with this and set a precedent.

Next week you need to return your faulty goods to Comet, but the cashier won't honor the returns policy or your statutory rights. You demand to see the manager, he refuses. Your patience runs thin, he asks you to leave. You refuse. Next thing you know, some big guy in the queue behind, tired of waiting for your complaint to be resolved, decides to help the cashier and eject you from the shop. You resist, but being much bigger than you, you find yourself on the street with a broken wrist.

Sure, you'll get your refund eventually, because you were in the right, but that's what the courts are there for right?

You can argue that the situation is different in a civilised state like our own without fear of physical oppression, but try arguing that its different while you're being dragged from a building or vehicle.

You have the right to protection and equality enshrined in law and you'd see that given up just to see a lowlife, in your view, get some comeuppance.

You're not talking about standing up for what is right, you're looking for petty vengeance.

 

[Greenback]

You have a very twisted view of what is right.

OK. So we let Pollock get away with this and set a precedent.

Next week you need to return your faulty goods to Comet, but the cashier won't honor the returns policy or your statutory rights. You demand to see the manager, he refuses. Your patience runs thin, he asks you to leave. You refuse. Next thing you know, some big guy in the queue behind, tired of waiting for your complaint to be resolved, decides to help the cashier and eject you from the shop. You resist, but being much bigger than you, you find yourself on the street with a broken wrist.

Sure, you'll get your refund eventually, because you were in the right, but that's what the courts are there for right?

You can argue that the situation is different in a civilised state like our own without fear of physical oppression, but try arguing that its different while you're being dragged from a building or vehicle.

You have the right to protection and equality enshrined in law and you'd see that given up just to see a lowlife, in your view, get some comeuppance.

You're not talking about standing up for what is right, you're looking for petty vengeance.

No, he is talking about standing up for what is right. At the end of the day, if someone asks you to elave a premises, you should expect to be removed if you refuse, no matter what the circumstances. You can produce all of the examples you can think of where the customer might well be in the right (unlike Main who was not), but in the end the point is that no one has the right to be on someone else's property if the owenr or their representative do not want you to be there. That includes houses, gardens, planes, trains, buses, shops, pubs, clubs, surgeries, hospitals, airports, railway stations and schools plus a lot more places besides.

And, if you resist being removed, and end up with a broken wrist, you are at the very least contributing to the situation by resisting in the first place.

 

[WelshBluebird]

At the risk of splitting hairs - and I am not a troll - there are times when travelling between stations with out a ticket can't be avoided My local station doesn't have ticket issuing facilities and the next one on the line going east doesn't have them either. They used to have them but they were abandoned. Am I not entitled to use the two stations ? When I get on I fully intend to pay my fare to any inspector.

Of course the difference is that you are travelling between two stations where you cannot buy a ticket.
If you were asked to buy a ticket buy a member of staff during the journey, I am sure you would do so.
And I would guess you would also try to sort out any ticketing issue as soon as you possibly could if there were any issues (such as being sold tickets for the wrong way for the journey).
And I am also sure you would not launch into a verbal attack on the member of staff using unsavoury language and being disruptive to everyone else.
That is not the case with what happened.
Totally different set of circumstances.

 

[jon0844]

Next week you need to return your faulty goods to Comet, but the cashier won't honor the returns policy or your statutory rights. You demand to see the manager, he refuses. Your patience runs thin, he asks you to leave. You refuse. Next thing you know, some big guy in the queue behind, tired of waiting for your complaint to be resolved, decides to help the cashier and eject you from the shop. You resist, but being much bigger than you, you find yourself on the street with a broken wrist.

It's not quite comparable, but surely if you were abusive, threatening, swearing at everyone around you etc - staff would have every right to throw you out. If someone, from a member of the public or a security guard, helped then so be it.

I am not sure that a manager would refuse to see you or you'd be asked to leave. For your example to work, you are painting a picture that everyone in the shop would seemingly turn against you - which is unlikely, no? However, if it did happen then you'd have no choice but to leave anyway and take things up later. What else could you do? Start attacking the staff until they complied and gave you the refund?? I suspect by then, the police would have been called - and unlike on the train, they'd turn up and quickly. They may not care for shoplifting, but they'll come out in force for a fight.

The only comparison to the train is that there's a somewhat higher chance that Mr Main would have done something, especially under the influence of alcohol, whereas I am doubtful someone in Comet would suddenly start fighting over trying to get a refund. For a start, nobody came to you to start anything as happened when the guard asked to see tickets.

Perhaps you could come up with an example of being stopped on the way out and accused of not paying for your goods? And what happens then.. as that would more appropriate. In fact, the more I go on, the more I realise that the above example you gave is not really suitable as a comparison at all!

 

[Darandio]

The TOC of the land are pretty poor employers if they allow their staff to be subjected to this as Mr Main's actions were totally out of order and unacceptable but according to the laws of the land (incidently nobody has been able to produce their definition of assault yet),

?

It's now the fault of the TOC's that a scroat such as Main can abuse staff? What are they supposed to do exactly? Personality checks before boarding?

 

[Flamingo]

This thread is getting more circular than ever.

Can everybody agree that:

1. Mr Pollock was acting in good faith, and had nothing to gain from his actions (indeed, it is the classic "No good deed goes unpunished").

2. Mr Main is a foul-mouth little scrote.

If anybody wishes to dispute either of the above, then give a valid arguement based on the evidence of the video, witnesses, and subsequent postings by Mr Main of Facebook and news interviews, NOT personal opinion based on political leanings or dealings with a nasty RPI in the past.