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

[WestCoast]

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.

You've picked a bad example there. If you were abusive and threatening to staff in Comet (like Mr Main was on the train), expect to be turfed out physically by the security guard!

 

[Deerfold]

You've picked a bad example there. If you were abusive and threatening to staff in Comet (like Mr Main was on the train), expect to be turfed out physically by the security guard!

Who is employed with associated insurance etc by Comet.

But not by a random member of the public.

Mr Main seems quite unpleasant and I have no sympathy for him - but you do have to be very careful how far down a path you go before it's a free for all because people feel they're in the right and so can throw someone else about.

 

[Geezertronic]

Who is employed with associated insurance etc by Comet.

But not by a random member of the public.

Mr Main seems quite unpleasant and I have no sympathy for him - but you do have to be very careful how far down a path you go before it's a free for all because people feel they're in the right and so can throw someone else about.

I for one wouldn't (and don't) stand by and watch someone getting verbally (and sometimes physcally) abused...

 

[curly42]

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.

I'll agree with that.
It seems to me that the people defending the scrote/running down the big guy,have no experience of this sort of thing.Those of us who have had to deal with these mouthy chavs all seem to agree. Experience counts (and teaches).

 

[jon0844]

Besides the obvious trolls, there are probably people who do defend people for no logical reason. Even IF he was mistreated, it doesn't make it okay to be abusive on a train. We need to have zero tolerance of anti social behaviour, and treat it more seriously than we do.

Sure, swearing, spitting and being intimidating might not be as bad as rape or murder, but it's not a trivial thing either - especially when there's always the risk (and fear) that things could escalate in the blink of an eye. Certainly, there's always a risk of someone assaulting, or potentially killing, someone by 'snapping' so it's not a petty offence that should have some people in society saying 'Oh come on, give xxx a break' which seems to be all too common.

What's more, acting like that has that fear factor that can make other people react to try and protect/defend themselves, even when nothing has actually happened. Surely everyone has been a situation where they felt very uncomfortable, but someone watching on afterwards (e.g. on CCTV, or hearing witness statements) can easily say 'Seems like nothing happened at all, so what were you worried about?'.

 

[LondonJohn]

?

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?

I never said that but if they are allowing their staff to be subject to abuse without having official ways to redress it LEGALLY they obviously don't care that much about their staff.

I was on a night bus home in London 2 weeks ago, a person got on with no money on his oyster, the driver turned the engine of the bus off, refused to move and called the police. Passengers were hacked off but the Police attended within 15 minutes and removed the person from the bus.. don't know if he was arrested or what he simply sat down and would not listen to the bus driver or other passengers who were trying to get him to pay.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

People forget that no matter how admirable his actions were in their eyes his employers were non too pleased for the publicity that it drew to him and his company... still he was in the right of course who are they to "just not get it"

 

[Nonsense]

Besides the obvious trolls, there are probably people who do defend people for no logical reason. Even IF he was mistreated, it doesn't make it okay to be abusive on a train. We need to have zero tolerance of anti social behaviour, and treat it more seriously than we do.

Sure, swearing, spitting and being intimidating might not be as bad as rape or murder, but it's not a trivial thing either - especially when there's always the risk (and fear) that things could escalate in the blink of an eye. Certainly, there's always a risk of someone assaulting, or potentially killing, someone by 'snapping' so it's not a petty offence that should have some people in society saying 'Oh come on, give xxx a break' which seems to be all too common.

What's more, acting like that has that fear factor that can make other people react to try and protect/defend themselves, even when nothing has actually happened. Surely everyone has been a situation where they felt very uncomfortable, but someone watching on afterwards (e.g. on CCTV, or hearing witness statements) can easily say 'Seems like nothing happened at all, so what were you worried about?'.

NO ONE IS DEFENDING THE FARE DODGING SCROAT!!!

Have those repulsed by the arrogant heavy handed intervention of the big heroic guy never been victims of crime? Rubbish! Some of us have been mugged, verbally abused, racially abused, had their property vandalised and seen their taxes paid to the lawyer scum defending these scroats! Some of us have stood firm between harm and the ones we love and suffered for it. We're not all teenage Guardian readers that never had to make painful life changing decisions. And yet there is still a sense of perspective.

Is it ok to be verbally abusive toward staff? NO!
Is it ok to throw a fellow passenger off a train? NO!

Some posters here would look for instances when its ok to harm someone, like when they're being verbally abusive. It is NEVER, EVER, ok to harm someone. EVER!

Is this a defense of anti social behavior? Of fare dodging? Open season on rail staff? Probably, most people here see what they want to see.

 

[table38]

Is it ok to throw a fellow passenger off a train? NO!

Some posters here would look for instances when its ok to harm someone, like when they're being verbally abusive. It is NEVER, EVER, ok to harm someone. EVER!

A few people on here seem to have forgotten that this happened in Scotland.

I'm no expert on Scots law, but it would appear that self-defence can cover actions you might make on behalf of soneone else, i.e. "you can act in self-defence of another".

Also under those circumstances, it may not be classed as an assault if there's no intent to injure.

Although as with any legal system, it's never that clear cut, which is why this all may still need to be tested in court.

 

[yorkie]

You have a very twisted view of what is right.

No he doesn't! But someone else might

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.

I can't really see Ferret acting in the way that Sam Main did if returning faulty goods to Comet. I guess the equivalent would be to bring the wrong receipt, swear at the staff, shout "I've PAID!" and generally act like a scroat. Nah, sorry, can't see it! If anyone did act like that in Comet and got chucked out and kept launching themselves back in then quite frankly I'd laugh if they got injured doing that as they'd deserve it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'll agree with that.
It seems to me that the people defending the scrote/running down the big guy,have no experience of this sort of thing.Those of us who have had to deal with these mouthy chavs all seem to agree. Experience counts (and teaches).

Very true.

I have to be careful sometimes as I get offers of help to deal with scroats and I have to be careful not to be too accepting of the offers of assistance - which is most annoying and frustrating.

The scroats always get off lightly and claim that their actions are "out of character" (for example these individuals were not in any way out of character - indeed they are both of quite appalling character, I literally laughed out loud when I read that BS - but why does Miss Robins-Hicks need to bother about doing any research to ensure she is telling the truth? It's quite acceptable to say that a chav who constantly misbehaves is of good character, after all chavs who are abusive have rights, and their right to disrupt other peoples lives is far more important than the rights of others not to have their lives disrupted, isn't it?)

The war against chavs will never be won - fact. However sometimes we can win individual battles. When we have victory, it is most sweet. Savour the small and rare victories when they happen, I say.

 

[jon0844]

If you don't have a valid ticket, you're considered a trespasser. In most cases, you're not actually thrown off the train but asked to leave. Fail to comply and, well, any number of things can happen. In this case, someone else took action - right or wrong. However, it was preventable by complying with the request in the first place.

How do we know Mr Main wouldn't have tried to fight his way back on the train if BTP had escorted him off, or the guard, or was simply guided along by other passengers without being thrown?

There are many individual things that all added up to what happened, and the actions of Mr Main pretty much ensured he was going to be taken off that train one way or another. The method by which he got thrown off is therefore not going to change that fact. He'd have no doubt still kicked off the next day, with his changing stories to try and get people behind him.

To be fair, I think he was (to a degree) man enough to own up the next day on Facebook and try and save face, it was his dad that decided to make up stories that appeared to keep changing. The best thing he could have done was admit he was drunk and leave it at that. We've all done stupid things in the heat of the moment, or perhaps under the influence of drink.

I am yet to see how big man harmed Mr Main. He was simply doing what was required to stop him coming back on the train. I don't regard that as assault, but I have my opinion and you have yours. Fortunately, they are just opinions and it will be for a court to decide IF anything is to happen.

 

[Grantham]

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered...

So is there much of a legal difference between causing someone to feel pain as opposed to actually harming them?

I'm sure there is here (Australia) but don't know about over there. My limited knowledge of our deteriorating legal system would imagine the difference here would be an assault charge for causing pain like tweaking an ear or nose, bruises, assault occasioning actual bodily harm for a good dusting up, bruising, broken bones, and assault causing grievous bodily harm for permanent brain damage, permenant internal injuries, removal of limbs, etc.

I'm pretty sure that not being in posession of a valid ticket removes a certain amount (but not all) of liability from the railway company, it will be interesting to see what happens in court, although it seems ludicrous for the issue to go that far. As has been said before, we indulge the offenders of anti-social behaviour when we oughtn't.

I believe the very first step to cleaning up the violence on the New York subway system in the late 1970s was not to crack down on violence, but to crack down on fare evasion. Anyone else here see why this might work? It worked there!

 

[Michael.Y]

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered...

No need to apologise - this thread has gone round and back on itself so many times it makes the Circle Line* look progressive.

*Y'know - back when it WAS a circle :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Assault is to cause someone to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. Battery is to apply unlawful force to someone.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This has been going around in circles so long now i'm dizzy and bored! :roll:

 

[michael769]

So is there much of a legal difference between causing someone to feel pain as opposed to actually harming them?

There is indeed, in England and Wales there is Common Assault, Assault occasioning actual bodily harm and Wounding with Intent/Grievous Bodily Harm.

The Scottish equivalents are Common Law offences of Assault, Assault to injury, and Aggravated assault/Assault to severe injury.

 

[Wolfie]

I would hope that the fare evader is charged with at least a breach of bylaws. But I still say that if that 'good guy', or whatever you want to call him had grabbed me like he grabbed Main, he'd have lost his teeth.

G.

I hope you wouldn't have behaved like Main. I might well have reacted as the Big Man did and I sincerely hope a decent Scots jury will find him NOT GUILTY (not the wishy washy Not Proven). Had you assaulted me (ie I lost my teeth) then in all probability you would have been hospitalised!

A month ago I wouldn't have taken this view; a month ago one of my friends hadn't been assaulted by some piece of ****e! I suspect the vast majority of the British people have had quite eneough of the low life scum walking the streets and feel that the only respect chavs deserve comes in the form of brute force applied against them - I know that I have!

 

[Greeny]

That is a view to which you are prefectly entitled. However, I am also entitled to my view and as I have said previously - 1/. The law entitles me to defend myself and 2/. Both of the individuals involved want their heads banging together. I think the law would take a dim view of hospitalising somebody who defended themselves. Had Main attacked the Conductor or Pollock first that is a different matter but up to that point there was no physical violence used (as opposed to perceived as an excuse to lay hands on someone).

To repeat I DO NOT SUPPORT MR. MAIN OR HIS BEHAVIOUR - I SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW and up to now, I have not heard ANYBODY on this forum support Mains actions.

Not directed at you, but I am getting sick of people falsely trying to paint those who do not support Pollock as automatically supporting Main.

Don't the moderators think this is getting out of hand ?.

G

 

[Minilad]

That is a view to which you are prefectly entitled. However, I am also entitled to my view and as I have said previously - 1/. The law entitles me to defend myself and 2/. Both of the individuals involved want their heads banging together. I think the law would take a dim view of hospitalising somebody who defended themselves. Had main attacked the Conductor or Pololock first that is a different matter but up to that point there was no physical violence used (as opposed to perceived as an excuse to lay hands on someone).

To repeat I DO NOT SUPPORT MR. MAIN OR HIS BEHAVIOUR - I SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW and up to now, I have not heard ANYBODY on this forum support Mains actions.

Don't the moderators think this is getting out of hand ?.

G

Agreed. Cant think there is much that hasn't been said on this subject.
Seems to me neither side wants to see the other sides view so it just goes round in circles

 

[yorkie]

I think it's time to end it at this point.

(However I'd like to point out that any requests for moderator actions, or any feedback to moderators must be sent using the report button

on an appropriate post. Moderators do not read all posts made on this forum so if messages are left as a post on this forum it may never be read or actioned upon).