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

[Flamingo]

Did I say you should?

My point was that if the ticket story is completely true, then the student is guilty of nothing more than "being a bit lippy". So if that's now grounds to throw someone off a train, I look forward to seeing it being applied to the aforementioned groups.

It counts as a public order offence, and I regularly have groups thrown off for it.

So to answer your question, yes it is grounds to throw somebody off, or refuse them travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I said, he has a plausible and easily-verifiable story regarding his tickets which, if true, doesn't make him a fare-dodger.

People are trying to make this far too black and white.

Well, if it was that verifiable, I'm sure he would have produced his "proof" by now, let alone at the time. So in the absence that proof, it's only his word for it, therefore he is a fare-dodger.

 

[marks87]

It counts as a public order offence, and I regularly have groups thrown off for it.

So to answer your question, yes it is grounds to throw somebody off, or refuse them travel.

That doesn't address my point, which is regarding consistency.

(And it also doesn't take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the "lippiness").

 

[Flamingo]

No, your point is that we should accept abusive behaviour as part of the job.

 

[marks87]

Well, if it was that verifiable, I'm sure he would have produced his "proof" by now, let alone at the time. So in the absence that proof, it's only his word for it, therefore he is a fare-dodger.

You're assuming that his first ticket wasn't relinquished at Edinburgh Park.

If it was, then the proof would need to be obtained from ScotRail's sales records (for a single PMT-EDP immediately followed by a 16-25 single EDP-PMT), combined with the CCTV footage of the ticket office.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, your point is that we should accept abusive behaviour as part of the job.

Nowhere have I said that.

I said that I've seen abusive behaviour accepted (to the extent that nothing is done about it).

 

[Platform 1]

(And it also doesn't take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the "lippiness").

It's still not the sort of thing people should be expected to hear when travelling by train. Do we not all think that people shouldn't be put of train travel by such things? The railways already have a bad enough reputation.

 

[BestWestern]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16177725

A complaint has been made to police against the person who threw the guy off.

Let's hope that Scotrail/BTP have the presence of mind to explore all possible prosecution avenues against the idiot himself, be it a ticket irregularity if applicable or his verbal abuse towards the Guard.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . if that's now grounds to throw someone off a train, I look forward to seeing it being applied to the aforementioned groups.

It counts as a public order offence, and I regularly have groups thrown off for it.

That will be Section 5 or even Section 4 of the 1986 Public Order Act. Those Sections do not apply in Scotland.

The Scottish 2006 Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice Act doesn't have the same provisions though I suspect other legislation may help albeit with lesser force (but I don't have access at present).

 

[Chew Chew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16177725

A complaint has been made to police against the person who threw the guy off.

Things could get interesting now.

We know, from the post I think was by Yorkie/scotsman but I can't find now, that the guy who uploaded the video said contact details were shared and a lawyer was present and said to the examiner and Big Fella to give him a call if things went further.

We also know that the uploader of the video says that Sam Main's claim that it was all over in a minute is false as Sam Main was abusive and swearing at the guard for 5 minutes before he started filming.

I presume the police will be asking Sam Main, if it was him or his parents who have made the complaint, why he now wants to make a complaint when a couple of days ago he thought it was a big laugh.

Once the other witnesses have been contacted and their side of the story given could we see the BTP be likely to arrest Sam Main for a breach of the peace as well as the numerous railway byelaws he broke?

Personally I think all three of them would now have preferred it if the video wasn't uploaded to youtube but out of the Big Fella and Sam Main I know who this'll have the most impact on and it isn't the Big Fella. In the future if the Big Fella applies for a job I'd say that most HR bods would look at him as the guy who stood up to an abusive youth helping out a relatively elderly gentleman in the process. Sam Main will be seen as a wee ned who can't handle his bevvy, became abusive to an examiner in front of young children and then lied to the media.

Have you noticed how Sam Main is only talking about the contents of the video and nothing before it? I'm going to come to an assumption on that one, maybe rightly or wrongly, that he was that bevvied he can't remember what happened so the video is his entire recollection of the event.

 

[the sniper]

My point was that if the ticket story is completely true, then the student is guilty of nothing more than "being a bit lippy". So if that's now grounds to throw someone off a train, I look forward to seeing it being applied to the aforementioned groups.

Railway byelaws:

6. Unacceptable behaviour
(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.
(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.

The F word is offensive. The offence is completed. Breeching a byelaw provides grounds for the guard to use reasonable force to remove the offender from the train/railway. Sadly this power isn't deferrable though.

I don't know the possible defences for Scottish Breach of the peace, but I'd be surprised if that offence weren't applicable here.

Here's hoping the kid also has to face the legal consequences of his actions and the big guy has a good lawyer.

 

[callumbb]

Railway byelaws:



The F word is offensive. The offence is completed. Breeching a byelaw provides grounds for the guard to use reasonable force to remove the offender from the train/railway. Sadly this power isn't deferrable though.

I don't know the possible defences for Scottish Breach of the peace, but I'd be surprised if that offence weren't applicable here.

Here's hoping the kid also has to face the legal consequences of his actions and the big guy has a good lawyer.

I personally don't think a few swear words (which while the provocation was fully justified, was still in response to a provocation) and a possible £2ish fare evasion is grounds enough for it to be heroic to severely endanger someone.

The way he was thrown onto the platform could easily have caused him brain damage and again, if his story was correct, he could have become seriously ill as his diabetic medicine was on the train which he was being barred access to.

Incidently, the treatment diabetics receive can also be known to cause temporary bouts of aggression and confusion...

Now I personally have little sympathy for him, but it helps to know the full story before jumping to judgement on the matter. That man's behaviour was severely inappropriate - regardless of the situation - and he should be put on trial over it.

 

[Chew Chew]

The way he was thrown onto the platform could easily have caused him brain damage and again, if his story was correct, he could have become seriously ill as his diabetic medicine was on the train which he was being barred access to.

You see on the video his bag getting chucked out onto the platform after the first time he was put out the train.

His medicine wasn't on the train.

Incidently, the treatment diabetics receive can also be known to cause temporary bouts of aggression and confusion...

And a skinful of Stella has the same side effects....

If he was having a diabetic 'episode' do you not think that him or his dad would have mentioned that by now?

 

[yorkie]

Sam Main is a complete and utter liar.

He's quoted as claiming he had "no time" to argue his case, he then changed his story claiming he argued for "one minute", but the person who filmed the incident has said it was actually more like "five minutes".

 

[marks87]

Sam Main is a complete and utter liar.

He's quoted as claiming he had "no time" to argue his case, he then changed his story claiming he argued for "one minute", but the person who filmed the incident has said it was actually more like "five minutes".

Why is Sam Main the liar and not the person doing the filming?

 

[Platform 1]

He got what he deserved at the time but it seems he wants more.

 

[Flamingo]

Sam Main is a complete and utter liar.

Don't sit on the fence Yorkie, tell us what you think!

 

[Platform 1]

Why is Sam Main the liar and not the person doing the filming?

Technically he is the third party but I suppose not disinterested.

 

[wintonian]

He says he was sold two singles in the same direction by mistake after buying separate tickets to save money.

Mr Main told Sky News: "I realised when I was on the train going to Edinburgh that both tickets said Polmont to Edinburgh Park.

CDR £4.90 YNG
2x SOS £3.40 YNG

So plausible,

Either way his attitude still stinks.

His father Lenny has told reporters he wants Mr Pollock to be charged over the incident.

Hmm, how often do people misrepresent or leave out an important piece of information when trying to explain something like this to parents in order to get/ keep the sympathy vote?

 

[68000]

I personally don't think a few swear words (which while the provocation was fully justified, was still in response to a provocation)

Are you saying the swearing was done in response to provocation from the Guard asking for a valid ticket and that this was justified?

 

[WelshBluebird]

CDR £4.90 YNG
2x SOS £3.40 YNG

So plausible,

Either way his attitude still stinks.

If that was the case, then why didn't he query it when he got to Edinburgh?
Why didn't he try to say that to the guard in the video? (Instead he was just abusive).
Why did he continue to assert he had the right ticket, when according to the above, he knew he did not?
It just doesn't add up.

 

[68000]

Story changes by the minute as each version gets debunked. Should alos be charged with wasting police time

 

[Platform 1]

Not to mention ours.

 

[amcluesent]

Looks like the old boy's pension may be a goner. If he's smart he'll go off with 'stress' until retirement.

 

[callumbb]

Are you saying the swearing was done in response to provocation from the Guard asking for a valid ticket and that this was justified?

First part yes, second part no. The provocation from the guard was justified. I was merely describing it as it was - and not the random swearing at random people calling it a "public order offence" implies.

You see on the video his bag getting chucked out onto the platform after the first time he was put out the train.

His medicine wasn't on the train.



And a skinful of Stella has the same side effects....

If he was having a diabetic 'episode' do you not think that him or his dad would have mentioned that by now?

I didn't notice that, but they have obviously watched the video so will be well aware something was thrown out at him. Maybe he had 2 bags? Of course they could be lying, but would have to be mind-numbingly incompetent for that to be the lie if he only had 1 bag.

Yes it does - which is actually a far bigger problem than you'd imagine. Do you have any medical background? I used to volunteer with a small first aid group - and even they had seen many cases of diabetics being ignored and dismissed as being drunk when in reality they were suffering from the condition. If that was the case then yes they should have, but they aren't being tried in the media so it's neither here nor there. Plus they don't necessarily know they are having an "episode" - if that was indeed an "episode" taking place it was pretty mild.

I don't really need to prove anything though as my position isn't how he's a poor innocent victim, but that you shouldn't lambaste someone when you clearly haven't got all the facts on the matter. On the other hand, the video irrefutably shows a potentially (luckily it wasn't) severe assault being committed.

 

[68000]

First part yes, second part no. The provocation from the guard was justified. I was merely describing it as it was - and not the random swearing at random people calling it a "public order offence" implies.

A guard or ticket examiner asking for a valid ticket is not provocation on any level and to describe is as such is just plain wrong!

 

[Temple Meads]

A guard or ticket examiner asking for a valid ticket is not provocation on any level

Unless your a fare evader of course

As for the main story, both parties have committed really rather minor offences, too much coverage all round IMO.

 

[the sniper]

I personally don't think a few swear words (which while the provocation was fully justified, was still in response to a provocation) and a possible £2ish fare evasion is grounds enough for it to be heroic to severely endanger someone.

I didn't say it was. I was pointing out the offence the kid committed. I just hope that they'll both have their day in court.

First part yes, second part no. The provocation from the guard was justified. I was merely describing it as it was - and not the random swearing at random people calling it a "public order offence" implies.

We'll go around this again... Under the railway byelaws, he swore, so the offence under 6.1 of the byelaws is complete. I can't see a defence of 'he asked me to get off the train, so I told him to F*** off' being a good defence, whether he had a ticket or not.

The railway byelaws are much clearer cut than Scottish breach of the peace or offences under the Public Order Act in E+W.

 

[callumbb]

I didn't say it was. I was pointing out the offence the kid committed. I just hope that they'll both have their day in court.



We'll go around this again... Under the railway byelaws, he swore, so the offence under 6.1 of the byelaws is complete. I can't see a defence of 'he asked me to get off the train, so I told him to F*** off' being a good defence, whether he had a ticket or not.

The railway byelaws are much clearer cut than Scottish breach of the peace or offences under the Public Order Act in E+W.

Sorry, my mistake. The wording you put in your post - especially at the end - could be interpreted (wrongly as I now know!) as you wanting the boy prosecuted and the man to get away with it.

 

[Flamingo]

First part yes, second part no. The provocation from the guard was justified. I was merely describing it as it was - and not the random swearing at random people calling it a "public order offence" implies.



I didn't notice that, but they have obviously watched the video so will be well aware something was thrown out at him. Maybe he had 2 bags? Of course they could be lying, but would have to be mind-numbingly incompetent for that to be the lie if he only had 1 bag.

Yes it does - which is actually a far bigger problem than you'd imagine. Do you have any medical background? I used to volunteer with a small first aid group - and even they had seen many cases of diabetics being ignored and dismissed as being drunk when in reality they were suffering from the condition. If that was the case then yes they should have, but they aren't being tried in the media so it's neither here nor there. Plus they don't necessarily know they are having an "episode" - if that was indeed an "episode" taking place it was pretty mild.

I don't really need to prove anything though as my position isn't how he's a poor innocent victim, but that you shouldn't lambaste someone when you clearly haven't got all the facts on the matter. On the other hand, the video irrefutably shows a potentially (luckily it wasn't) severe assault being committed.

To correct a few misconceptions you seem to be having (and give you diabetes 101), the major short-term risk, which is responsible for the altered behavioural pattern, is hypoglycaemia. This is usually caused by a diabetic taking their medication to reduce their blood sugar, and not eating (or burning up sugar due to excessive exercise). Some diabetics do carry medication to counteract this, but most of the time, what is known by lay-people as "DIABETIC MEDICATION" is there to lower the blood sugar. High blood sugars do not (short term) cause significant altered behaviour or consciousness level - a large part of the population with undiagnosed diabetes are walking around with high blood sugars and displaying no obvious symptoms.

The chance that this chap was having a hypo is pretty low, as he had just been (by his own admission) drinking alcohol. Alcohol contains sugar, and this would have increased his blood sugar level. Without knowing exactly when he took his medication it's difficult to say for sure, but he would be the best judge if whether he was having a hypo or not. If he was and if he did not take his hypoglycaemia medication (or sugar in some shape or form) very soon after leaving the train, his collapse into unconsciousness and subsequent admission to hospital would have been commented upon.

 

[callumbb]

A guard or ticket examiner asking for a valid ticket is not provocation on any level and to describe is as such is just plain wrong!

Provocation - "something that incites, instigates, angers, or irritates."

Telling someone to get off the train they want to be in certainly fulfils that criteria. I said it was a fully justified act, but that doesn't remove it as being provocative.

As I already said, I was just clarifying the stigma "public order offence" gives the event.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

CDR £4.90 YNG
2x SOS £3.40 YNG

So plausible....

Except your prices are wrong. If he bought the tickets at 8am then it could still be true, fair enough (assuming he has a railcard).

2x singles Polmont to Edinburgh Park = £8.45 according to NRES
1x return Polmont to Edinburgh Park = £9.10 according to NRES

However, I do doubt the story on couple of other grounds though, there is a claim that he decided to wait until after his exam to argue the toss with the guard on the train home, but that argument on the train doesn't strike me as one that started with a "Hi, I have paid for the ticket but the clerk gave me two the same way by mistake, I've got them both here, look for yourself...", infact during the filming at no point does he even imply that. I'm sure he says he only has the one ticket in the video, IIRC.

It could be that he didn't think he'd need the first one but that doesn't really make much sense to me either, surely you'd want to prove you'd been sold the wrong fare? The best way to do that is to have both.

Secondly, if the discussion had only been going on for a second as he claims, why was the train at a station with the doors open and no-one else getting on or off or even finding their seats? The argument does seem to be quite well developed at the start of the video also.

Another point, and there may be an answer to this, he is a student, and I presume his exam is at his university complex, so why did he only find out that day that two singles were cheaper than a return? It could be that his exam was not at the usual campus, that would be an answer, but I don't know if universities would do that.