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

[marks87]

The exact words were "Do you want him off?" - very important

Nope, it's definitely "do you want me to get him off for you?".

 

[the sniper]

The newspaper also claims that the "Big Man" is an investment banker.

He was a firefighter in one paper the other day. He gets about! Too bad he hadn't picked up a warrant card along the way or he'd have had the legal authority to do what he did.

On another site this is also being discuss and the following cropped up....

He done his exam, then had a few pints to celebrate then came home. Now he actually had the correct ticket in his pocket but was drunk and kept giving the wrong one, it's hard enough to determine the right one sober at the best of times!! The video didn't catch the start where he was trying to explain himself, and him being drunk thought in his head he was showing the right ticket since he actually had it on him.

I think we can be sure that there are no legal experts in the Main family...

As AlterEgo point out:

He didn't present a valid ticket. End of. That in itself is an offence. If he's too drunk to display his ticket, that is solely his responsibility.

Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding.

Unfortunately though, unless he asked prior to the video starting, which he may well have done, the guard didn't cover the three fails which he needed to ask:

• Produce a ticket
• Buy a ticket
• Provide a correct name and address

The last point is one that is one that sometimes seems to be forgotten. I know there are reasons why guards don't ask for name and address, but doing it serves to complete the S.5 (1) offence. If the three fails aren't asked, you have to go on S.5(3)(a) of the Act:

If any person—
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;

But in the version of events provided by Sam Main, if it proves to be true, you haven't got the failure or intent to avoid payment, as he'd paid for two valid single tickets to cover his journey. Even though he didn't produce the valid one...

All is not lost though. The byelaws seem to save the day:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

Though it could do with the wording "valid ticket" for the avoidance of any ambiguity, you'd have to say that Sam bethel this byelaw. That's if they want to peruse him on the ticket front. Personally I'd go with his language under 6.1 as it's clearly been committed. His cousin though seems to think that he should be done for being Drunk and Disorderly.

On the big man, personally I don't think you can avoid the fact that he assaulted the 19 year old. Though he was well intentioned, as far as I can find, he sadly didn't have any legal authority to touch Sam Main, let alone throw him out of the train. I feel for the guy and hope for the least bad outcome. I don't see how he can dodge the assault claim though should this come to court.

 

[jon0844]

If the 'big man' had not helped to eject the weasel, would have the other passengers just sat there calmly & quietly awaiting for arrival of the police?
I think not............

No, they'd have got frustrated and then turned against the conductor. Ned would have then 'won' and still gone on to brag about it on Facebook the next day...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd argue that in certain circumstances, it is a valid excuse for both.

If someone is having a hypo, having got on at an unstaffed station, they could fail to realise they need to buy a ticket. Similarly, if they're prompted to buy a ticket, they can easily become abusive.

Note that I'm not talking about the specific case that's the subject of this thread. This is in general.

There are so many 'what ifs' but this is now ending up like another thread on the racist woman on the tram (Digital Spy) where a load of people suddenly decided that she was probably drunk or on drugs, and therefore she may not have meant - or even realised - what she said.

It's one thing to give some people the benefit of the doubt, especially if you didn't see or hear what happened - but when you see a video, you're effectively getting the evidence first hand.

You can see that the person didn't present a valid ticket, or leave the train when told to do so. Not only that, but there was a likely public order offence.

Perhaps when he tried to jump back on the train, he could be done for assault on the same basis?!

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wow, that took a while to read! Seriously.... does it need all this? Its not big news its really a small story that has now (in my opinion) been discussed to death as i keep reading the same thing again and again.
Changing stories may suggest hes lying but you never know, i think he is but that doesn't mean i am right. Although from his facebook comments i think he's a gobs***e and if i did that my parents would, well not worth thinking about.

 

[CarterUSM]

Unfortunately though, unless he asked prior to the video starting, which he may well have done, the guard didn't cover the three fails which he needed to ask:

• Produce a ticket
• Buy a ticket
• Provide a correct name and address

This is what is concerning me. I do hope the correct procedure was carried out in this respect. I don't have faith that the company will back you even if correct procedure is carried out when some pretty intense publicity is involved however. It is a bit of a no no delaying a service for a revenue/ticketing matter also, as we know delay attribution rules the roost! I've been in the position of asking a passenger to leave the train more than a few times, most have done so on asking, others have been a BTP presence on arrival or en route, and i've even forcibly removed one or two individuals myself back a few years ago which would probably result in a P45 nowadays. I've also had support and the offer of assistance from passengers in the past, though i've politely refused unless they were off duty plods. As I understand it, there was a guard from another depot also travelling on this service, but i know not of any involvment on their part. To be honest, from what i've seen and heard, i'm morally content with the chaps removal, but slightly less so with the possible end result for the big fella and perhaps the guard. The company have been pretty tight lipped so far, with regards to reiterating any policy to staff as yet, so we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[sonorguy]

I disagree. He escorts him off the train in a peaceful manner, yes there is a stumble, but it is only because Sam Main resists (which he had no right to) and because Sam Main repeatedly attempts to illegally board (trespass) that he ends up being hurt.

This is one of the problems with this incident. I am trained to restrain violent people and manage a large number of other people who are. If any of them got hold of someone in the manner in which the big chap did they'd be dismissed as they would have assaulted the person.

There isn't any way that removal could be described as peaceful as Mr. Main has a large abrasion on his face as a result.

If you aren't trained to lay hands on people in this manner then you shouldn't do it as you leave yourself wide open to an assault charge, and if you are then you clearly wouldn't do it in this manner.

Legally if Mr. Main FELT he was being assaulted (this is all it takes to make a valid argument of self defence, an honest belief that you were in imminent danger at the time) then he's got every right to resist.

His attitude is clearly not what it should be and he may (although that isn't clear yet as it hasn't been tried) have been breaching the railway byelaws but that doesn't give the right to someone not involved in the incident and who doesn't actually know what he's doing in terms of restraint to act the big man and cause injury to someone.

 

[amcluesent]

A 'Big Man' chucked a teenager off a ScotRail train, but perhaps the real problem was the ticket inspector.

"... by pitching the vigilante against the fare-dodger, I feel we are ignoring the real problem: the ticket inspector....The complete inflexibility of railway companies has sucked all common sense out of the people who staff trains." :roll:

 

[The175]

The entire incident was badly handled from everyone involved.

The lad should have explained his situation calmly to the guard (if what he now claims is true) and accept he should have checked what he was sold before moving from the ticket window. The fact he has been caught bragging on Fb does him no favours, and only acts to make him look guilty.

The guard should have acted professionally- for a ticket worth less than a fiver, there are far better ways of dealing with such issues than delaying a train at a cost of goodness knows how much to the TOC. He didn't follow procedure, and there is no escaping from that. He should not have allowed other passengers to get involved either- if he'd said no and the big man had gone ahead regardless than fine, not a lot he could have done.

The big man should only have got involved if it looked like the incident was going to get violent. Picking up somebody like that and throwing them about is unacceptable behaviour.

The camera man should not have put the video on youtube without first asking the permission of those he had filmed- surely there are privacy laws on such things?

Faults on all sides. Accept it, end it, move on.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not sure that article even deserves comment.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
Faults on all sides. Accept it, end it, move on.

Quite

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....He didn't follow procedure, and there is no escaping from that....

What are Scotrail's proceedures? In what way did he not follow them? What evidence do you have to support your statement?

 

[Platform 1]

True. But is that the issue?

I'm quite prepared to accept that Sam Main may well have bought valid tickets (though there are inconsistencies regarding whether he was travelling between Linlithgow & Edinburgh Park or between Falkirk & Edinburgh Park), but he did not show them and did not appear to posses them, he did not explain the situation (which he has now done, though we have multiple different versions of it, and not everything he and his family says can be correct as there are numerous contradictions!) and did not conduct himself in a way that any normal person reasonably would.

Regardless of the ticketing matters, he can clearly be seen committing byelaw offences.

Agreed, and I see no evidence of any crime by the "big man".

Agreed, there is no chance of the guard being "guilty" of anything.

Sorry if it wasn't clear - that was exactly what I meant.

 

[90019]

There isn't any way that removal could be described as peaceful as Mr. Main has a large abrasion on his face as a result.

If you watch the video, when he tries to get back on the train after the initial removal, there is no abrasion on his face.

 

[sonorguy]

If you watch the video, when he tries to get back on the train after the initial removal, there is no abrasion on his face.

However he quite likely does after he's been thrown to the floor after the second intervention.....

 

[Platform 1]

Th amount of force used then was proportional to the force he used to try to get back on and should have been expected - he is an idiot to have tried.

 

[anthony263]

The camera man should not have put the video on youtube without first asking the permission of those he had filmed- surely there are privacy laws on such things?

Faults on all sides. Accept it, end it, move on.

I am sure I read that the person who filmed it said to everyone that he would put it up on the internet.

 

[Flamingo]

I am sure I read that the person who filmed it said to everyone that he would put it up on the internet.

Saying "I'm going to put this on Youtube" is different from "Do you mind if I put this on Youtube?"

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Staff carrying out their duties at work should not have to put up with this sort of abuse from customers.
I hope some good comes out of this. TOC's (and outside the rail industry) updating/ clarification to employees on company policy, & training on how to deal with problems customers like this.
Prosecutions - can't see it would be in the public interest. Unfortunately the high publicity dosen't help.
Student - possible criminal record - a good start!
Big man may receive 'advice' from the police.
Possibly the conductor may be sent on a training course, along with his colleagues.
If the student had a knife it may have been a different outcome.

 

[sonorguy]

Th amount of force used then was proportional to the force he used to try to get back on and should have been expected - he is an idiot to have tried.

No it wasn't, he tried to push back on (to get his bag according to him which may or may not be true) past someone far larger than he and was grabbed round the neck and thrown to the ground. That's not proportionate under the defined terms, that's the big chap showing that he's the 'big man'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony263
I am sure I read that the person who filmed it said to everyone that he would put it up on the internet.

Sadly, that doesn't necessarily meet the definition of consent.

 

[telstarbox]

The Big Man was out of order. What he did would only have been acceptable if the guy had been violent himself - which in the video he didn't. Should have been for the guard/BTP to sort out. It's also pointless to hold up a whole train for one fare dodger or otherwise.

If a passenger presented an obscure split ticket etc and the guard wrongly said it wasn't valid and decided to argue the toss, what's to stop other people copying the Big Man now?

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, as staff the problem is going to be (as pointed out on another forum) that for the next few months while this is in peoples minds, the chances of being videoed when dealing with any ticketing disputes (and having it selectively edited) is going to be very high.

I'll have to remember to keep the pepper spray and baton well hidden!

 

[EM2]

If a passenger presented an obscure split ticket etc and the guard wrongly said it wasn't valid and decided to argue the toss, what's to stop other people copying the Big Man now?

As long as the customer remains calm and polite, then it's not likely that anyone else will get involved.
If you start swearing and abusing the staff, then someone else is more likely to step in.

 

[jopsuk]

The camera man should not have put the video on youtube without first asking the permission of those he had filmed- surely there are privacy laws on such things?

There aren't, neither in Scotland nor England.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.... It's also pointless to hold up a whole train for one fare dodger or otherwise.....

You're quite right, he should have been allowed to travel the whole way without any issues and be free to get off the train at the stop he wants to get off at regardless of the police being there or not. That sounds like a very mature and sensible thing to do and would certainly discourage the poor young lad from ever travelling without a ticket again.:roll:

 

[michael769]

There aren't, neither in Scotland nor England.

Indeed you have no right to privacy when you are in a public (ie non-private) pace.

Who would have thought?

 

[telstarbox]

You're quite right, he should have been allowed to travel the whole way without any issues and be free to get off the train at the stop he wants to get off at regardless of the police being there or not. That sounds like a very mature and sensible thing to do and would certainly discourage the poor young lad from ever travelling without a ticket again.:roll:

That isn't what I said. It can cost a TOC thousands if a train is delayed for a few minutes so it's just being pragmatic not to hold up the many for the actions of one.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That isn't what I said. It can cost a TOC thousands if a train is delayed for a few minutes so it's just being pragmatic not to hold up the many for the actions of one.

Then what do you suggest?

Policeman at every station just sitting there waiting for a fare evader to come along?

Giving the guard the right to throw any fare evader off the train by any means at any station?

 

[telstarbox]

Then what do you suggest?

Policeman at every station just sitting there waiting for a fare evader to come along?

Giving the guard the right to throw any fare evader off the train by any means at any station?

The guard - maybe. Members of the public - no.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Indeed you have no right to privacy when you are in a public (ie non-private) pace.

Who would have thought?

Except railways are private property.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Except railways are private property.

Correct.

The Big man was authorized -
The conductor by saying yes, gave him the authorization to eject the student.
If the big man didn't ask the question, that would have been different.