It's not often that I de-lurk and post on any forum, but after 60 pages I have to speak up...
The reason it has become bigger than would normally be the case is that it captures the experiences of rail travellers, railway staff, anti-social behaviour, Societal values, and the general public nicely in one incident.
Firstly many, many travellers will have experienced or will know of incidents where scrotes and "ne'er do wells" have been picked up on trains with ticket problems.
Secondly many of us will be familiar with the response to any form of "authority" by these individuals, which is to become increasingly aggressive, mouth of about their "rights", the inability of anyone to touch them, a situation which ultimately develops into violence and physical aggression.
Thirdly, the general public are now consistently unhappy and concerned about the levels of street crime and anti-social behaviour, a view that certainly appears to be backed up by the various Fly on the Wall Police series, and indeed the experience of beeing out and about late at night.
Fourthly, we have a Government which has expressed the same concerns as the public and which has a stated intention to tackle these issues, and indeed has set in train (pardon the pun) a series of measures to redress the current imbalance where justice is swayed away from the person who intervenes or is protecting themselves or their property.
Although the precise circumstances are not entirely clear-cut and dried, and unfortunately whilst things may not have played out as well and as clear cut as they could have, this particular incident has struck a chord amongst a large section of the population. The general perception is that the "Big Man" was right to go to the assistance of an (elderly) Guard who was trying to get a verbally and aggressive individual to leave the train.
It would appear to most people on that train that an impasse had been reached, and no doubt the "Big Man" considered that either nothing was going to happen other than the Guard would eventually have to back down, or that Main's level of aggression would move on towards a physical level. My colleagues who deal with this type of incident day in, day out, will be familiar with the scenario and the usual results.
Taking this into consideration, and probably with a large degree of frustration, the "Big Man" chose to go to the aid of the Guard. Now this of course is the nub of the situation and why it has become bigger than it may well have been.
The "Big Man" is definitely supported in public opinion for stepping in, both for assisting an elderly Guard by removing Main, but also simply for being someone prepared to put their head over the parapet. The public issue therefore is serious and one that the Judiciary and the Legislature will have a problem with.
If the penalise the "Big Man" they will be seen to be acting against the interests of the public in general, and public safety in particular. If however they do not "penalise" the "Big Man" in some way they risk (in their view) encouraging a form of what they consider to be Vigilanteism.
The other issue that will have to be debated here is what the legal situation is when a member of the public steps in to assist a member of a transport operation, when that member is being or potentially being threatened or abused. Currently it is extremely unclear.
This is why the matter has started to grow so large and this is why it is actually a matter of Legal Priciplle now, not a simply matter of assault/public order.
I personally suspect that we may see formal cautions issued, which would appear to be a sensible way forward in the immediate future.
The really big, and much more difficult situation to deal with is how to handle the principle of a passenger coming to the aid and assistance of a member of transport staff.
That's an excellent summary. I've followed the twists and turns of this story from when it first appeared and as an ordinary member of the travelling public it has changed my behaviour on the railways.
For example, on Thursday I travelled from Glasgow Central to Carlisle and then onwards along the Tyne Valley line home. On the Glasgow-Carlisle leg a couple of fairly well lubricated locals joined the train. Here's where I stereo-type: at platform 1, the only one now un-barriered, each with a bottle of Thunderbird. You can make the rest up yourselves. Joining me at a table for 4 in the unreserved carriage were a couple of ladies clearly looking for a hassle free journey - I realised after a while that at least one of them was profoundly deaf and they both furiously signed to communicate with each other leaving me slightly emabrassed not to be able to sign "Merry Christmas" to them - something I will rectify this festive period. Anyway, back to the other two guests:
Ticket checks were taking a while- train pretty full. I twigged after a while that the train manager was leaving the two "merry" gentlemen until last. Their behaviour was deteriorating and they were headed for that stereo-type - the subject of this whole message thread. The language became choice and worthy only of the deepest depths of the shipyards now closed. A certain amount of expectoration was occuring and the two "gentlemen" seemed intent on commenting on how my new found travelling companions chose to communicate in a less than complimentary way.
Now in the light of the "big man" and all that has gone on in this thread, how should a passenger respond? I wanted to protect the two ladies who I had never met in my life before, but felt I owed a duty of care towards from my moral position. I didn't want to antagonise the "gentlemen", but I wanted them to stop. Thankfully patience is a virtue and the Train Manager arrived.
What a credit she was to Virgin Trains and the profession of many who inhabit this board. She explained firmly but politely that a ticket reservation supposedly left in a machine at the station would not entitle to travel and ran through the various fare options requested by the "gentlemen" until they finally decided that a return fare back to Glasgow was going to be their best option with what was presumably a bluff on their part thorough called by the TM. She collected the £21 x 2 in a variety of grubby notes and small change, reminded the "gentlemen" about their behaviour, language and responsibility now to alight at Carlisle and return to Glasgow as they saw fit.
So now I'm off the hook. I didn't have to act: a highly trained railway professional had done her stuff. A massive "hats-off" to the Virgin Trains Manager and her calm handling. But the story doesn't quite end there.
The "gentlemen" continued to imbibe their Thunderbird and one fell into a deep slumber. The other, marginally more alert realised that we were approaching Carlisle when I got up and donned my coat. His colleauge appeared comatose, a diagnosis confimed when his friend started to slap and punch him in an effort to wake him up to get him off the train at Carlisle - the warnings of the TM obviously ringing in his ears. Innevitably though, the pummeling failed. I left the train onto the platform and the two emotional Glasgow travellers did not follow. Once again, should a member of the public intervene?
But then I saw the heroine of the piece, the TM on door duty. Should I distract her from her duty to defuse trouble ahead? Well I chose to alert her to the problems in coach D; she worked some magic with the doors and locked them open and marched up the platform to "D".
I don't know how she did it. One of the gentlemen has thumped the other so hard that surely in the morning the bruising would be spectacular but failed to rouse his companion. But enter the TM to weave her magic. Not only did she rouse the man, but she persuaded him to motivate and de-train seemingly with her telekinesis and other miscelaneous super powers. She placed them in the capable hands of the Virgin platform despatch staff, rolled her eyes to the heavens and despatched her train with consumate professionalism, perhaps 60 seconds later than anticipated. Amazing.
I later joined the Tyne Valley train and again the guard was doing sterling work making sure that all the passengers were good natured and correctly ticketed despite being well oiled on their way to Newcastle from all the un-staffed stations on the way. So "hats-off" to Northern too.
So that's one part of the answer; pay the fares to pay the wages of the professionals to deal with this on our behalf. Train managers and guards please and as many of them as are necessary to gather the revenue and keep the passengers safe - no driver only operation or hiding in the office.
But it still leaves the question - how should us, the public, support without vigilanteism? Hypothetically, how should I have reacted if the Virgin TM had asked for help - she was so well trained and so inherently competent that that was not necessary, but what if it was?
And here's the second point touched on in Oldtimers quote. I have a faith in the justice system. Given the high profile of the "bigman" cases, I hope that both possible offences appear before the same bench/judge/JP etc. (Scottish system - I don't know it well enough to get the vocabluary right) one after the other. I hope that any punishments are lenient because there are faults on all sides, but I also hope that the legal professionals able to give an opinion will take note that these cases have stirred the public to debate and action and that us as the public want the judiciary to guide and establish precedent. Under what circumstances on the railways, and especially if a staff member asks for help, should the public be empowered to intervene; what would constitute a lawful intervention, and what would not. Don't castigate guard, passenger and "bigman", but allow the "system" time to apply the law and give us guidance. And then please have the moral courage to act, and act appropriately if called on to do so.
Merry Christmas.
