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

[sonorguy]

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.

Legally no he didn't, as he had no idea whether the man was trained in restraint (he clearly isn't), mentally impaired, under the influence of alcohol or drugs or anything else (again the chap isn't any of these but the conductor didn't know that at the time). The conductor was under no risk of imminent physical violence at this or any other point and doesn't have the power to do this with random members of the public for the reasons above.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Legally no he didn't, as he had no idea whether the man was trained in restraint (he clearly isn't), mentally impaired, under the influence of alcohol or drugs or anything else (again the chap isn't any of these but the conductor didn't know that at the time). The conductor was under no risk of imminent physical violence at this or any other point and doesn't have the power to do this with random members of the public for the reasons above.

So in that case the conductor should have said 'No'
(The other passengers would have said different!!)

 

[Swanny200]

We also do not know whether this is a first time offence, how do we know that the Guard and Mr Main may not have had prior history, he may have been a serial offender. As far as I knew Scotrail didn't do penalty fares, the BTP are at least 20 or so miles away and when asked if he needed assistance the guard said yes, in effect making the big man an agent of Scotrail and removed the offender who was (i) Drunk and Abusive in front of children, (ii) Refused to leave the train when asked, whether or not he had the correct ticket if you are asked to leave a premises or property by an official person even if without reason, most sane people would leave especially if you were holding up quite a few people, most of us would just accept it and make a complaint in the morning, this guy thought he was invincible and therefore had the f**k you all mentality.

From what I can see in the video, the bag follows him out about 5 seconds after he was ejected and there was no marks on his face, as the big man moves him, he stumbles, he is not pushed to the ground, from the stance of someone who used to manage an Edinburgh City Centre bar and had to put up with idiots like Mr Main on a near nightly occurence, you sometimes do not have time to think, what if the guy had got up in front of this woman and her kids, pulled out a knife because he was invincible and stabbed the guard, it would be a totally different story then, you have to make the call, he was maybe in a sense to the big man a threat to the guard with his behaviour and if that was the case then the big man had balls to do it.

Also some people seem to forget that Mr Main's Facebook page is gloating about it and the story that he/his father/ and his cousin have told the media changes on a day to day basis, when he knew he wasn't getting anywhere the diabetes was being used for his actions, then the alcohol, then when that didn't work one story going about stated that he had posession of the right ticket, if that was so then why isn't it on the front page of every paper in the land showing his innocence, because he later said that he was issued two singles for the same trip, this kid is trying to get out of it as much as possible, he probably knew if it got out his father would give him hell (apparently the father is a minor celebrity as he sells stuff on QVC and thinks that that will help the case) so decided to make up a story saying he had the right ticket.

I am sadly expecting though the Guard to lose his job before he retires and possibly some of his pension, the big man will probably get a fine or if the PF feels he needs to make an example of the guy a suspended sentence which will probably mean loss of his job and Mr Main will probably come away with lots of money in compo from Scotrail / Big Man and TV or Paper deals selling his story.

 

[WelshBluebird]

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?

That would only be the case if the person was swearing and being abusive though. In which case they can be chucked off the train regardless of their tickets validity. The big man would not have got involved if the guy had not been swearing and mouthing off.

 

[185]

My two cents...

Guard says get off.
Snotty, nasty aggressive little spoilt brat refuses.
Guard stated you're keeping eveyone waiting.
Agrieved paying customer ejects spoilt non paying brat.
BT Police and FirstGroup PLC .....manage to find fault with common sense, something that all their other honest, paying customers gave a round of applause to.

 

[jon0844]

I just hope the idiot doesn't get any compensation, or even an apology from Scotrail - which will undermine everything, although the Daily Mail will be hoping that happens so it can have a front page story to highlight that the world has gone mad - 'fare evader gets compensation' etc.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I've had a look at various news websites and come up with a possible list of events.

Yesterday the Daily had the following snippet...

But the 19-year-old student, from Falkirk, has since insisted he was in the right after being tracked down at his home by a local newspaper.
He said last night: 'I had been out celebrating after an exam and I was half asleep on the train.
‘I did have a ticket but I must have handed over the wrong one to the conductor. The next thing I know this big guy is manhandling me to the door and throwing me off.

And then adds...

He said Sam went to the railway station at Polmont at 8am to buy a return ticket, but was told two singles would be cheaper as he planned to return off peak.

He said: 'He was sitting on the train when he noticed both tickets were for Polmont to Edinburgh Park, but he decided to concentrate on his exam and explain the mix-up to the inspector on the train home.
'After his exam he went out for a few drinks. He got on the train and everyone's seen the video, but he's no fare dodger, he was just sold the wrong ticket and the inspector's decided he's off at Linlithgow.

The Daily Mail website today says...

He said today: 'In the morning I got a ticket from Polmont to Edinburgh Park before 10am, so I wasn't able to use my railcard to get a return. The guy sold me two singles but they were both for Polmont to Edinburgh.

'I didn't realise until later but I thought I'd be able to explain what happened to the conductor on the train.
'I was on my way home from my second exam when it happened. I'm diabetic and hadn't eaten all day so I was just desperate to get home. I wasn't given a chance to explain the ticket situation. The conductor just immediately said: "That's the wrong ticket. Off!"
'I didn't even see the other guy coming. He lifted me up from behind and all I could see was chairs and the floor. He chucked me off and I landed right on my face. I tried to get back on to get my bag but I was shoved off again. I did get my bag back after that though.

'I ended up getting a taxi back to Falkirk. It cost me £20. I did have money to buy another ticket but I wasn't given the option.'
He added: 'I've probably spent thousands of pounds on rail travel. I normally use a season ticket but when the exams are on I just buy a ticket on the day.
'I did pay for my fare, I just didn't get a chance to tell the conductor what happened.'

However the paper then says

He told a local paper that he had been out celebrating after an exam and was 'half asleep.'
‘I did have a ticket but I must have handed over the wrong one to the conductor,' he added. 'The next thing I know this big guy is manhandling me to the door and throwing me off.'.

Then later it adds

Sam's uncle, who asked not to be named, claimed Sam did have a ticket, but it was the wrong one.
He said Sam went to the railway station at Polmont at 8am to buy a return ticket, but was told two singles would be cheaper as he planned to return off peak.
He said: 'He was sitting on the train when he noticed both tickets were for Polmont to Edinburgh Park, but he decided to concentrate on his exam and explain the mix-up to the inspector on the train home.
'After his exam he went out for a few drinks. He got on the train and everyone's seen the video, but he's no fare dodger, he was just sold the wrong ticket and the inspector's decided he's off at Linlithgow.

Sky News has...

Mr Main told Sky News: "I realised when I was on the train going to Edinburgh that both tickets said Polmont to Edinburgh Park.
"On my way home, I tried to explain to the train conductor but he wasn't willing to listen. There was no progression - it wasn't an argument. It just completely erupted and then I felt myself getting thrown off the train."
The student, who is diabetic, admits he swore at the conductor when he was told to get off the train but says there was no need for the passenger to intervene.
"I can't understand why a grown man would attack a young boy from behind and assault him and throw him off a train," he said.
"If he had tapped me on the shoulder and turned round and said 'would you please leave the train' I would have seen he was such a big man and wouldn't have been messing with him. I would have got off the train."

Describing the tussle, he added: "He lifted me out of my seat, I instantly felt myself go on the ground. The man landed on top of me. I think I hit my head on the way down because I was concussed.
"I opened my eyes and I was looking at the ground and I had hit my face on the ground of the platform. I stood up and realised I didn't have my bag on so I tried to get back on the train and again he just chucked me back down on the ground.
"I wasn't going to approach the police until after my last exam and even then I would have thought about it but instead the police came to me. I've spoken to them and given a statement."

Then there is the BBC, but it's probably best you hear his own words.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16177959

In summary

He went to the ticket office at 8am (or, if you prefer, before 10am) and asked to buy a return, but was told to buy a single each way as it was cheaper (or, if you prefer, asked to buy a single each way because it was cheaper than a return). He noticed when he was on the train that both tickets were for travel in the wrong direction for his return trip, but only went about discussing the issue for five minutes (or, if you prefer, 40 seconds) when confronted by the guard on that return trip (or, if you prefer, he showed the wrong ticket to the guard on the return trip during a five minute argument (or, if you prefer, a 40 second argument) and wasn't given an opportunity to correct the mistake). He was then picked up by someone who had spoken briefly to the guard (or, if you prefer, he was picked up by someone with no warning and thrown to the floor and must have banged his head because he was concussed (there is no evidence to suggest he did or did not go to see a medical proffessional to confirm that) before being picked up again) and was then thrown onto the platform by said person and when he tried to retrieve his bag which contained his iPod, mobile phone, course notes and medication (or, if you prefer, it contained his phone, his notes and some expensive ear phones, but he's non-committal on any medication being in it) he was stopped from doing so and thrown back onto the platform, he did get his bag back though (or, if you watch the video, it was thrown out after he was first ejected from the train). He considered going to the police after all his exams were complete because he wanted to concentrate on them first (or, if you look at his facebook page, he was rather enjoying the limelight and couldn't care about being assaulted (or not) by anyone else), but the police came to him first.

Now I think we have identified all the events according to the evidence given by the video and the ned, and as we can see what the other chap did, I guesss it's all clear as day!.

 

[Platform 1]

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'.

He tried to dive back on to the train! ^^^ It was obvious what would happen. :roll:

What was the "big man" supposed to do?

All he had to do was ask the guard politely if he could have his bag.
He didn't even ask at all.

 

[sonorguy]

He tried to dive back on to the train! ^^^ It was obvious what would happen. :roll:

What was the "big man" supposed to do?

All he had to do was ask the guard politely if he could have his bag.
He didn't even ask at all.

It isn't obvious at all what would happen, especially if you're cognitively impaired through alcohol/hypogycaemia/insert reason for cognitive impairment to suit and that doesn't give someone the right to grab someone round the neck and throw them to the ground, something which you clearly see happen.

 

[Chapeltom]

As a 19 year old quite used to boarding trains after a few beers, I can happily say I have never been verbally abusive to a guard nor aggressive to any fellow passenger. In-fact the majority of people under the influence have no interest in anything but allowing people to continue in their jobs/people continue their journies in peace.
What is quite clear here is the lad in the video has no respect for the people round him with his swearing, he isn't co-operating and a nuisance. On those grounds alone, I'm glad Mr Pollock threw him off that train. And yes I'd be happy to see it happen every time, most passengers would have been thinking "won't someone just kick him off" and its clearly given the reaction once Main is gone. Whether its guards or passengers no-one should put up with Mr Main's behaviour, there are so many contradictions here in Mr Main's story its quite staggering.

I hope:
1) Mr Main is charged with numerous byelaw offences
2) Mr Pollock is not arrested/charged with anything, it wouldn't be in the public interest in my opinion.
3) No compensation/apology is given to Main.
4) The papers continue their stance, it should send out a strong message to idiots that if your going to act like a baffoon on a train then you'll probably face consequences.
5) No action taken against the guard

Some of the people taking pity on Mr Main should place themselves in the shoes of the guard/the shoes of the passengers on board that train who want to get home. I wouldn't accept someone giving this level of hassle to a guard and getting away with it, had Main been allowed to continue on the train it could have sent out a message "Act like an idiot on a train and you'll get away without paying for a ticket". Not a trend I'd like to see.

 

[the sniper]

BT Police and FirstGroup PLC .....manage to find fault with common sense, something that all their other honest, paying customers gave a round of applause to.

Too be fair, what are they supposed to do? Not investigate someone clearly assaulting someone else just because the Police personally feel the victim probably deserved it? That's not how the law works, personal feelings don't come into it.

The police enforce the law. Sadly, the big man had no legal authority to touch Sam Main, let alone throw him out of the train. As others have said, what people should be hoping for is that the procurator fiscal (Scottish equivalent of the CPS) find no public interest in prosecuting him.

 

[Chapeltom]

Big Man may have no legal authority to throw him off the train, but this is different in my view. Most people would not like to see anyone thrown about anywhere, we don't tolerate actions that are unjustified, however I think most people can tolerate this. The lad has clearly caused a considerable nuisance and Big Man with fellow passengers support has solved the problem. I reckon the majority on the train would back up the Big Man if he ever got close to being prosecuted, his actions were justified given what I've read and taken a pinch of salt with all of Main's claims and accusations.

 

[amcluesent]

It's 100% obvious how this will end, with wee ned getting ££ compo and grovelling apologies from halfwit top-brass, the guard losing his pension after sacking for gross misconduct and 'big man' with a criminal record and no job.

It reinforces everything wrong with Broken Britain. The low life laugh at the 'law', it pays not to get involved, the bizzies don't use common sense, the criminal 'justice' system is a joke, it's better to travel by car than mix with yoofs on the train, the yer yumin rites lawyers are as bad as the crims.

 

[Chapeltom]

Totally agree, its always the low-lifes that win. Which as you assert is why this country is broken.

 

[PinzaC55]

Its all down to Political Correctness and Human Rights; the criminal has more rights than anyone else.

 

[the sniper]

Why not wait and see what actually happens before everyone begins to froth at the mouth... :roll:

 

[Tim R-T-C]

You have to remember that, according to the video poster, a lawyer offered his services to the conductor and 'Big Man', so he must have thought they were at least slightly in the right (morally, if not legally).

Interesting that all of the media reports he has given contradict what is clearly on the video, particularly the pax claiming that he was given no chance to explain himself and yet clearly arguing for quite a while. Of course he will argue that his version of events was warped by the diabetes/alcohol/stress/soon to be alleged mental condition.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You have to remember that, according to the video poster, a lawyer offered his services to the conductor and 'Big Man', so he must have thought they were at least slightly in the right (morally, if not legally).

No, (s)he must have thought that they could afford advice and, perhaps more to the point, that they might need advice and representation.

 

[yorkie]

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'.

What a bizarre post. He had no business boarding that train, and in my view it is quite reasonable for a member of the public to assist in ensuring someone does not board a train for which they have been removed from and are being denied entry from. He could simply have asked for his bag, but evidently his communication skills are lacking (but not untypical for a chav).

Indeed at Cardiff Central station on 25 July some pompous individual tried to board a train despite already being refused by the guard because there were already too many bikes on (including ours), and the train was going to be calling at unstaffed stations where there would likely be even more bikes trying to board and he'd have to get the next train. After an argument, the guy then waited until just before departure and the guard went away from that door, he then opened the door and tried to get his bike on regardless. He was quite shocked when I pushed his bike back and closed the door. The train doors then locked and we departed - on time. I was just in the right place at the right time and would like to think most people would have done the same.

There are some apologists for chavs and people who campaign for chav rights. That's their choice, they can do that if they want, but equally I can deplore them for it. Then there are people who stand up to chavs, and to me, they're the real heros! It's not always possible to stand up to chavs, and chavs are used to getting their own way the vast majority of the time as people are scared of them due to the foul language they use and knowing their 'rights' (but never their responsibilities). They get a shock when people stand up to them as it's so rare.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

No, (s)he must have thought that they could afford advice and, perhaps more to the point, that they might need advice and representation.

From the original comment from the uploader: After all this stopped filming, everybody's contact information was shared . To which a lawyer gave the big man and the conductor his card so they will have good legal representation if court is the option the ned goes...

Now generally if you walked past a man beating someone up, you wouldn't offer your card to the aggressor and offer to represent them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are some apologists for chavs and people who campaign for chav rights. That's their choice, they can do that if they want, but equally I can deplore them for it. Then there are people who stand up to chavs, and to me, they're the real heroes! It's not always possible to stand up to chavs, and chavs are used to getting their own way the vast majority of the time as people are scared of them due to the foul language they use and knowing their 'rights' (but never their responsibilities). They get a shock when people stand up to them as it's so rare.

Sometimes if an individual is brave enough to confront these people, there can be some horrifying consequences. The sad case of the death of Gary Newlove in Warrington who attempted to remonstrate with such a group that was vandalising property outside his home, is proof of what can then happen.

I understand that his widow now has a seat in the House of Lords and is a spokesperson on certain types of matters appertaining.

 

[bnm]

What a bizarre post. He had no business boarding that train, and in my view it is quite reasonable for a member of the public to assist in ensuring someone does not board a train for which they have been removed from and are being denied entry from. He could simply have asked for his bag, but evidently his communication skills are lacking (but not untypical for a chav).

Indeed at Cardiff Central station on 25 July some pompous individual tried to board a train despite already being refused by the guard because there were already too many bikes on (including ours), and the train was going to be calling at unstaffed stations where there would likely be even more bikes trying to board and he'd have to get the next train. After an argument, the guy then waited until just before departure and the guard went away from that door, he then opened the door and tried to get his bike on regardless. He was quite shocked when I pushed his bike back and closed the door. The train doors then locked and we departed - on time. I was just in the right place at the right time and would like to think most people would have done the same.

There are some apologists for chavs and people who campaign for chav rights. That's their choice, they can do that if they want, but equally I can deplore them for it. Then there are people who stand up to chavs, and to me, they're the real heros! It's not always possible to stand up to chavs, and chavs are used to getting their own way the vast majority of the time as people are scared of them due to the foul language they use and knowing their 'rights' (but never their responsibilities). They get a shock when people stand up to them as it's so rare.

What a bizarre post. :roll:
Is it a case of being a chav apologist for questioning the actions of Mr Pollock? On what basis do you believe Sam Main to be a Chav? Base stereotyping of the worst kind.

 

[yorkie]

Sometimes if an individual is brave enough to confront these people, there can be some horrifying consequences. The sad case of the death of Gary Newlove in Warrington who attempted to remonstrate with such a group that was vandalising property outside his home, is proof of what can then happen.

Yes, chavs usually go round in a pack - they know they can't be touched then, and they're right.

What a bizarre post.
Is it a case of being a chav apologist for questioning the actions of Mr Pollock? On what basis do you believe Sam Main to be a Chav? Base stereotyping of the worst kind.

I'd define a chav as someone who goes round using the sort of language that the person who was arguing with the guard was using, and acting in that way. Perhaps it's different in your area.

Being a chav is a lifestyle choice, it's hardly like a race or something!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . a lawyer gave the big man and the conductor his card so they will have good legal representation if . . . .


. . . . you wouldn't offer your card to the aggressor and offer to represent them.

I suspect that we don't have similar experience of challenges in Courts of Law.
I disagree with you.
To illustrate my view, I have spent some time this very month in two remarkably comparable cases in the High Court; Convicted persons having already been found Guilty in a lower Court, have instructed very expensive Counsel to assist in Claims for compensation.

I remain with the view I gave in post #378.

 

[bnm]

.
I'd define a chav as someone who goes round using the sort of language that the person who was arguing with the guard was using, and acting in that way. Perhaps it's different in your area.

I'd prefer to stick to dictionary definitions. Very few chavs (or social underclass to be less stereotypical) are in further education studying to be surveyors.

I'm not excusing Sam Main's language but you don't have to be in the social underclass to be a bit sweary. Teenagers getting lippy with authority is as old as the hills and not confined to one social demographic.

You do your point of view no favours by continuing to stereotype.

Finally, what's my area got to do with anything? I find the subtext in that last sentence a little offensive.

 

[Chapeltom]

Yes, chavs usually go round in a pack - they know they can't be touched then, and they're right.

I'd define a chav as someone who goes round using the sort of language that the person who was arguing with the guard was using, and acting in that way. Perhaps it's different in your area.

Being a chav is a lifestyle choice, it's hardly like a race or something!

I agree with you! Your defintion of the word "chav" is how I'd describe a chav as well.

 

[AlterEgo]

Instead of arguing over whether Mr Main is a "chav", can we at least have some consensus that he's a horrible little man from that evidence? (family friendly language used)

I'd never have dared using that kind of language to anyone at the age of 19. I had that kind of rudeness eradicated with clips round the ear off my dad when I was about twelve.

I'm sorry the guy got hurt, but I have no sympathy at all.

 

[yorkie]

I'd prefer to stick to dictionary definitions.

That's your choice, but we've been using the word before it appeared in the dictionary.

Very few chavs (or social underclass to be less stereotypical) are in further education studying to be surveyors.

I wasn't talking about class, I called him a chav. I don't dispute your assertion that most chavs could be described as being "social underclass", but I do dispute that calling someone a chav necessarily guarantees they are any social "class". I also don't think that someone going to University means they cannot be a "chav".

I'm not excusing Sam Main's language but you don't have to be in the social underclass to be a bit sweary.

I agree, and was not suggesting otherwise.

Teenagers getting lippy with authority is as old as the hills and not confined to one social demographic.

But, like this? And he's 19, an adult, and a grown man, I don't think his age can be used as an excuse.

You do your point of view no favours by continuing to stereotype.

Finally, what's my area got to do with anything? I find the subtext in that last sentence a little offensive.

I am not sure you think I am suggesting, but here we call someone like that a chav. Where I used to live, the term was not used. It's about behaviour and the way people talk/act more than anything. Yes, there may be other things that are associated with the behaviour, but it's the behaviour of these individuals that angers people and has resulted in a name being brought into use to describe people who have chosen to engage in this behaviour.

As an example of this, a parent who can only be described as reasonably middle-class once expressed concern that her son was "turning into a chav". This is evidence that it is considered a life style choice, not something like race, religion, or anything like that. If criticising a behaviour is "stereotyping" then I'm guilty as charged, but if you are suggesting anything else, then you are mistaken.

Instead of arguing over whether Mr Main is a "chav", can we at least have some consensus that he's a horrible little man from that evidence? (family friendly language used)

Totally agree!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

To illustrate my view, I have spent some time this very month in two remarkably comparable cases in the High Court; Convicted persons having already been found Guilty in a lower Court, have instructed very expensive Counsel to assist in Claims for compensation

But there is a difference between hiring a lawyer and a lawyer coming out of the blue and offering their services is there not?

 

[Minilad]

There are some apologists for chavs and people who campaign for chav rights. That's their choice, they can do that if they want, but equally I can deplore them for it. Then there are people who stand up to chavs, and to me, they're the real heros! It's not always possible to stand up to chavs, and chavs are used to getting their own way the vast majority of the time as people are scared of them due to the foul language they use and knowing their 'rights' (but never their responsibilities). They get a shock when people stand up to them as it's so rare.

This This and a hundred times this.

And an (Dis)honourable mention for the scumbag legal eagles who no doubt egg people like this along in the belief they will get a nice thick wedge of compo.