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

[sonorguy]

If both tickets had been shown, and the guard had looked and seen that from the ticket numbers they were sequential, and issued at about the same time (give or take a minute or two) then I am sure he would have believed his explanation - had that explanation been given of course.

If he had a YPRC on him too, that would have presumably helped (did he? Was the ticket he showed with the discount? Did he present his railcard?)

It seems to me that he didn't do any of this at the time.

Of course, it's still possible that he could have bought the second ticket for someone else and made up the story about the mistake, then just travelled both ways with one ticket.

And it's also possible that he's telling the truth. No-one who wasn't directly involved (including you and I) knows exactly what transpired before the video as the balancing views to Mr. Main aren't able to be heard currently.

Either of us could be right, or neither of us could be right.

That's the problem with this, very few know what actually occurred before something that clearly shouldn't have (him being manhandled/assaulted after being a gobby idiot, both of which are equally stupid).

 

[WelshBluebird]

And that's one of the big problems with how the media has portrayed this, we don't actually know what went on before this except that it's clear that the video is from the end of a lengthy interaction or the end of a number of interactions.

And yet, according to the kid himself anyway, nothing went on before! Not that I believe that, but if it is the case, then he makes no attempt at all to explain the situation. So if anything, him claiming there weren't any previous incidents goes against him!

 

[jon0844]

And it's also possible that he's telling the truth.

I know he might be (that was my first example), but he opted not to try and explain and just be abusive instead. That's what led to the outcome we saw.

If he had both tickets, in order to notice the mistake, then he could have presented both and at the very least made the guard think he might be telling the truth, as against having been given a ticket that was valid the other way - and presumably issued a long time ago (the morning), just adding to the likelihood that it was a ticket being reused.

Mr Main should accept that this is what anyone, including himself, would likely conclude in the circumstances. Being rude and swearing in front of everyone, acting like a chav, did him no favours. The outcome was inevitable - as he was unlikely to have been let off even if big man didn't step in. Either someone else would, or the train would have been met my BTP, with a lot of angry passengers now abusing him back (right or wrong).

To be honest, what happened before or even the situation with his tickets, is actually irrelevant. It's only about how appropriate it was to remove someone from a train who didn't produce a valid ticket at the time, and was abusive. Even if he'd shown a perfectly valid ticket but then gone off on one to the guard or another passenger, I'd have said he should have been kicked off the train.

 

[jon0844]

He was guilty of not producing a valid ticket, and of being abusive. That can't surely be questioned? The former doesn't even need to be proved in court does it?

There might, however, be mitigating circumstances but that is almost irrelevant here.

 

[marks87]

Both Main and Pollock have been reported to the Procurator Fiscal.

 

[90019]

In the video the 'young man' says he has shown the guard his ticket (singular), the guard says the ticket (singular) is for the wrong journey (Polmont to Edinburgh Park, not Edinburgh Park to Polmont).

It seems odd that he has a Polmont ticket in the first place, since he lives just by Falkirk Grahamston.

 

[Oswyntail]

He was guilty of not producing a valid ticket, and of being abusive. That can't surely be questioned? The former doesn't even need to be proved in court does it?

There might, however, be mitigating circumstances but that is almost irrelevant here.

OK, let's address the elephant in the room here. It is just possible that the rail employee was himself less than perfect (yes, I know there is no evidence, but there is none for anything other than the video). How would anyone here react in the following exchange:
"This ticket is invalid"
"Oh dear, this is what they sold me. What can I do?"
"Pay the full fare or get off the train"
"But I haven't any money, and this is what they sold me at the ticket office"
"Tough. You neds are always trying it on"
A not impossible exchange, seeing as it happened to my son a few years back on his way back from London. In those circumstances, I can imagine even the milder members here becoming argumentative.
That is why the full circumstances need to be known about, why mitigating circumstances are relevant, and why we should not rush to judgement.

 

[sonorguy]

He was guilty of not producing a valid ticket, and of being abusive. That can't surely be questioned? The former doesn't even need to be proved in court does it?

There might, however, be mitigating circumstances but that is almost irrelevant here.

Mitigating circumstances are never irrelevant, that's why they're mitigating. Whether any court takes them into account (if either case gets that far and it's doubtful it will) is another matter.

I think the PF is caught between a rock and a hard place here as realistically he has to either prosecute both or neither.

 

[Chapeltom]

Both Main and Pollock have been reported to the Procurator Fiscal.

What an absolute joke. Surely its not in public interest to prosecute Mr Pollock?

If your going to punish those who take action on rogues then your achieving nothing, idiots will continue to be idiots and people will remain stupidly tolerant of low level crime because we've got no rights to stop it.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't think anybody really knows what happened, even the ticket guy? If you believe in innocent till proved guilty then it was assault.

Er no, if we believe in innocent until proven guilty then we have to wait until a court says otherwise...

 

[Jonny]

Breaking news

 

[Tav77]

Both Main and Pollock have been reported to the Procurator Fiscal.

It is no wonder that, in general, people are unwilling to help anybody out nowadays.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It seems odd that he has a Polmont ticket in the first place, since he lives just by Falkirk Grahamston.

I think, with no evidence to the contrary, that we must assume he had either stayed over at someone else's house or was given a lift.

 

[sonorguy]

Breaking news

I'm surprised that if Pollock's been charged Main hasn't also, though this is under consideration I believe.

 

[Donny Dave]

A 35-year-old man, caught on YouTube removing alleged fare dodger on train from Edinburgh to Peth, charged with assault. Details shortly

http://twitter.com/BBCBreaking

 

[Geezertronic]

That is why the full circumstances need to be known about, why mitigating circumstances are relevant, and why we should not rush to judgement.

The only evidence I have seen is the video and that shows the young idiot being an idiot and getting what he deserved for that alone - what happened before that is irrelevant in my opinion, if you act like an idiot then you get treated like one

 

[the sniper]

Meanwhile the student accused of fare dodging, 19-year-old Sam Main from Falkirk, has also been reported to the procurator fiscal, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland.

He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.

Looks like he's been charged with the Scottish equivalent of S5 POA (rather than the byelaw offence, which is less serious) and trespass under the Regulation of Railways Act 1840, unless it's a Scottish trespass offence which I'm not aware of.

We'll have to wait and see whether the procurator fiscal decides to prosecute either of them.

 

[Old Timer]

What an absolute joke. Surely its not in public interest to prosecute Mr Pollock?

If your going to punish those who take action on rogues then your achieving nothing, idiots will continue to be idiots and people will remain stupidly tolerant of low level crime because we've got no rights to stop it.

Our Judiciary is packed solid with those appointed by the previous Labour Governments because they follow a liberal policy.

Their view is that anyone who gets involved, even within what is permitted in Law, should be hauled before the Courts by any and every tenuous means simply because the thing the Judiciary fear most of all is the general public standing up against the general balance of Law now favouring those who commit crime. That is why whenever possible they will always look to prosecuting a helper, sometimes more than the perpetrator, so as to try to hold back the waves.

Fortunately there appears to be a major sea-change developing with this Government who have tried to take away some of the excuses used by those within the System to go for those who go to the aid of another.

The very worst that will happen is that Main will get a slap on the wrist but the "Big Man" will potentially have the book thrown at him.

It IS possible that this particular case may well be the catalyst for change but I fear the outcome will be to remove the ability of any passenger or fellow Railwayman to come to the aid of a member of staff who is in need of support or assistance. I say this because I believe that the pressure will be on within the System to try to stop what the Judiciary call "Vigilante" action by punishing those who are considered to be acting in that manner. Folks to the likes of you and I this means helping a victim out.

What is frightening about our legal system is that a large proportion of the Judiciary feel that only they can be trusted to define what is right and wrong, and that Parliament, the public, and public opinion is an irrelevance rather than a democratic right to be heard and with it the constutional right to bring about change through Parliament.

 

[oversteer]

What an absolute joke. Surely its not in public interest to prosecute Mr Pollock?

If your going to punish those who take action on rogues then your achieving nothing, idiots will continue to be idiots and people will remain stupidly tolerant of low level crime because we've got no rights to stop it.

Upon reflection, I think it's fair he is charged. He had no legal right to assault the alleged fare evader. The guy was being a nuisance, sure, but hardly violent or threatening.

The law has to discourage 'vigilante' behaviour. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Upon reflection, I think it's fair he is charged. He had no legal right to assault the alleged fare evader. The guy was being a nuisance, sure, but hardly violent or threatening.

The law has to discourage 'vigilante' behaviour. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

when everybody sits by and does nothing, it will be a sorry day for this country, The guy was being abusive and threatening in his manner that is as plain as day what else do you call verbal abuse?

 

[Old Timer]

Upon reflection, I think it's fair he is charged. He had no legal right to assault the alleged fare evader. The guy was being a nuisance, sure, but hardly violent or threatening.

The law has to discourage 'vigilante' behaviour. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

Section 16 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 confers the ability and legal right of a person to come to the aid of a Railway official. It is set out clearly in a much earlier post.

 

[Geezertronic]

Upon reflection, I think it's fair he is charged. He had no legal right to assault the alleged fare evader. The guy was being a nuisance, sure, but hardly violent or threatening.

The law has to discourage 'vigilante' behaviour. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

Must have been watching a different video to you, there was no assault in the video I saw. But then again, your definition of assault is probably different to mine. So must your definition of vigilante behaviour.

Every action has consequences whether they be good or bad. Act like an idiot and expect to be treated like an idiot, whether that applies to rioters or little thugs on a train, makes no odds to me

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Section 16 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 confers the ability and legal right of a person to come to the aid of a Railway official. It is set out clearly in a much earlier post.

And that, of course, should be the first tenet for the defence case.
There will be quite a few "reasonables" used in the court, I'm certain.

 

[burneside]

Must have been watching a different video to you, there was no assault in the video I saw.

I suggest you look at the video again, the young man was turfed off the train in a very rough and aggressive manner, when he tried to reboard the big guy was really quite violent in pushing him off again. That is assault in my book.

 

[jon0844]

If a police officer had removed him, and he fought back, I doubt that anyone would have thought of it is as assult. If you're allowed to use reasonable force to remove someone who is now trespassing, I'd see that as reasonable force.

Everyone has the right to use reasonable force to remove someone for trespass, but I presume this will now mean that nobody can do anything if put in that position.

I hope that justice prevails on this, or we'll be giving the green light to every single idiot out there to do what they please. And just as we seemed to be showing that we weren't willing to accept such behaviour, following the August riots.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I suggest you look at the video again, the young man was turfed off the train in a very rough and aggressive manner, when he tried to reboard the big guy was really quite violent in pushing him off again. That is assault in my book.

If there is any justice in the world the Big Guy will be cleared and Mr Main have the book thrown at him, he is a potty mouth with no respect for anyone on that train thats what the video showed.

 

[sonorguy]

Section 16 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1840 confers the ability and legal right of a person to come to the aid of a Railway official. It is set out clearly in a much earlier post.

However what it doesn't do is give the person who is coming to aid the right to commit a crime in removing the person ie assault someone.

If you take your justification to a slightly far-fetched conclusion he would have been OK to kill Mr. Main as it was assisting a railway official. Whilst this outcome is clearly unlikely (though not impossible) the fact that the act doesn't state an amount of force able to be used means that this must remain within the law. If he's been charged with it and the PF is proceeding, and if it's anything like the rest of the UK with the CPS, there must be a greater than 60% chance of securing a conviction.

This would suggest that the PF's view is that the force used was neither within the terms of the act or reasonable/proportionate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a police officer had removed him, and he fought back, I doubt that anyone would have thought of it is as assult. If you're allowed to use reasonable force to remove someone who is now trespassing, I'd see that as reasonable force.

Everyone has the right to use reasonable force to remove someone for trespass, but I presume this will now mean that nobody can do anything if put in that position.

I hope that justice prevails on this, or we'll be giving the green light to every single idiot out there to do what they please. And just as we seemed to be showing that we weren't willing to accept such behaviour, following the August riots.

The big difference is that Mr. Pollock isn't a police officer and clearly hasn't had any training in control and restraint. I also highly doubt whether a police officer would have handled the situation in the same way as either the guard or Mr. Pollock.

None of this excuses Main's behaviour however and he should also be charged if he's broken any law.

 

[Tin Rocket]

rights or wrongs of the big mans actions aside,is this youtube footage going to be used as evidence to prosecute him and get him a criminal record??the person who uploaded it to youtube must be feeling terrible if they uploaded it in good faith,this person may seal the big mans fate in front of the beak.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

However what it doesn't do is give the person who is coming to aid the right to commit a crime in removing the person ie assault someone.

If you take your justification to a slightly far-fetched conclusion he would have been OK to kill Mr. Main as it was assisting a railway official. Whilst this outcome is clearly unlikely (though not impossible) the fact that the act doesn't state an amount of force able to be used means that this must remain within the law. If he's been charged with it and the PF is proceeding, and if it's anything like the rest of the UK with the CPS, there must be a greater than 60% chance of securing a conviction.

This would suggest that the PF's view is that the force used was neither within the terms of the act or reasonable/proportionate.

christ all The Big Guy did was push him off a train, he didn't hit or punch him, Mr Main is seen verbally assaulting the Conductor, being a total (insert required chav type description here) and having absolutely no regard for anyone around him, If the "Big Guy" is found guilty expect alot of trains to ground to a halt quite simply because we will all just walk away and wait for the police. the SLIGHTEST bit of trouble the majority of Train Crew will just lock themselves in their cabs and who can blame them as this shows not only can decent members of the community try and help someone in need (in this case the conductor) TrainCrew cannot rely on the law to help protect them

one BIG can of worms is opening up
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However what it doesn't do is give the person who is coming to aid the right to commit a crime in removing the person ie assault someone.

If you take your justification to a slightly far-fetched conclusion he would have been OK to kill Mr. Main as it was assisting a railway official. Whilst this outcome is clearly unlikely (though not impossible) the fact that the act doesn't state an amount of force able to be used means that this must remain within the law. If he's been charged with it and the PF is proceeding, and if it's anything like the rest of the UK with the CPS, there must be a greater than 60% chance of securing a conviction.

This would suggest that the PF's view is that the force used was neither within the terms of the act or reasonable/proportionate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The big difference is that Mr. Pollock isn't a police officer and clearly hasn't had any training in control and restraint. I also highly doubt whether a police officer would have handled the situation in the same way as either the guard or Mr. Pollock.

None of this excuses Main's behaviour however and he should also be charged if he's broken any law.

If hes broken any law??? what do you call verbal assault as that is clearly on the recording let alone numerous railway byelaws

 

[oversteer]

Everyone has the right to use reasonable force to remove someone for trespass, but I presume this will now mean that nobody can do anything if put in that position.

Not "everyone" has this right, that's a very dangerous thing to assume. I don't know the law in Scotland but I would assume, on a railway, only agents of the TOC or BTP have this right.