Big Man / Sam Main - no charges

[cle]

I think this is a decent decision especially considering the cost to the taxpayer. Both have had enough bad publicity and will be keen to put this behind them.

If Main is on trains again, he'll be watched like a hawk and no doubt I hope will always havd a ticket. The burned hand learns best!

Equally I can imagine the book being thrown at Pollock if he's caught up in any type of violence again. And quite right too.

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting result this was one of those damned if you do or damned if you don't scenarios.

A fair outcome even if was the wrong outcome (in my opinion both should have been prosecuted for their wrongs) but what people do tend to forget is that once charged even if not convicted will make him not able to travel to the USA, Australia or New Zealand without getting a visa and even applying for a visa won't guarantee entry and he could be refused at other borders too.. a lot of uncertainty in his future travels.

Also, his employer isnt best pleased with the unwelcome global publicity that this brought and the media circus camped outside Mr Pollock's place of work for the first few days after the event.

 

[34D]

Out of interest, what have Scotrail said about this incident? I'm curious to know why the guard was on gardening leave, and whether they have said thank you to Mr Pollock.

 

[the sniper]

It was a fairly clear case of Common Assault to me...

Not under Scots law; if Pollock was acting in self-defence of another, and if he had no intent to injure, it would not be classed as an assault.

Woops, forgot this was Scots law and didn't I know about the bit in bold as it's not the same as E+W. As such, I withdraw that statement.

Just to clarify that last statement though, it's not as 'clear cut' under E+W law as I made out. I was more thinking about what the offence consists of rather than the defence the prosecutor and court would have to consider i.e. prevention of crime. That was always less clear cut. I blame late night posting for my lack of thinking/clarity.

 

[tony_mac]

once charged even if not convicted will make him not able to travel to the USA, Australia or New Zealand without getting a visa ...

I know it's a bit off-topic, but this doesn't seem to be very accurate. The USA is funny in that they consider an arrest to be the same as a conviction - but it's not for all offences, and a (single) simple assault shouldn't be a problem as it's not a crime of 'moral turpitude'.

Both Australia and New Zealand only seem to require disclosure of convictions.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf
http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/tourist/976/obligations.htm
http://glossary.immigration.govt.nz/Goodcharacter.htm

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Woops, forgot this was Scots law and didn't I know about the bit in bold as it's not the same as E+W.

Dont worry....you are not the first, nor will you be the last, to fall foul of this distinction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting result this was one of those damned if you do or damned if you don't scenarios....Also, his employer isn't best pleased with the unwelcome global publicity that this brought and the media circus camped outside Mr Pollock's place of work for the first few days after the event.

This shows how big or small the Media can choose to "develop" a storyline to suit their own ends. Very relevant with a certain "Press" matter of standards of media behaviour being so much to the fore at the highest level at the present time.

 

[michael769]

Not their call on going to court. That was a decision for the Procurator Fiscal.

BTP also had alternatives available to them, such as informal warnings or a formal caution. They did not need to make the parties the subject of a report to the procurator fiscal.

I think I said it before but perhaps the BTP officers involved could benefit from shadowing their colleagues in Lothian and Borders Police on a Saturday night/Sunday morning in Edinburgh when the pubs and clubs close to learn a little perspective.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Out of interest, what have Scotrail said about this incident? I'm curious to know why the guard was on gardening leave, and whether they have said thank you to Mr Pollock.

Scotrail said that they carried out an internal investigation. The results of that have remained confidential, but the fact that the guard has returned to his original post suggests that he was cleared.

 

[Scooby]

This.

I bet Main is thinking I've got away with it once, I can do it again.

Hardly.

I would imagine that he'll find it very difficult to find an employer (in his chosen field) who would touch him with a bargepole.

With the employment market as it is, why take on a drunken, foul mouthed yob, who gets off on abusing train guards ?

 

[Oswyntail]

Like Pollock, Main has "got away" with nothing. For both, whatever charges they may have faced have been withdrawn.They are both innocent (whether the partisans on this board like it or not). We, on this board, never had all the evidence, only a short (selective) video and a bucketload of prejudice and speculation. Let's just put it to sleep now.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Like Pollock, Main has "got away" with nothing. For both, whatever charges they may have faced have been withdrawn.They are both innocent (whether the partisans on this board like it or not). We, on this board, never had all the evidence, only a short (selective) video and a bucketload of prejudice and speculation. Let's just put it to sleep now.

Partisan??? alrighty then :roll:

 

[Ferret]

Partisan??? alrighty then :roll:

Indeed! We had all the evidence we needed to view the byelaw offences committed by Mr Main. Does that make myself, ANG, Yorkie et al partisan, or merely able to see with our own eyes what is glaringly obvious?! Still, it is best put to bed now.

 

[matchmaker]

What Jury would have convicted Pollock?

He wouldn't have been tried in front of a jury.

 

[Geezertronic]

Indeed! We had all the evidence we needed to view the byelaw offences committed by Mr Main. Does that make myself, ANG, Yorkie et al partisan, or merely able to see with our own eyes what is glaringly obvious?! Still, it is best put to bed now.

Hell I'll be partisan if it pleases the court of Oswyntail

 

[andykn]

I think this is a decent decision especially considering the cost to the taxpayer. Both have had enough bad publicity and will be keen to put this behind them.

If Main is on trains again, he'll be watched like a hawk and no doubt I hope will always havd a ticket. The burned hand learns best!

Equally I can imagine the book being thrown at Pollock if he's caught up in any type of violence again. And quite right too.

Whatever else people think of him, Mr Main was not trying to fare dodge, he had requested the correct tickets but been given a wrong one:

"Sources close to the investigations have confirmed Mr Main's claim, made last week, that he had tried to buy two single tickets, one from Polmont to Edinburgh Park and another in the return direction (and using his student railcard), because he was unable to use his railcard for the outward journey before 10am.

Mr Main said the conductor at Polmont had instead given him two tickets for the same journey, one full fare and one at a discounted price using his railcard, but it was only when he got on the train that evening he realised he had two Polmont-to-Edinburgh Park tickets."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...reveal-student-was-sold-wrong-ticket.16216486

 

[Oswyntail]

Hell I'll be partisan if it pleases the court of Oswyntail

Oi, come on now chaps - a partisan is just an adherent of one party or another, and I think that was an apt description of the chalk and cheese lines taken in the discussions. Mock my views, but not my use of language!

 

[the sniper]

I think I said it before but perhaps the BTP officers involved could benefit from shadowing their colleagues in Lothian and Borders Police on a Saturday night/Sunday morning in Edinburgh when the pubs and clubs close to learn a little perspective.

And as I said before, it's naive to compare the situations. The BTP will deal with the same people you describe on a Friday/Saturday night/Sunday morning as the wise men of Lothian and Borders, and probably deal with them in the same way.

Various factors here, including the massive public interest in the story, the video, the staff aggression aspect and numerous other things meant that this incident was more complicated to deal with than your average ruckus between drunks of an evening.

 

[Geezertronic]

Oi, come on now chaps - a partisan is just an adherent of one party or another, and I think that was an apt description of the chalk and cheese lines taken in the discussions. Mock my views, but not my use of language!

I'm only trying to lighten the mood, no mocking intended

Whatever else people think of him, Mr Main was not trying to fare dodge, he had requested the correct tickets but been given a wrong one:

"Sources close to the investigations have confirmed Mr Main's claim, made last week, that he had tried to buy two single tickets, one from Polmont to Edinburgh Park and another in the return direction (and using his student railcard), because he was unable to use his railcard for the outward journey before 10am.

Mr Main said the conductor at Polmont had instead given him two tickets for the same journey, one full fare and one at a discounted price using his railcard, but it was only when he got on the train that evening he realised he had two Polmont-to-Edinburgh Park tickets."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...reveal-student-was-sold-wrong-ticket.16216486

So that is the story today. Does he explain why he got verbal and agressive with the guard? Probably not I presume... He knew he was travelling on the wrong ticket so instead of dealing with it he left it and was caught out

 

[bnm]

And because he got a bit lippy with a guard who was looming over him and telling all around that if he didn't get off the train was going nowhere, Mr Main has been character assassinated here on RailUK, Chav, Ned, fare-dodging scrote, are among some of things he's been called.

Really glad that the judicial system in the UK is not peopled by the narrow minded, pro-vigilantism posters of this forum.

By the way, I don't condone Mr Main's language. However I do condemn the actions of the guard and Mr Pollock.

 

[Ferret]

bnm, if a posting on 4ft8 from somebody who lives near the family concerned is to be believed, it seems those that called him a scrote and chav etc weren't far wrong.......

And, yet again we see the word 'vigilante' used. For the love of God, Mr Pollock did not go and get 30 mates to rally round and give Sam Main a damn good hiding. Can we please stop the awful use of emotive language in this thread - it's demeaning to the forum.

 

[amcluesent]

it seems those that called him a scrote and chav etc weren't far wrong.

That was clear as soon as his father started belly-aching about his 'umin rights' and demanding compo rather than show any contrition for the lads wayward behaviour.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And, yet again we see the word 'vigilante' used. For the love of God, Mr Pollock did not go and get 30 mates to rally round and give Sam Main a damn good hiding. Can we please stop the awful use of emotive language in this thread - it's demeaning to the forum.

Lots of emotive language there

 

[bnm]

And, yet again we see the word 'vigilante' used. For the love of God, Mr Pollock did not go and get 30 mates to rally round and give Sam Main a damn good hiding. Can we please stop the awful use of emotive language in this thread - it's demeaning to the forum.

I'll not use it again if you read the dictionary definition and understand that a vigilante can be one person. Vigilantism can also apply in the singular.

I was going to pick up on your use of emotive language, but ralphchadkirk beat me to it!

 

[Ferret]

Lots of emotive language there

But not wholly inaccurate, unlike the assertion that Mr Pollock is a vigilante, and that some posters in this thread are all for vigilantes.

 

[scotsman]

He wouldn't have been tried in front of a jury.

Erm, and how would he not have been?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Here's the dictionary definition of 'vigilante':

A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.

I will leave it to everyone else to decide if Mr Pollock was a vigilante or not.

 

[Ferret]

I'll not use it again if you read the dictionary definition and understand that a vigilante can be one person. Vigilantism can also apply in the singular.

I was going to pick up on your use of emotive language, but ralphchadkirk beat me to it!

If you honestly think that Mr Pollock is a vigilante then I suspect you need to gain some perspective in life.

As for your last comment, words fail me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here's the dictionary definition of 'vigilante':

I will leave it to everyone else to decide if Mr Pollock was a vigilante or not.

It didn't take me long to decide. The absence of any punishment would appear to provide a significant clue.

 

[bnm]

If you honestly think that Mr Pollock is a vigilante then I suspect you need to gain some perspective in life.

Thanks for the life tip. Much appreciated. What I said was that I was glad that the judicial system is not peopled with folk from this forum who hold views that it is fine to take the law into your own hands (I'm assuming you've taken on board the dictionary definition of the 'v' word... so, as promised I've not used it again).

The only comment I made on Mr Pollock's actions was that I condemn them. I made no assertion that he was a... oops. Nearly used the 'v' word again.

So carry on suspecting that I need to gain some perspective in life. Your prerogative. As is your right to misunderstand what I typed.

 

[Geezertronic]

Hey if some of you guys are happy to be members of the Bystander Effect then fair play to you. Others like me couldn't and wouldn't want to be part of that group and I guess Mr Pollock couldn't either as he acted in defence of the more mature conductor against a younger agressive male (and you can quote that as emotive if you like )

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Here we go again.....

 

[Michael.Y]

*settles down in comfy chair and popcorn to watch*