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

[Hydro]

I think Sam Main's FB page said more about him than the video, and it still smacked of a tosser to me.

 

[Ferret]

Taking the law into your own hands is straight out of the Daily Mail's textbook and is equally not a recipe for success.

By the way, I neither buy the guardian or the Daily Mail. I do occasionally dip into their websites.

Oh, and last time out (local elections) I voted Conservative.

The taking of the law into his own hands was done as a last resort. Would you rather it was allowed to develop into either the scrote belting the Guard, or heaven forbid the Guard belting him?

 

[bnm]

Would that last resort have been reached though if the conductor hadn't decided to delay the service?

I can't quite understand how the situation would've developed into either Sam Main or the conductor lashing out.

The only time we see any evidence of Sam Main acting in an aggressive manner is after he has been forcibly removed from his seat.

 

[Oswyntail]

The taking of the law into his own hands was done as a last resort. .

That is an interesting viewpoint. What else had the "Big Man" tried as first resort? Do we see him talking to the younger man, asking him on behalf of other passengers to desist? Do we see him even saying "Shut up or I'll deck you"? I would suggest he actually took the law into his own hands as a first resort, and that - vigilanteism - is a very scary path to go down (regardless of what the offender was doing).

 

[bnm]

From the Daily Record:

'Big Man' train vigilante Alan Pollock invited to join US crimebusters group Guardian Angels

THE Big Man has been asked to join a US vigilante group.

Banker Alan Pollock, 34, has become an internet sensation after throwing student Sam Main, 19, off the 9.33pm Edinburgh to Perth train on Friday.

Footage of the incident has been watched by more than a million people around the world – and the dad-of-three could face an assault rap as a result.

Now a vigilante group have backed Alan and invited him to join them.

Andreas “Hawk” Schoyen, UK director of crimebusters Guardian Angels, said: “We would definitely like Alan to join us.

“We run a training programme which would help him to develop the correct skills to better handle situations like the one he found himself in.

“I have watched the footage on YouTube and I’d say Alan’s intentions are good but that he could do with some conflict resolution training.

“We could help him develop the physical skills and negotiation skills he needs. The Guardian Angels strongly believe in and applaud members of the public who dare to care about their community by *intervening and peacefully resolving conflicts on public transport.

“Citizen’s arrest is our last resort when dealing with a conflict *resolution. If such action needs to be taken, it should be done using minimum force and in accordance with the law.”

The red beret wearing Guardian Angels were founded in 1979 to combat violence and crime on New York’s subways.

Alan – a manager with £2.3trillion asset management firm BlackRock – was applauded by passengers and praised on the internet after his intervention. He stepped in after the ticket inspector repeatedly asked Sam to leave the train as he did not have a valid ticket.

Sam claimed he had been told that morning to buy two singles, as it would be cheaper, and had been given two tickets in the same direction by mistake.

He suffered cuts and bruises in the incident and has officially complained to British Transport Police. He said: “I was given no time to explain myself.”

It has been revealed the inspector has gone on annual leave and ScotRail have launched an investigation.

There was no answer at Alan’s home in Stirling last night. British Transport Police say the inquiry is ongoing.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Sam Main's FB page said more about him than the video, and it still smacked of a tosser to me.

He's hardly been that contentious on FB. Separate his own posts on his Wall from those of his FB 'friends'......

 

[Hydro]

I think Sam Main's FB page said more about him than the video, and it still smacked of a tosser to me.

He's hardly been that contentious on FB. Separate his own posts on his Wall from those of his FB 'friends'......

I'm quite capable of doing so, and my opinion still stands.

 

[bnm]

Fair enough. All opinions are valid. Life would be deadly dull if we all agreed.

I didn't draw the same conclusion that he was a t****r. Some of his FB 'friends' on the other hand.....

 

[Ferret]

Would that last resort have been reached though if the conductor hadn't decided to delay the service?

I can't quite understand how the situation would've developed into either Sam Main or the conductor lashing out.

The only time we see any evidence of Sam Main acting in an aggressive manner is after he has been forcibly removed from his seat.

If you can't quite understand how the situation could've resulted in one party lashing out, you obviously don't have much experience of how people react under stress.

Oswyntail - it wasn't for bigman to try 'first resort' options. The guard did that and got nowhere. Bigman and the rest of the train were long past first resort when Bigman acted.

As this thread seems to be full of armchair experts who have clearly never done a Guard's job, and I believe are incapable of doing the job, I'd like to pose a couple of questions.

1. How would you have handled it?

2. What would you do if you chose to let Mr Main have a free ride and had say 25 people gang up on you in the carriage for doing so?

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Oswyntail - it wasn't for bigman to try 'first resort' options...

Correct - it wasn't for him to try any options. None of his business

...As this thread seems to be full of armchair experts who have clearly never done a Guard's job

Ah yes, that hoary old chestnut, as daft now as whenever it is used. Of course many people who ae not guards handle confrontation daily, and have a perfectly valid opinion.

... and I believe are incapable of doing the job, I'd like to pose a couple of questions.

1. How would you have handled it?

With formal assertion, calmly, rationally, adultly, bringing the offender round, and implementing the appropriate procedure.

..2. What would you do if you chose to let Mr Main have a free ride and had say 25 people gang up on you in the carriage for doing so?

Was this an option? If (unlikely) I chose it, I would regret it

 

[Ferret]

Correct - it wasn't for him to try any options. None of his business

Arguably, but then too many people stand off and do nothing then receive criticism for doing so.

Ah yes, that hoary old chestnut, as daft now as whenever it is used. Of course many people who are not guards handle confrontation daily, and have a perfectly valid opinion.

Nope, it's an entirely valid criticism. It's too damn easy to sit at home passing judgment from behind a keyboard when you've never been there. It's then hilarious to see responses such as this, which just prove my point.

With formal assertion, calmly, rationally, adultly, bringing the offender round, and implementing the appropriate procedure.

Ah yes, this is of course what the textbook says - I'll grant you that. And of course, if it says it in the textbook it must be right, because the textbook isn't a real-life scroat with no intention of being brought round.

Was this an option? If (unlikely) I chose it, I would regret it

Oh yes, this could've been an option. When your textbook response didn't work and you walked away as per what the textbook told you to do, that could be what happened. In fact, something similar happened to me only last week... although I'd only walked off to get a pen and paper so I could get details of an offender rather than given up to give him a free ride - it's just that 5 people in the carriage didn't realise that's what I was doing and decided to give me a hard time.:roll:

 

[yorkie]

None of his business

It saddens me to read that

IMO it's everyone's business, and I like to think I would have supported the guard in that situation, not necessarily acted the same way (not big or brave enough!) but even if it was just verbally, it's still my business.

 

[Ferret]

Ah Yorkie, you're forgetting that we're all conditioned now not to get involved because that's what we've been told to do by those who like to know what's best...

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Arguably, but then too many people stand off and do nothing then receive criticism for doing so.



Nope, it's an entirely valid criticism. It's too damn easy to sit at home passing judgment from behind a keyboard when you've never been there. It's then hilarious to see responses such as this, which just prove my point.



Ah yes, this is of course what the textbook says - I'll grant you that. And of course, if it says it in the textbook it must be right, because the textbook isn't a real-life scroat with no intention of being brought round.



Oh yes, this could've been an option. When your textbook response didn't work and you walked away as per what the textbook told you to do, that could be what happened. In fact, something similar happened to me only last week... although I'd only walked off to get a pen and paper so I could get details of an offender rather than given up to give him a free ride - it's just that 5 people in the carriage didn't realise that's what I was doing and decided to give me a hard time.:roll:

Absolutely Spot On Ferret, being a guard can be a hard enough job at the best of times, if this Scroat gets away with it, it will send out a message to Fare Evaders that its ok to break the law, the Big Man deserves a pat on the back and the people sticking up for the foul mouthed scroat aka Mr Main, shame on you, I see people like Mr Main every week so many times I have hoped (in the back of my mind) someone would help instead of burying their heads in the sand, and if anyone actually believes the codswallop Mr Main and his father are coming out with you are more gullible than I thought possible!

 

[bnm]

1. How would you have handled it?

By using the conflict resolution training I was taught during a brief spell in one of Brenda's hotels, which was added to and improved when I started working with young people.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

By using the conflict resolution training I was taught during a brief spell in one of Brenda's hotels, which was added to and improved when I started working with young people.

Conflict resolution is great on paper, but in the real world it works about 1/4 of the time, I have never physically thrown anyone off and have (the majority of the time) managed to handle it with experience and stubborness.

Usually when a fare evader like Mr Main is caught they do not like being the centre of attention (unless they are feeling very smug and arrogant) and when you make it clear to the passengers why the train isn't moving (which I feel is very fair to the paying passengers to let them know the reason why they are getting home late), they usually leave on their own accord, I have never instructed anyone to "throw" a fare evader off for me (but so many times I wish someone would), last resort is the police, the guard made it clear in the vid that he was quite willing to wait all day for Mr Main to leave, he mentioned on many occasions he is getting paid while they are stranded there (which is a common tactic that works a heck of a lot) The Big Guy (IMHO) did what everyone probably tjhought about doing and thats why he got the applause.

Staff and Passengers are fed up to the back teeth of being powerless with Fare Evaders, good on the Big Guy for standing up for himself and his passengers

 

[Old Timer]

An equally bizarre post - None of what you say allows someone who isn't involved in the discussion/dispute originally, is not employed by the railway, has no authority implied or otherwise from anyone with the power to grant him that authority, clearly doesn't know what he's doing in terms of restraint and removal and really just wants to show he's a big hard man to get involved and physically throw someone to the the floor using a dangerous hold in order to do so. ....

I would refer you and others who believe this to the Regulation of Railways Act 1840, Section 16, which is still in force.


XVI. And be it enacted, That if any Person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any Officer or Agent of any Railway Company in the Execution of his Duty upon any Railway, or upon or in any of the Stations or other Works or Premises connected therewith,..........and shall refuse to quit the same upon Request to him made by any Officer or Agent of the said Company, every such Person so offending, and all others aiding or assisting therein, shall and may be seized and detained by any such, Officer or Agent, or any Person whom he may call to his Assistance, until such Offender or Offenders can be conveniently taken before some Justice of the Peace for the County or Place wherein such Offence shall be committed, .......


Under such Legislation it used to be an Offence for a person so asked to assist, to fail to do so.




Under such Legislation I have previously asked Guards if they wish assistance, as the Act legalises this once the request has been made. To do so otherwise does not confer the protection of the Act nor the authority to intervene.

So legally Big Man was acting under the auspices of S16 once the Guard requested (which I believe/understand) he did.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would refer you and others who believe this to the Regulation of Railways Act 1840, Section 16, which is still in force.


XVI. And be it enacted, That if any Person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any Officer or Agent of any Railway Company in the Execution of his Duty upon any Railway, or upon or in any of the Stations or other Works or Premises connected therewith,..........and shall refuse to quit the same upon Request to him made by any Officer or Agent of the said Company, every such Person so offending, and all others aiding or assisting therein, shall and may be seized and detained by any such, Officer or Agent, or any Person whom he may call to his Assistance, until such Offender or Offenders can be conveniently taken before some Justice of the Peace for the County or Place wherein such Offence shall be committed, .......


Under such Legislation it used to be an Offence for a person so asked to assist, to fail to do so.

So legally Big Man was acting under the auspices of S16 once the Guard requested (which I believe/understand) he did

If this matter should come before the courts, it will be interesting to see if Alan Pollock's defence team do actually enter a claim of acting under the stringencies of what you have quoted above.

 

[Old Timer]

If this matter should come before the courts, it will be interesting to see if Alan Pollock's defence team do actually enter a claim of acting under the stringencies of what you have quoted above.

I would be interested to see which way this goes.

There are faults on both sides which make things far from clear, as the scrote was "damaged" by the Big Man, and there could well be a case of "unreasonable force" brought by the scrote.

Removal of the scrote was covered under the byelaws, but the assistance could only legally come from the 1840 RRA when requested, and for the purpose of detaining. One would thus anticipate that the intention to "detain" was withdrawn once the scrote was removed from the train.

This was the guidance given by the BT Police in Leeds in the 1970s, sadly I suspect that if tested, some liberal judge on Appeal would seek to close down that avenue as well, seeing that our Judiciary seem unwilling to take a hard stance against scum who terrorise and assualt others, but are happy to jail debtors and others who do not cause harm to others.

 

[brillopad]

This was the guidance given by the BT Police in Leeds in the 1970s, sadly I suspect that if tested, some liberal judge on Appeal would seek to close down that avenue as well, seeing that our Judiciary seem unwilling to take a hard stance against scum who terrorise and assualt others, but are happy to jail debtors and others who do not cause harm to others.

The Railway Byelaws appear to cover the UK but ultimately Scottish Law will apply.

 

[Old Timer]

The Railway Byelaws appear to cover the UK but ultimately Scottish Law will apply.

Both apply in Scotland and are not overwritten by any specific Scottish legislation according to the Government website, this means that there is no superior Law that can overtake its application.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That would seem a perfectly normal response from a teenager/young adult male who found himself in this situation because he had (allegedly) been mis-sold a ticket.

I am sorry, but I disagree.
Swearing and being abusive is NOT a perfectly normal response from a teenager or young adult. Not at all. And this is coming from someone who fits into that category who can get very wound up over small things (I once followed a guard down the train cos he overcharged me by 20p). I would never think of swearing like that to a guard. It has nothing at all to do with being young, and everything to do with not having any respect at all for others and being a total and utter idiot.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Both apply in Scotland and are not overwritten by any specific Scottish legislation according to the Government website, this means that there is no superior Law that can overtake its application.

That is correct (other than, perhaps, the ECHR, which I'm quite sure will not be applied here).
As the journey took place wholly within Scotland, then the RORA will be interpreted and applied in a Scottish Court under the Scottish legislative framework, but the RORA remains wholly applicable; in my view, that distinction affects only procedural matters and any ancilliary legislation which others on here have referred to, such as the Public Order Act (the relevant Sections 4 & 5 no not apply in Scotland).

My only doubt remains, as posted initially 5 days ago, that I reamin to be persuaded that the conditions for agency have been satisfied. Should that distinction ever be tested, then I'd expect evidence will be heard to support and deny that claim. From what I understand so far, the "call to assist" may be contentious.

 

[the sniper]

I would refer you and others who believe this to the Regulation of Railways Act 1840, Section 16, which is still in force.


XVI. And be it enacted, That if any Person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any Officer or Agent of any Railway Company in the Execution of his Duty upon any Railway, or upon or in any of the Stations or other Works or Premises connected therewith,..........and shall refuse to quit the same upon Request to him made by any Officer or Agent of the said Company, every such Person so offending, and all others aiding or assisting therein, shall and may be seized and detained by any such, Officer or Agent, or any Person whom he may call to his Assistance, until such Offender or Offenders can be conveniently taken before some Justice of the Peace for the County or Place wherein such Offence shall be committed, .......

So legally Big Man was acting under the auspices of S16 once the Guard requested (which I believe/understand) he did.

Removal of the scrote was covered under the byelaws, but the assistance could only legally come from the 1840 RRA when requested, and for the purpose of detaining. One would thus anticipate that the intention to "detain" was withdrawn once the scrote was removed from the train.

I was going to bring up RRA 1840 earlier in the thread, but I discounted it as I just can't see it being applicable or useful, as it only grants the power to detain. The main problems are that the guard seemingly didn't intend to detain the person, but eject them. He then accepted the big man's offer to eject the kid, rather than detain him. And in the end, they didn't detain him and made no attempt to, but ejected him. I think a lawyer would probably also take issue with the way that the guard didn't call the big man to his assistance, but as the guard accepted his offer I think that'd pass.

Sadly for the big man and guard, the law doesn't work on a pick 'n' mix bases.

Under such Legislation it used to be an Offence for a person so asked to assist, to fail to do so.

Interesting. I'd never heard of this before. Of course, failure to assist a Police Officer still exists, but is rarely used.

There are faults on both sides which make things far from clear, as the scrote was "damaged" by the Big Man, and there could well be a case of "unreasonable force" brought by the scrote.

Personally I'm sure, as he's a MOP, if the byelaws had permitted the power to eject to be passed to him by the authorised person, he would have been deemed to have used reasonable force. As he had no legal right (that I can see) to even touch him though, whether it was reasonable force or not used to eject him won't come into the matter.

[...]our Judiciary seem unwilling to take a hard stance against scum who terrorise and assualt others, but are happy to jail debtors and others who do not cause harm to others.

In this instance though, the only Assault (and Battery) was carried out by the well intentioned big man, unless the guard was actually caused to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence from Mr Main. I don't think that's the case though. And the only harm (which was fairly considerable, looking at Mr Main's face) was caused by the big man.

 

[Ferret]

By using the conflict resolution training I was taught during a brief spell in one of Brenda's hotels, which was added to and improved when I started working with young people.

I echon Northern Guard's comments. Take it from one who knows - sometimes it works, quite often it does not. Like I say, it is very easy to criticise when you've never actually been there.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Question for OT and DaveNewcastle then: how can scrote prove he got his injury during his eviction? Further to that, can 'bigman' legitimately claim that scrote suffered injury because he was resisting his lawful removal?

 

[cointreau_rove]

Been following this subject on other fora and on here.

Irrespective of all the rules and regulations quoted about what is and is not what should happen and should not we are talking about differing elements of law. The Railway Acts and Regulations exist for good reason as do the multitude of other criminal acts around the issue of physical harm and that goes through the full list up to and including Manslaughter and Murder.

Positioning sometimes ancient and new Railways Acts and Regulations within a supposed framework of rights and wrongs is meaningless when the outcome of said "righteous" action and "supported by other persons" (the passengers) becomes utterly meaningless had the person physically assaulted and ejected from the train had seriously injured himself (or even died from landing badly from being thrown from the train wherein a case of homicide could have been looming. Whatever the TOC states there are two issues of law that are not H&S issues and for that reason NO company railway or otherwise would directly incite or train staff to physically man handle an unruly passenger off the train. These are the Corporate Manslaughter Act and Corporate Homicide Act (both 2007). Both of which also covers Scotland.

There is no way the big guy on the train was any kind of a police officer as he would have been required to identify himself and show a warrant card, he would also have to warn the person he wanted to remove that he was arresting him and at that point advise said person that he was being arrested and would be removed. Bouncers in England (not sure about Scotland so stand to be corrected) are regulated in the main and licenced by local authorities to include a criminal Records check. Getting involved in this matter in the manner shown on the Video clip would risk their employment status should they be taken to court and found guilty of an assault (and a said previously perhaps something even worse)'

It is very easy to sit back and praise and cheer the actions of the bystander, and in the case that the youth involved had assaulted the Train Guard then the big guys actions would become justifiable but think in terms of being the passengers on board applauding the ejection only to find that the youth was seriously injured or killed - cheering that outcome? I doubt it very much. I would seek balance on the satisfaction at seeing a "chav" (I assume this comes from a different hat wearing or a bit of foul language the like of which ids on TV every night) getting his comeuppance perhaps? What issues had that been your son being assaulted or you as a parent having to arrange for a funeral? Over dramatic? Really? That is to be the accepted punishment for the price of a ticket???? The answer was mentioned in the threads - the guard had the opportunity of having the police waiting at the next stop to remove the youth and thereby not raise the ire of the passengers wanting to get home. What was perpetrated was brutal and unnecessary. I would never sanction any form of violence being dome upon an employee of the railways BUT neither would I ever accept it being done to a passenger (fare payer on not).

We have spent hundreds of years building a justice system in the UK based on Common Law and reaching back to Magna Carter to ensure fairness and equity in justice and not some form of summary punishment system that would take us back to the feudal systems of old (something the common Scots suffered heavily from in those days of old)' A bit of ear lopping too perhaps?

Once we accept what was done and seen in the video as being "right" where do we stop?

C

 

[Ferret]

C, there's a couple of fundamental flaws in your post - the first being that the lad has a cut to his face, not a life-threatening injury. Furthermore, we have no proof that that cut was a result of bigman's actions.

Secondly, you assume that BTP would be at the next station. I'm sorry to say that as a general rule, BTP do not care about fare evasion. They aren't interested. They would not have been there.

What it comes down to for me is did bigman use reasonable force, and I'd argue that he did.

 

[the sniper]

Further to that, can 'bigman' legitimately claim that scrote suffered injury because he was resisting his lawful removal?

Well, no, because as has been pointed out numerous times, the whole issue is that the big man had no lawful authority lay his hands on the kid, let alone throw him off the train.

There is no way the big guy on the train was any kind of a police officer as he would have been required to identify himself and show a warrant card, he would also have to warn the person he wanted to remove that he was arresting him and at that point advise said person that he was being arrested and would be removed.

Not necessarily. He could be removed from the train under the byelaws and than PNB interviewed & reported for process. Someone wouldn't normally be arrested for a byelaw or Ticket based offence (i.e. RRA 1889).

 

[Ferret]

Sniper, not so - read Old Timer's post above. At the point he laid a hand on him, he was acting lawfully. It seems that where he went wrong was not detaining him until such time as the Police could deal with the matter.... But then of course, those of us with practical knowledge know that the Police were unlikely to show.

I find this fascinating I have to say. I wonder whether the procurator fiscal will bring a case to Court, risking a jury siding with 'bigman' with the associated cost to taxpayer. And what about the risk of a precedent being created? My money is still on no action being taken......

 

[the sniper]

Sniper, not so - read Old Timer's post above. At the point he laid a hand on him, he was acting lawfully. It seems that where he went wrong was not detaining him until such time as the Police could deal with the matter.... But then of course, those of us with practical knowledge know that the Police were unlikely to show.

If you're referring to the Regulation of Railways Act 1840, I've already given my reasons for not thinking that it is applicable. Even Old Timer raised his own doubts.

And had BTP been called and there were any available officers, the BTP would have come. As I'm sure you can appreciate though, they're not going to be able to get there quickly as the closest office is 20 miles away. No guard would hold the train in the middle of nowhere for that long as the TOC would have a fit.

I doubt the local police would turn out for a TI even if they were parked in the station car park though.

 

[DarkestDreams]

At least he wasn't stabbed, like this poor guy was yesterday.