'Big Man' tackles fare dodging teenager on train

[sunama]

Also, has the young lad shown to any of the newspapers, etc this alleged double single ticket?

Surely, if this is his defence (ie. claiming to have paid, but bought the wrong ticket), he would be offering this ticket up to show people, that he wasn't fare dodger and that he had paid for a ticket, but it was the wrong ticket.

IMO, there was no double single ticket. The kid was a fare dodger and when the ticket inspector wanted to see his ticket, he thought that being abusive would get the inspector off his back. This strategy has probably worked previously...but thankfully, this time, he got what he deserved.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[[TW]Fox]

But the difference between a single and return ticket from Polmont to Edinburgh Park is no more than £2. It simply doesn't make sense; why would he spend ~£5 on a single then chance the extra £2?

Why would he purchase two singles at £5 each if a return was £7?

 

[Biohazard]

He admitted he had been drinking, I'm not aware of him admitting to being drunk. There is quite a significant difference between the two, and the video alone does not give any indication that he was drunk.

The shouting and swearing does it for me. Unless he does that all the time of course...

He did check his ticket, allegedly, and resolved to discuss the matter with the ticket conductor on the train. It was by no means unreasonable of him to leave the matter until his ticket was inspected on the service; there were likely no manned ticket booths at Edinburgh Park at that time of night, and he may have been rushing to get what could well have been the last train of the night.

Why would you buy a ticket at a booth, realise it's wrong then saunter off only later to go to the train thinking you'll sort it out there? If he realised later he should have saught out the conductor and explained immediately as both tickets would have the same print date and time on the bottom right hand corner and it would be obvious.

Had he done that if that really was the case, in a non pished and abusive manner, he might have got somewhere however he clearly was not able to do so on a reasonable level. It looked like the guard had a look at both and if that were the case I'm sure he would have rectified the matter. Instead he did nothing to help himself, and spent his day drinking instead of rectifying his apparent travel problem.

It would seem to me, based on the claims of eyewitnesses that they had been "arguing" for ten minutes before the video recording begins, that he explained his case to the conductor.

No one has said he had successfully argued his case which you are implying here. There was a witness who said they heard an outburst from him that went on and on.

The conductor was having none of it, and instead accused him of an offence he claims he did not commit. In those circumstances, Mr Main had every right to be indignant, and after ten minutes attempting to explain the matter without success, I am not in the slightest bit surprised that he acted out of frustration and resorted to swearing to emphasise his statements.

That convinced you are speaking in absolutes, you must have very good powers of deduction to become a timetraveling omnipresent Al Vallario.

Mr Main's actions were entirely reasonable.

I know how deep you have just convinced yourself of this, but there is nothing reasonable in swearing and shouting at an old man in public under the influence or not.

The extent to which he was drunk is debatable. The video provides no evidence whatsoever of him being abusive towards the conductor. If his story is correct, then it was the fault of the rail company that he "did not have a right to be on that service".

Do you have a sliding scale of drunkeness that we can debate here?

Swearing and shouting is abusing staff regardless of your protestations otherwise.

You wouldn't like it, others don't like it.

There was more than enough room; the 'big man' moved to block him. He made it clear that he was attempting to retrieve his possessions. Instead, he was intercepted and assaulted.

Papers say someone had thrown his bag off with him apparently, without paying he had no right what so ever to attempt to reboard.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

Why would he purchase two singles at £5 each if a return was £7?

I can't make sense of it either, returns are cheaper here on Scotrail.

 

[Biohazard]

Next thing you know he's being violently assaulted by a member of the public.

How was he violently assaulted 'next thing'?

 

[Deleted member 651465]

But the difference between a single and return ticket from Polmont to Edinburgh Park is no more than £2. It simply doesn't make sense; why would he spend ~£5 on a single then chance the extra £2?

Also, assuming he arrived at Edinburgh Park in the daytime, and they have ticket barriers there that swallow single tickets that terminate there, how did he end up with another single ticket in his possession on the return journey?

His explanation is, at the very least, entirely plausible. Do also bear in mind he has invited the CCTV from Polmont station where he bought the ticket(s) to be scrutinised, and he is pursuing the matter with the British Transport Police. He's made numerous media appearances already, and he certainly doesn't seem to want this matter to go away. Surely if he was fare dodging he wouldn't want all this publicity?

I see 1 ticket in the video, so I assume only 1 was purchased

Ergo, he paid £5 for his single and could easily have paid another £5 when challenged. Net loss of £3 against buying a return ticket in the first place. Still doesn't explain why he launched the bad language at the inspector when challenged.

Your argument is based entirely on assumption. It's mentioned nowhere that he'd gone through the ticket-swallowing machines, in my professional experience you'll NEVER be able to differentiate between tickets on CCTV, and his appearances on TV could easily for self gain e.g Internet celebtity.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[:(Rhodri:)]

here's the link to the interview with the guy who filmed the whole thing. He clearly believes that the student was not being pleasant or reasonable from the beginning, and seeing as he was there I'd be more inclined to believe him than you AV. As for swearing not being abusive, unless I'm mistaken can't you be arrested for a public order offence for repeatedly swearing in public (especially if next to a table of small children)?

 

[Deleted member 651465]

What are you talking about?

Edinburgh Park has ticket barriers. I assume, like most ordinary barriers, they swallow single tickets that terminate at that station.

By all accounts, Mr Main arrived at Edinburgh Park earlier in the day when the ticket barriers were in operation. Thus, it is by no means unreasonable to assume that one of his single tickets was swallowed by said barriers.

This would explain why he was left with another single ticket on his return journey for the wrong direction. A ticket that he presented to the conductor, the details of which the conductor can be heard confirming on the video.

In what other circumstances would he be left with a single ticket like that?

I submit to you, that he arrived when the barriers were not in operation, and no one checked his single ticket. Therefore, he thought hed chance his luck with the same ticket for th return leg.

That's what I'm talking about. I saw 1 ticket in the video, and if he had 2 then why not show both incorrect tickets? Doesn't add up.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Edinburgh Park has ticket barriers.

Edinburgh Park does not have ticket barriers.

I assume, like most ordinary barriers, they swallow single tickets that terminate at that station.

They would, but they don't exist.

By all accounts, Mr Main arrived at Edinburgh Park earlier in the day when the ticket barriers were in operation.

They would need to be fitted before they were able to be in operation.

Thus, it is by no means unreasonable to assume that one of his single tickets was swallowed by said barriers.

It would be unreasonable to assume a station with no barriers had barriers which would swallow a ticket.

This would explain why he was left with another single ticket on his return journey for the wrong direction.

It would, were it not a fabrication created to give credence to your arguement.

 

[Biohazard]

He was swearing, sure, but shouting? Hardly. Voices were raised concomitant with the rising tensions between the conductor and Mr Main. Besides, since when were shouting and swearing considered necessary and sufficient proof of drunkenness?

Swearing and shouting is what I see, and what eye witnesses reported.

He ostensibly didn't realise the ticket was incorrect as soon as it was handed to him. Who on earth immediately scrutinises train tickets as soon as they are handed to them?

Me. I do it for most travel arrangements to be honest, but its very rare to have ever had any incorrectly issued.

Assuming the first single was swallowed by a ticket barrier earlier in the day, Mr Main would be left with a single ticket for the wrong direction, so there would be no two tickets to compare.

As far as you know, he may well have explained the situation to the conductor in the most pleasant and reasonable manner possible. It was once the camera was rolling, long after his story had been rejected by the conductor and he'd been accused of a crime he (allegedly) didn't commit, that Mr Main became understandably frustrated.

Eye witness say they heard him first, and again I think it impossible given his own reflection of events that he was able to give any reasonable presentation of himself.

Frustration due to your own mistake and taking it out on others by swearing and shouting is not acceptable regardless of any mental contortions and conjecture to justify it.

How is age supposed to factor into this?

On the face of it, morallity.

Based on the video, I would conclude the conductor was acting unprofessionally, was being condescending — declaring, for example, that Mr Main had no money without basis for such a statement — and was thus wholly deserving of disrespect. Disrespecting someone does not constitute a crime.

I think he was implying he was not willing to pay which itself was obvious irrespective of your contentions.

Swearing does not constitute abuse. Look it up.

Swearing and shouting does.

The video shows the bag being thrown off. I assume Mr Main either didn't see his bag thrown off after him, or he had some other possessions on the train that he wished to recover. He made his intentions clear as he attempted to re-enter to retrieve his possessions.

Got a habit of not noticing things hasn't he?

 

[Biohazard]

What are you talking about?

Edinburgh Park has ticket barriers. I assume, like most ordinary barriers, they swallow single tickets that terminate at that station.

By all accounts, Mr Main arrived at Edinburgh Park earlier in the day when the ticket barriers were in operation. Thus, it is by no means unreasonable to assume that one of his single tickets was swallowed by said barriers.

This would explain why he was left with another single ticket on his return journey for the wrong direction. A ticket that he presented to the conductor, the details of which the conductor can be heard confirming on the video.

In what other circumstances would he be left with a single ticket like that?

What's to say he just didn't walk on off the street at Polmont and walk off out the street at Edinburgh Park?

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[[TW]Fox]

Apologies, I was mistaken on the ticket barrier point. I would, however, hasten to call it a "fabrication"!

What else was it? You invented ticket barriers at a station without any and then used them throughout your argument to explain what happened. You didnt say you thought it had barriers, you stated quite categorically that...

Edinburgh Park has ticket barriers

You were as matter-of-fact about this as you have been about everything else you've said. How much of the rest of your explanation is based on nothing?

 

[Biohazard]

What else was it? You invented ticket barriers at a station without any and then used them throughout your argument to explain what happened.

Crystal ball needing a charge and a polish probably..

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Christ on a bike.

So he bought a single earlier that day, got on the train and tried to pass it off as his return ticket.. Hoping that by shouting and swearing he'd deter the ticket inspector.

Would this be an accurate account of what happened?

 

[Al Vallario]

..