'Big Man' tackles fare dodging teenager on train

[LeJosh]

Why would you expect to see this on the video?

The guy filimg wasn't filming random passengers for a laugh. He began filming AFTER the confrontation started. A confrontation I'd imagine began with 'Tickets please, thats not valid, it'll be £x please sir'.

Also they shout out "tickets please" frequently before getting to everyone, they do a once over of carriages and say "tickets please" to get people ready too.

If train methods needed to be discussed...

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[[TW]Fox]

"The people at the Polmont ticket office advised me to get two single tickets instead of a return, but it seems they mistakenly gave me two singles for the same direction",

Why would the people at Polmont ticket office advise him to do that, given a return is cheaper?

Seems like a pretty plausible narrative to me, don't you think?

If we were to return to your fantasy world where a two singles from Polmont to Edinburgh Park cost less than a return and Edinburgh Park has barriers then sure.

As we are not in said world then... no not really.

 

[Biohazard]

Imagine the circumstances, then, in which someone would be so indignant in claiming they had, in fact, paid for their journey, and not even consider the possibility of paying for it again?

Yes it's a nice story, I don't think there is much substance and in any event he is partially responsible for the accuracy of what he has purchased, he clearly did not convinced the Scotrail staff member and as such he was oblidged to pay. Such a big bad world eh?

Perhaps, say, someone who was mistakenly sold two single tickets for the same direction?

Round and round we go.

Mr Main's story checks out. It's about time you admitted that.

 

[Biohazard]

Why would the people at Polmont ticket office advise him to do that, given a return is cheaper?

He still hasn't evidenced this beyond hearsay.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[ZXSpectrum]

My prediction is that the security tapes will be reviewed, the till rolls for purchases at that kiosk will be checked and tallied and will show that there was only 1 single ticket purchased at that specific time. Several egg faces will follow!

 

[Biohazard]

If I understand correctly, he was advised to purchase two singles because his outward journey was during peak time (ca. 8am), his return was going to be off-peak (late at night) and he wasn't able to use his 16-25 railcard on journeys before 10am.

It is claimed.

In this hypothesis he should have checked his purchase, and he should have approached the topic in a better manner then.

His story checks out. He was able to produce a single ticket from Polmont to Edinburgh Park, which the conductor confirms in the video was for that day, which I can only assume was a peak ticket (i.e. more expensive than the fare he was allegedly dodging)

Which was not valid for the journey, and if he could not convince Scotrail staff of this error if it did indeed occur in the first place then he would be obliged to pay.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[mrk]

Egg face number one will hopefully be 'big man' as he's successfully prosecuted for assault, and number two the ScotRail conductor as he's suitably disciplined and/or sacked for his role in this whole debacle.

Neither of those will happen champ.

 

[Biohazard]

Egg face number one will hopefully be 'big man' as he's successfully prosecuted for assault, and number two the ScotRail conductor as he's suitably disciplined and/or sacked for his role in this whole debacle.

And a public order offence for the yob, and if it transpires he had no valid ticket or excuse then a charge of theft as well.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

According to Mr Main, he did check his purchase on his outward journey. He noticed the alleged error, but given he had two exams that day, had more pressing matters on his mind.

Neither you nor I know the manner in which he initially approached the topic with the ticket conductor. As I've stated before, for all you know he was the most cordial person you've ever met when first confronted by the conductor. With his story in mind, his descent into indignity and frustration after 5-10 minutes back and forth is entirely reasonable.

He didn't check them when he purchased them which is clearly what I'm indicating here.

The failure, if correct which I severely doubt, is ultimately his own.

If he was so reasonable and cordial why would he ever stoop down to shouting and swearing, possibly hitting something? A public order offence.

Given the behavour we can see I think we can guess where it started.

You, like many others in this thread, are seeking to characterise Mr Main as a fare dodger, yet here we have good reason to believe he did not, in fact, dodge the most expensive of his two train fares that day?

I'm looking to characterise him as a young drunk who shouted swore and seemingly hit out on a train because of a problem over his train ticket.

He did not solve the issue and all you are trying to do is invent a story to transform what you see in the video into some sort of acceptable behavour.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

Neither shouting nor swearing, nor indeed shouting and swearing at the same time, are statutory public order offences. We've been over this one.

Yes we have, and of course swearing and shouting constitutes a public order offence.

I'm not "inventing a story". I'm presenting Mr Main's statements, assessing their credibility in relation to the available evidence, and using that to pass judgement on the extent to which his actions were reasonable.

You are inventing a biased story that distorts the facts and unknown factors to create an avenue of excuse for the behavour of a yob.

All of this is largely irrelevant, however, because Mr Main was clearly — I defy anyone to dispute this claim — assaulted by a member of the public who had no legal authority whatsoever to so much as lay a finger on him.

Not directly no, but he was acting under instruction from someone who did which certainly adds an interesting dynamic for him in this in the advent of a court appearance.

This doesn't have much to do with what you've been saying though, and it's been covered ages ago.

In allowing him to do so while standing idly by, and in fact inviting the member of the public to forcibly remove Mr Main from the train, thus failing to ensure the safety of passengers on the train, the conductor clearly acted unprofessionally, and should face disciplinary action as a result.

I'm unsure as to how he would have failed to ensure the safety of passengers, the member of public was doing what the conductor himself could have legally done and if anything it made it easier to happen irrespective of the legal standing.

He will be spoken to and perhaps retrained as a matter of course but I very much doubt he will be dismissed like you were announcing earlier, the circumstances and behavour of the passanger will no doubt act as a relative mitigation in any subsequent proceedings.

There are many things that remain uncertain about this case. There is absolutely no uncertainty on these two points.

Hmm.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Mark3h]

After several pages of reading, the only logical thing I can come up with is Al Vallario is the guy who got put off the train.

He is very mad because in this instance, the scum didn't win.

 

[joxang]

After several pages of reading, the only logical thing I can come up with is Al Vallario is the guy who got put off the train.

He is very mad because in this instance, the scum didn't win.

That's funny, I just surmised that he was either very drunk or very stupid.

Yours sounds plausible too though .

 

[Biohazard]

You know as well as I do it doesn't. Perhaps you've watched one too many television shows in which overzealous police officers have misapplied Section 5. It does not render shouting, swearing, or any combination thereof statutory public order offences. Again, we've been over this before.

If someone was alarmed or distressed then it is.

Where I have extrapolated from available evidence, and have proposed hypothetical narratives, I have been more than clear that I am doing so. Again, your attempts to characterise Mr Main as a "yob" are immature and unnecessary.

He certainly acted in an uncouth manner to say the least, yob fits with that ok to me.

The authority granted by the Railway Byelaws cannot be delegated. The conductor should have advised the 'big man' not to lay a finger on Mr Main, because he had no legal authority to do so. He should have attempted to use reasonable force himself, and if that was unsuccessful, seek the assistance of the British Transport Police.

No it cannot but as I said it adds an interesting dynamic and the passanger may not have been aware of anything preventing it.

There you're wrong. The 'big man' categorically used a level of force that was far beyond reasonable. No one, not even the conductor, had the legal authority to assault him in that manner.

I'm not, in any event it's opinion and you yourself have stated it's impossible to know. We're second guessing people, and that was in reference to his removal alone which in context is rather clear.

Moving him from the train was very reasonable from his point of view, the slam perhaps not but he could have felt he had authority to prevent him getting in from his percieved authority of being able to eject him. In any event the kid by this point really should have got the hint and shouldn't have ran at them at the door, but I don't think the slam was appropriate but by which point they are both entertained in a struggle so the outcome is going to come one way or another.

The conductor improperly accepted an invitation by the 'big man' to use force to remove him from the train, and stood idly by as Mr Main, one of his passengers, was assaulted. If that isn't unprofessional, I don't know what is.

He should not have devolved responsibility yet I can understand why he did to a certain extent, being able to take into consideration behavour, and I don't think he stood idly by. At the end conductor was shouting at the "Big Man" and pushed the kid away again himself.

I'm not sure what you expect from the conductor once the struggle ensued.

If the conductor, as many in this thread have alluded to, was not up to the task of using reasonable force against a slight 19-year-old, then perhaps he isn't fit for his job in the first instance.

Ageism?

I think all sorts of people can be put off by anti-social or abusive behavour and struggle and it isn't acceptable in the first place let alone skipping that to go straight to start criticising the employee for perhaps struggling to take control under it.

I'm not "announcing" that he will be sacked per se, I'm expressing my opinion that he should be sacked.

Which was rather extreme, as has been most of your duplicitous response to this thread.