Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

A Dub in Glasgo

yoyo wrote: »

I'm suprised at the hostility towards the young lad being shown in this thread. I can tell you that the days I had exams the last thing on my mind would be something trivial like making sure the ticket office man did his job properly printing the correct tickets.
The video shown is only part of the arguement, and surely the young lad would get annoyed with the ticket inspector if he wouldn't listen to the lads reasoning for having the "wrong ticket". We don't know how the young lad acted at the start, I doubt he was f-ing and blinding at the conductor at the start of it all.
The main person to blame here is the conductor, I really doubt its procedure to announce to the whole carriage that a person is holding up the train and "we'll wait all night" unless he moves off. This obviously doesn't help the situation, as in this case a passenger assaulted someone.
I don't blame the passenger here, but I think that he did assult someone and should be punished for that. The main blame should be focussed on the conductor though, who caused this incident through lack of professionalism, unless in Scotland it is normal for the conductor to allow members of the public drag people off the train, which I very much doubt

Nick

Sometimes I despair at the lack of personal responsibility on show by some.

Main is responsible for his own actions. He did not check his ticket when bought, he did not try and sort it at his destination, he did not try and sort it at the first available time after his exam, he did not try and sort it when he got to the station for his train, he did not try and sort it by speaking to the conductor as he got onto the train, he did not try and sort it by buying a valid ticket and then claiming it back off ScotRail. He prioritised drinking, dossing about together with loutish behaviour including swearing at a guy and trying to trip him up who is doing his job over sorting it out.

And you have the gall to say 'I don't blame the passenger here'? A total lack of personal responibility is on full show.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

a job by the way he managed to do perfectly fine for everyone else on the train that night

No he didn't. He mishandled a verbal disagreement with one passenger, held up the train on account of one passenger when as has been explained as nausem the normal thing yo do is have the cops meet the train, he involved the crowd in the dispute and he then authorised a randomer to evict a passenger.

None of this is doing his job right by any of the passengers.

BBDBB

if you dont have a valid ticket then you dont have a ticket for your journey, so your journey ends, you have no right to be on the train, GTFO and stop holding up people who do hold a valid ticket

A Dub in Glasgo

opinion guy wrote: »

No he didn't. He mishandled a verbal disagreement with one passenger, held up the train on account of one passenger when as has been explained as nausem the normal thing yo do is have the cops meet the train, he involved the crowd in the dispute and he then authorised a randomer to evict a passenger.

None of this is doing his job right by any of the passengers.

Hang on here, you cannot say he 'held up the train on account of one passenger' in a negative way and then go and say he should 'have the cops meet the train' in a positive way when waiting for the BTP will have taken far far longer (if they even came).

It is not normal anyway to wait for the BTP to respond to instances like this. The normal thing is actually to leave the little fecker to his free journey.

I was on a train today and 2 woman got on at Blantye and brazenly told the ScotRail ticket inspector that they would not pay and they were getting off the next stop. He rolled his eyes and walked away. They got off the next stop (Hamilton West). There are far too many people out there who seem to think it is their entitlement to travel on the trains for free. What these women knew and this charge proves is that there feck all anyone can do about it.

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

No he didn't. He mishandled a verbal disagreement with one passenger, held up the train on account of one passenger when as has been explained as nausem the normal thing yo do is have the cops meet the train, he involved the crowd in the dispute and he then authorised a randomer to evict a passenger.

None of this is doing his job right by any of the passengers.

Correction.

He had a verbal disagreement with an abusive passenger.
He WAS following correct procedure it seems in holding up the train (as even others had suggested here he do) till someone arrived to assist him - this can be done at times if its considered that to allow a reactionary person to stay on a confined train, they might be risk to additional passengers. This waiting was sped up by the assistance of Mr Pollock who carted him off to the incoming staff that can be seen at the end of the video.
Apparently the young man involved those around him in the dispute - not the collector. The collector wasn't the one verbally abusing (according to reports) those around him, the young man was.
O' and he said "yes" to seeking assistance.

Again, the young man brought everything upon himself - no one else!

We will have to agree, to disagree.

yoyo

Biggins wrote: »

Absolute cobblers.

1. If the man had bothered to check his ticket - even before he got on the train - he would have been all right.
2. If he hadn't been so rude - he would have been all right.
3. If he hadn't have been so disruptive to those around him he might have been all right!
4. Now as it appears, if he hadn't tried to even trip up the conductor even before the incident that got him thrown off, he would have been all right.
5. Had he not fought at the platform he would have been all right!

Instead what he was was an arrogant fcuking asshole who thought HE was a big smart-arse man that could go around trying to trip (elderly!) people, abusing them, abusing a ticket collector who was just doing his job - a job by the way he managed to do perfectly fine for everyone else on the train that night, well till he was met by that young prick!

The piece of crap deserves everything he got - and if Mr Pollock is fined - I'll bloody contribute FOR SURE to his fine!

What we have is a short clip recorded some time after the passengers initial confrontation with the conductor. I'm not sure if you've done exams recently but as I've only finished college in the last year I appreciate how distracting exams are and how overlooking something as simple as an incorrect ticket being printed (which is Scotrails fault, not the students) is very likely. I'm usually very careful with my wallet and personal belongings but the day of one of my college exams I left it on the bus I was so distracted and focussed on the exam (fortunately the bus driver found it and kindly posted it to back me).
I can see how the lad could easily have done his journey into college with one ticket, binned it and only realise when on the return train that he received the same ticket twice (and like anyone, would likely want to explain the mixup to the conductor who will hopefully be understanding or at the very least be willing to investigate).
The conductor could have easily said to the lad we'll investigate the claim but you must pay for this ticket here, and if he did (the lad did have money as he got a taxi home) none of this would have happened. The inspector is totally in the wrong for how the situation panned out, and a member of the public out of anger took matters into his own hands with permission of the conductor to assault the passenger.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sometimes I despair at the lack of personal responsibility on show by some.

Main is responsible for his own actions. He did not check his ticket when bought, he did not try and sort it at his destination, he did not try and sort it at the first available time after his exam, he did not try and sort it when he got to the station for his train, he did not try and sort it by speaking to the conductor as he got onto the train, he did not try and sort it by buying a valid ticket and then claiming it back off ScotRail. He prioritised drinking, dossing about together with loutish behaviour including swearing at a guy and trying to trip him up who is doing his job over sorting it out.

And you have the gall to say 'I don't blame the passenger here'? A total lack of personal responibility is on full show.

Do you personally know he did not try and sort the matter out with the conductor? What we see is a clip of when the arguement escallated, the bloke didn't seem pissed just a bit tired, so I'm guessing he was getting fed up with the conductor not listening to his story. Yes he probably should have sorted the ticket before hand, but its likely he only realised it wasn't the correct one during the journey. As the articles mentioned the bloke had money, could afford a taxi so it wasn't as if he drunk all his cash on him that could have gone towards a ticket.
Its easy to blame the drunken student but in actual fact the one to blame is the conductor, who escalated matters. I don't see why the bloke would have tried to trip up the conductor intentionally, I mean didn't the conductor stop before the bloke and not go on due to not verifying his ticket? I'm not sure maybe his bag was at his feet and he had his feet out or something, but I don't see logically what would be gained by tripping him up!
Theres two sides to every story ,

Nick

Biggins

yoyo wrote: »

What we have is a short clip recorded some time after the passengers initial confrontation with the conductor. I'm not sure if you've done exams recently but as I've only finished college in the last year I appreciate how distracting exams are and how overlooking something as simple as an incorrect ticket being printed (which is Scotrails fault, not the students) is very likely. I'm usually very careful with my wallet and personal belongings but the day of one of my college exams I left it on the bus I was so distracted and focussed on the exam (fortunately the bus driver found it and kindly posted it to back me).

I can see how the lad could easily have done his journey into college with one ticket, binned it and only realise when on the return train that he received the same ticket twice (and like anyone, would likely want to explain the mixup to the conductor who will hopefully be understanding or at the very least be willing to investigate).
The conductor could have easily said to the lad we'll investigate the claim but you must pay for this ticket here, and if he did (the lad did have money as he got a taxi home) none of this would have happened. The inspector is totally in the wrong for how the situation panned out, and a member of the public out of anger took matters into his own hands with permission of the conductor to assault the passenger.

What you do is a credit to you if you bother to do any checking before getting on a train, and even then if you check and notice a mistake, bring it to the attention of someone with a modicum of politeness.

The young man didn't.

We can assume that the train collector previously for everyone else on the train, went up to them and asked the standard "tickets please" or polite words to that effect.
Now assuming he not a mind reader - we can assume with the same air of business, he approached the young man that we now know had earlier tried to trip him and asked the same.
The video footage subsequently indicates what way the verbal altercation went!

The conductor could have said MANY things IF the young man had stayed calm and polite - BUT HE DIDN'T.

What he got subsequently is what he brought upon himself.

yoyo

Biggins wrote: »

What you do is a credit to you if you bother to do any checking before getting on a train, and even then if you check and notice a mistake, bring it to the attention of someone with a modicum of politeness.

The young man didn't.

We can assume that the train collector previously for everyone else on the train, went up to them and asked the standard "tickets please" or polite words to that effect.
Now assuming he not a mind reader - we can assume with the same air of business, he approached the young man that we know know had earlier tried to trip him and asked the same.
The video footage subsequently indicates what way the verbal altercation went!

The conductor could have said MANY things IF the young man had stayed calm and polite - BUT HE DIDN'T.

What he got subsequently is what he brought upon himself.

How can you assume the student was not polite to the conductor at the start of the altercation? The student may have said something along the lines of "I baught 2 tickets this morning and both were the same" or even the student not knowing until the inspector discovered the problem. The student may have tried reasoning with the inspector and after a while arguing get fed up and cursed.
I dare say in this country I think we have a semi decent system, your caught without a ticket or valid ticket, your details are taken down and you have the right to appeal or pay the fine. In fairness in the UK the proper procedure of getting transport police, who have the power to remove of detain suspects was not followed as such a crime was commited and an assult took place, needlessly.
I do pitty Mr Pollock and the hassle he is in now, however he did assault the guy which should never have happened or even been agreeable by the conductor.

Nick

Biggins

yoyo wrote: »

How can you assume the student was not polite to the conductor at the start of the altercation?

Well a damn good indication is the plonker caught on CCTV trying to trip the man up (an indication of his mind-set from a beginning) - never mind but also what happened on the later captured video!!

yoyo wrote: »

The student may have said something along the lines of "I baught 2 tickets this morning and both were the same"...

...But he didn't!

yoyo wrote: »

...The student may have tried reasoning with the inspector...

...But he didn't!

yoyo wrote: »

...I do pity Mr Pollock and the hassle he is in now, however he did assault the guy which should never have happened or even been agreeable by the conductor.

He did assist the ticket collector when the elderly man (I assume giving how old he looks and possibly frail?) might have thought he was in trouble.
As any ticket collector - or any worker - cannot see into the future and couldn't foretell how things can go, are we to assume that he, you or I should now be afraid to say "yes" to anyone who offers assistance, if we all too find ourselves in trouble?

That would be a hell of a way of things to go!

yoyo

Biggins wrote: »

Well a damn good indication is the plonker caught on CCTV trying to trip the man up (an indication of his mind-set from a beginning) - never mind but also what happened on the later captured video!!




...But he didn't!




...But he didn't!




He did assist the ticket collector when the elderly man (I assume giving how old he looks and possibly frail?) might have thought he was in trouble.
As any ticket collector - or any worker - cannot see into the future and couldn't foretell how things can go, are we to assume that he, you or I should now be afraid to say "yes" to anyone who offers assistance, if we all too find ourselves in trouble?

That would be a hell of a way of things to go!

Ok, I think we may be watching a different video, but the one I've seen shows a inspector already in agruement with a student regarding ticket problems, we don't know what happened minutes before the bloke started recording, and likely the bloke would have only bothered starting to record when the arguement was getting heated, more "drama"
Also I didn't see at any point the young lad becoming aggresive or violent in any way towards the inspector, he cursed, that was about it. The Big Mans intervention was not required at that point in time to protect the conductor

Nick

Biggins

yoyo wrote: »

...The Big Mans intervention was not required at that point in time to protect the conductor

Nick

Well that your opinion, many others do differ from your own.
We will just have to wait and see...

Main is now also looking at a charge under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 - of threatening and abusive behaviour - and also for trespass.

I presume those possible charges didn't come about because he was a nice chap!

Cicero

opinion guy wrote: »

No he didn't. He mishandled a verbal disagreement with one passenger, held up the train on account of one passenger when as has been explained as nausem the normal thing yo do is have the cops meet the train, he involved the crowd in the dispute and he then authorised a randomer to evict a passenger.

None of this is doing his job right by any of the passengers.

You'll never make a tabloid journalist with that factual account...:p

...I see this whole story not about "thuggery" , as some posters would like to think it is, but about when does a member of the public have a right to intervene in a matter and in the manner that "big guy" did...?

Procedures for dealing with such instances definitely were not followed by the staff member (ie you don't get a passenger to manhandle another one off the train)
I see the students story about the wrong ticket purchased has been verified -which goes some degree to explaining how the situation appears so heated in the video- and of course, the video is not the entire story.

So, for those of you who feel its ok for this Student to be thrown off a train and assaulted - over an incident that no one is clear of the true facts- would you mind letting me know exactly how heated a discussion it needs to be or how late the train is before its ok to assault a fellow passenger?

I said in previous posts that this story is about a student with a ticket purchased in good faith, arguing with a conductor..who is subsequently assaulted by a member of the public.....But obviously some here prefer to let the Daily Mail tell them how to think....so be it...:)

efb

You think a student of higher learning would act in a more intelligent manner, and learn how to read.

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

...But obviously some here prefer to let the Daily Mail tell them how to think....so be it...:)

Well the Mail and other papers that you fail to mention - are here by the way...

http://newsnewers.com/934/sam-main-thrown-off-train-by-big-man-you-tube-hero-tried-to-trip-up-conductor

&

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

The Herald has learned the video was shot following an earlier incident – not shown on YouTube – in which Mr Main allegedly attempted to trip the conductor by putting his leg in the aisle.

...Mentioning actual REAL CCTV footage that shows EXACTLY the mentality of the young man from the outset - as confirmed by the rail company!
That being his attempts to trip an elderly man going about trying to do his daily job.

How anyone can defend this piece of schite is beyond many!

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

How anyone can defend this piece of schite is beyond many!

Was there sound on this video ?
Have you seen the video ?

Stop prejudging this because the guy is a teenager - or as you put it 'piece of schite'.

I'm sorry biggins but its clear you are biased about teenagers from your postings on this thread.

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

Well the Mail and other papers that you fail to mention - are here by the way...





...Mentioning actual REAL CCTV footage that shows EXACTLY the mentality of the young man from the outset - as confirmed by the rail company!
That being his attempts to trip an elderly man going about trying to do his daily job.

How anyone can defend this piece of schite is beyond many!

THIS ....again....is not fact....it is supposition.....the student may well have had his legs stretched out on the isle as I see daily on public transport....this is pure trial by media without any proper substance or fact behind it....even the newspaper uses the word alledged ......when referencing

Sorry Biggins, but this is just more hysteria.....please deal with facts only

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

THIS ....again....is not fact....it is supposition.....the student may well have had his legs stretched out on the isle as I see daily on public transport....this is pure trial by media without any proper substance or fact behind it....even the newspaper uses the word alledged ......when referencing

Sorry Biggins, but this is just more hysteria.....please deal with facts only

...Instead, we'll let the courts deal with the CCTV footage and witness statements which hopefully will be soon.

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

...I'm sorry biggins but its clear you are biased about teenagers from your postings on this thread.

Thats one of the wildest and most stretched assertions ever made against me!
I have defended many a teen, many a time in my 26K+ postings.
I'm actually surprised you would say that! Its not like you to go to that (wrong) extreme.

We are talking about ONE nineteen year old man here - not all teenagers.

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

Well the Mail and other papers that you fail to mention - are here by the way...

!

Well...here's the story as told by one of your referenced news articles...



A ScotRail insider has alleged that CCTV footage of the incident shows the unnamed conductor tripping over an obstacle as he walks down the aisle.
Although it was not captured in the footage, the source claimed that student Sam Main appeared to put his leg in the way of the conductor.



Sorry Biggins, but all I see above is an allegation based on a nameless source ....talking about an obstacle...... that may have been the students leg....getting in the way of the conductor....not a mention of the student attempting to trip up the conductor....really.....this story is ....ahem.....gaining legs by the minute...:D

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

Well...here's the story as told by one of your referenced news articles...

Well which is why I already stated...

...Instead, we'll let the courts deal with the CCTV footage and witness statements which hopefully will be soon.

You did notice that bit too did you?
So that we can find out a more accurate truth!

For the record by the way - if you read back - I DID say Mr Pollock is being rightly investigated.
I just firmly think that the young man brought about what happened by his own stupidity in a number of ways.

yoyo

Biggins wrote: »

Well that your opinion, many others do differ from your own.
We will just have to wait and see...

Main is now also looking at a charge under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 - of threatening and abusive behaviour - and also for trespass.

I presume those possible charges didn't come about because he was a nice chap!

I never even suggested the bloke was a nice chap though, for all we know he could be a total a-hole :P . The fact is though I don't see how he was in the wrong in this instance. I don't think he could be done for tresspass either, as revelations suggest that he had purchased a ticket except the person in the ticket office printed the wrong one.
He cound be done for abusive behavior, or even possibly "drunk and disorderly", but certainly it was "big man" who commited a more serious crime in comparison.
I don't want to come across as biased, I couldn't care less who each of the people are, but from the info we know, I think its a bit unfair to be so critial of the student. Mistakes were made from all three sides, and the conductor who should be capable of handling such a situation did a very poor job resulting in a member of the public taking matters into his own hands and getting the subsequent punishment

Nick

Biggins

yoyo wrote: »

I never even suggested the bloke was a nice chap though, for all we know he could be a total a-hole :P . The fact is though I don't see how he was in the wrong in this instance. I don't think he could be done for tresspass either, as revelations suggest that he had purchased a ticket except the person in the ticket office printed the wrong one.
He cound be done for abusive behavior, or even possibly "drunk and disorderly", but certainly it was "big man" who commited a more serious crime in comparison.

Well we don't know what the full case against him is yet but it looks like there is more going on against his story if the police are thinking about firmly named charges as already mentioned against the young man.

Again, we will just have to wait and see.

A Dub in Glasgo

yoyo wrote: »

The fact is though I don't see how he was in the wrong in this instance. I don't think he could be done for tresspass either, as revelations suggest that he had purchased a ticket except the person in the ticket office printed the wrong one.

If there is one that is certain, it is the fact that he was trespassing on this train as he did not have a valid ticket, did not make any attempt to get a valid ticket and refused an order to stop trespassing! He was also abusive to boot... yet he is not in the wrong, as I said personal responsibility is totally lacking here

yoyo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If there is one that is certain, it is the fact that he was trespassing on this train as he did not have a valid ticket, did not make any attempt to get a valid ticket and refused an order to stop trespassing! He was also abusive to boot... yet he is not in the wrong, as I said personal responsibility is totally lacking here

'I ended up getting a taxi back to Falkirk. It cost me £20. I did have money to buy another ticket but I wasn't given the option.'

This is taken from (sorry to say) Daily mail. It does sound believable. As I said we are only seing part of the arguement, and if as the article suggests the bloke did offer to buy a ticket on train and was refused, well then its unfair to suggest he didn't attempt to rectify the problem.
I don't think the bloke was tresspassing either, even though he didn't have a correct ticket, he did buy one for the return journey in good faith that it was the correct one, this issue lies with the person in the ticket office who sold the wrong tickets either due to negligence or maybe the Scotrail system is an issue (this problem has happened before plenty of times I've read)

Nick

BBDBB

yoyo wrote: »

This is taken from (sorry to say) Daily mail. It does sound believable. As I said we are only seing part of the arguement, and if as the article suggests the bloke did offer to buy a ticket on train and was refused, well then its unfair to suggest he didn't attempt to rectify the problem.
I don't think the bloke was tresspassing either, even though he didn't have a correct ticket, he did buy one for the return journey in good faith that it was the correct one, this issue lies with the person in the ticket office who sold the wrong tickets either due to negligence or maybe the Scotrail system is an issue (this problem has happened before plenty of times I've read)

Nick

the scenario you paint above of attempting to buy a ticket doesnt seem to be a logical pre-cursor to the short clip of the exchange between the two at the beginning of the video, does it?

A Dub in Glasgo

yoyo wrote: »

This is taken from (sorry to say) Daily mail. It does sound believable. As I said we are only seing part of the arguement, and if as the article suggests the bloke did offer to buy a ticket on train and was refused, well then its unfair to suggest he didn't attempt to rectify the problem.
I don't think the bloke was tresspassing either, even though he didn't have a correct ticket, he did buy one for the return journey in good faith that it was the correct one, this issue lies with the person in the ticket office who sold the wrong tickets either due to negligence or maybe the Scotrail system is an issue (this problem has happened before plenty of times I've read)

Nick

I have never seen a ticket examiner or guard refuse to sell a ticket to a passenger who asks for one on a train. I have commuted for nearly 18 years in Scotland on the train and I have never seen it. That is one of the 'stories' this immature man had put out after the event. Good luck if you believe him. The guards and ticket examiners that work for ScotRail get commission for each ticket sold so why is it believable that the guy offered to pay and this offer was then refused by the Guard?

You are trespassing on the train if you travel without a valid ticket, it is in the byelaws and this is quite clear cut. It is irrelevant what he claimed he bought earlier in the day, he did not have a valid ticket, refused to buy one when asked and refused an order to stop trespassing.

yoyo

BBDBB wrote: »

the scenario you paint above of attempting to buy a ticket doesnt seem to be a logical pre-cursor to the short clip of the exchange between the two at the beginning of the video, does it?

I think it does actually, the clip we see was minutes in to the arguement, if the conductor flat out refused to accept the students money for a new ticket, I could see how it would have reached the point in the video. Lets say what happened:

• Conductor asks for ticket
• Student hands him "wrong one"
• You have an invalid ticket and can't continue the journey
• *explains situation-conductor doesn't want to know*
• Offers to buy a ticket, conductor doesn't wants to know and only wants him off.

This is a very probable guess of what happened, its as accurate as the others suggesting the student was a mouthy a-hole from the start. All I can see is the guy wants to get home, the others on the train wanted to and the conductor knowingly tells the rest of the carriage increasing tension that this individual is causing the delay encouraging public intervention.
Thats what I don't think is acceptable, Mr Pollock is a victim due to the conductors negligence, the student of course should answer for why he was verbally abusive, but while cursing he doesn't call the guy an old c*nt, f**cking whatever, the language wasn't aimed at any person

Nick

A Dub in Glasgo

^^^^

Clucking Bell, I have see it all now :eek:

yoyo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

^^^^

Clucking Bell, I have see it all now :eek:

Explain?

BBDBB

yoyo wrote: »

I think it does actually, the clip we see was minutes in to the arguement, if the conductor flat out refused to accept the students money for a new ticket, I could see how it would have reached the point in the video. Lets say what happened:

• Conductor asks for ticket
• Student hands him "wrong one"
• You have an invalid ticket and can't continue the journey
• *explains situation-conductor doesn't want to know*
• Offers to buy a ticket, conductor doesn't wants to know and only wants him off.

This is a very probable guess of what happened, its as accurate as the others suggesting the student was a mouthy a-hole from the start. All I can see is the guy wants to get home, the others on the train wanted to and the conductor knowingly tells the rest of the carriage increasing tension that this individual is causing the delay encouraging public intervention.
Thats what I don't think is acceptable, Mr Pollock is a victim due to the conductors negligence, the student of course should answer for why he was verbally abusive, but while cursing he doesn't call the guy an old c*nt, f**cking whatever, the language wasn't aimed at any person

Nick

sorry, no, thats not a logical extrapolation at all

why on earth would the conductor, "not want to know"? That makes no sense re his job role or his purpose in walking along the train between stops

in all the years I have travelled I have never ever been refused or seen anyone refused the purchase of a ticket for journey they were already engaged in. not once.

incidentally, I do agree with one point, I also see a guy who wants to get home, he was the big fella who ejected the fare dodger who was preventing that from happening

yoyo

BBDBB wrote: »

sorry, no, thats not a logical extrapolation at all

why on earth would the conductor, "not want to know"? That makes no sense re his job role or his purpose in walking along the train between stops

in all the years I have travelled I have never ever been refused or seen anyone refused the purchase of a ticket for journey they were already engaged in. not once.

incidentally, I do agree with one point, I also see a guy who wants to get home, he was the big fella who ejected the fare dodger who was preventing that from happening

From my reading of the articles and watching the short clip the Conductor only wanted the bloke off the train. It is plausible he wanted to explain the situation to the inspector that he baught the ticket earlier, the inspector didn't believe the story and wanted him off. If buying a ticket on board Scotrail trains is possible well then I'm suprised this route wasn't suggested by the conductor, or if the student offered was refused.
A taxi driver in Dublin was pushed to the ground in a small scuffle recently, he died of his injuries. All I'm saying is there was a possibility this could have turned out much worse than it did.

Nick

BBDBB

yoyo wrote: »

From my reading of the articles and watching the short clip the Conductor only wanted the bloke off the train. It is plausible he wanted to explain the situation to the inspector that he baught the ticket earlier, the inspector didn't believe the story and wanted him off. If buying a ticket on board Scotrail trains is possible well then I'm suprised this route wasn't suggested by the conductor, or if the student offered was refused. Either of these situations didnt occur.
A taxi driver in Dublin was pushed to the ground in a small scuffle recently, he died of his injuries. All I'm saying is there was a possibility this could have turned out much worse than it did.

Nick

I too was not there and am only going off what I see and read. Its an incomplete picture and therefore not entirely reliable

Its also plausible he tried to avoid paying his fare and got bolshy with the conductor

From the clip I saw, he was unable to correctly produce a valid ticket for his journey and had no right to be on the train. Conductors are provided with ticket machines to issue tickets on the spot, I cant see why he wouldnt be interested in doing so in this case. Further, the exchange between the two seemed to be the case that the student tried to pass off the wrong ticket as the right ticket and when he got found out he got stroppy and abusive. The last bit is my conjecture based upon a couple of bits of the exchange where the student says "Ive shown you" and a hastily glossed over "I forgot"

yoyo

BBDBB wrote: »

I too was not there and am only going off what I see and read. Its an incomplete picture and therefore not entirely reliable

Its also plausible he tried to avoid paying his fare and got bolshy with the conductor

From the clip I saw, he was unable to correctly produce a valid ticket for his journey and had no right to be on the train. Conductors are provided with ticket machines to issue tickets on the spot, I cant see why he wouldnt be interested in doing so in this case. Further, the exchange between the two seemed to be the case that the student tried to pass off the wrong ticket as the right ticket and when he got found out he got stroppy and abusive. The last bit is my conjecture based upon a couple of bits of the exchange where the student says "Ive shown you" and a hastily glossed over "I forgot"

Thats another way of looking at it, I don't see in the clip the conductor offer the student any chance of buying a ticket just "You're off". We're all missing what actually happened minutes before so its all speculation.
Of course to the conductor the student could well have been a fair doger chancing their arm (this has proven false) but it appears he did not handle the situation well. I'm not going to argue this all night as I've made my point, people can feel free to agree or disagree, sure we'll know soon enough when each party is up in court for the offences. I'm just trying to balance the arguement a bit that the student and the "Big Man" are both not at fault I don't think, it was the conductors actions that escallated things

Nick

A Dub in Glasgo

yoyo wrote: »

Of course to the conductor the student could well have been a fair doger chancing their arm (this has proven false) k

Can you show where this is proven false? I thought this was a source within ScotRail investigations who anonomously said it. Just like the tripping incident which has been dismissed here.

Manic Moran

yoyo wrote: »

I think it does actually, the clip we see was minutes in to the arguement, if the conductor flat out refused to accept the students money for a new ticket, I could see how it would have reached the point in the video. Lets say what happened:

• Conductor asks for ticket
• Student hands him "wrong one"
• You have an invalid ticket and can't continue the journey
• *explains situation-conductor doesn't want to know*
• Offers to buy a ticket, conductor doesn't wants to know and only wants him off.

This is a very probable guess of what happened, its as accurate as the others suggesting the student was a mouthy a-hole from the start. All I can see is the guy wants to get home, the others on the train wanted to and the conductor knowingly tells the rest of the carriage increasing tension that this individual is causing the delay encouraging public intervention.
Thats what I don't think is acceptable, Mr Pollock is a victim due to the conductors negligence, the student of course should answer for why he was verbally abusive, but while cursing he doesn't call the guy an old c*nt, f**cking whatever, the language wasn't aimed at any person

Nick

At 0038 on the video I'm looking at, the conductor seems to review the situation to include the 'you've no money' phrase, which seems to preclude the hypothetical you pose.

The stress of exams doesn't cut much mustard with me, I've done plenty of them and don't recall ever losing my bearing in public as a result.

I am, however, somewhat surprised the man was charged. Only somewhat, though, I've seen utter ridiculousness from the British legal system in the past. My personal favourite is the case of Paul Clarke, who found a shotgun, handed it over to the police at the station, then got convicted of unlawful posession of a firearm.

NTM

El Horseboxo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

yoyo wrote: »

This is taken from (sorry to say) Daily mail. It does sound believable. As I said we are only seing part of the arguement, and if as the article suggests the bloke did offer to buy a ticket on train and was refused, well then its unfair to suggest he didn't attempt to rectify the problem.
I don't think the bloke was tresspassing either, even though he didn't have a correct ticket, he did buy one for the return journey in good faith that it was the correct one, this issue lies with the person in the ticket office who sold the wrong tickets either due to negligence or maybe the Scotrail system is an issue (this problem has happened before plenty of times I've read)

Nick

I have never seen a ticket examiner or guard refuse to sell a ticket to a passenger who asks for one on a train. I have commuted for nearly 18 years in Scotland on the train and I have never seen it. That is one of the 'stories' this immature man had put out after the event. Good luck if you believe him. The guards and ticket examiners that work for ScotRail get commission for each ticket sold so why is it believable that the guy offered to pay and this offer was then refused by the Guard?

You are trespassing on the train if you travel without a valid ticket, it is in the byelaws and this is quite clear cut. It is irrelevant what he claimed he bought earlier in the day, he did not have a valid ticket, refused to buy one when asked and refused an order to stop trespassing.

Me and a mate were refused tickets on Scottish rail on board while on a work training thing. We jumped on while rushing assuming we could pay on board. We were on expense accounts so wasn't like we weren't trying to pay. We were both issued fines. We were leaving the country that day and never paid them. Plenty of countries or cities around the world refuse to sell tickets on board and just issue fines. Certain lines in New York won't sell you them. Even the luas thing in Dublin won't let you buy on board. Not trying to defend the young fella in the video. Just saying from my experience I was once refused. Maybe you get more commission if a fine is paid.

Anyways I keep thinking the title says scroterail every time I see it.

A Dub in Glasgo

ScotRail do not issue penalty fares. Where were you travelling to and from? I suspect it was on one of the other train operators

Biggins

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

...You are trespassing on the train if you travel without a valid ticket, it is in the byelaws and this is quite clear cut. It is irrelevant what he claimed he bought earlier in the day, he did not have a valid ticket, refused to buy one when asked and refused an order to stop trespassing.

Yep, its that simple. Add very bad behaviour to that and so far he's gotten off light.
With police looking at charges for him, it looks like that time has run out.

Biggins

yoyo wrote: »

I think it does actually, the clip we see was minutes in to the arguement, if the conductor flat out refused to accept the students money for a new ticket, I could see how it would have reached the point in the video. Lets say what happened:

• Conductor asks for ticket
• Student hands him "wrong one"
• You have an invalid ticket and can't continue the journey
• *explains situation-conductor doesn't want to know*
• Offers to buy a ticket, conductor doesn't wants to know and only wants him off.

This is a very probable guess of what happened, its as accurate as the others suggesting the student was a mouthy a-hole from the start...

Well thank goodness we have some video to actually tell/show us and not just read about one persons opinionated "probables".

yoyo wrote: »

...while cursing he doesn't call the guy an old c*nt, f**cking whatever, the language wasn't aimed at any person

Nick

Are you serious? For real?
Then who the hell was he speaking to?
The tooth fairy?

I think you need to watch the video again - for he's clearly looking at someone when he lets his mouth off!
I think your seeing things in the video that you want to see.

BBDBB

In considering the video exchange and the suggestion that the fare dodger offered to pay and was refused by the conductor. Surely the exchange would have been different and centred around the argument along the lines of

'Im offering to pay', 'heres my cash/card', 'you cant chuck me off because I want to pay' .

I seriously doubt
1) the actions of the Big Man would have been so enthusiastically welcomed by the other passengers.
2)whether the Big Man would have shifted him if he had offered to pay or was continuing to insist he wanted to pay, in fact he may have even supported the fare dodger and wanted the conductor to let him pay

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

I seriously doubt
1) the actions of the Big Man would have been so enthusiastically welcomed by the other passengers.
2)whether the Big Man would have shifted him if he had offered to pay or was continuing to insist he wanted to pay, in fact he may have even supported the fare dodger and wanted the conductor to let him pay

But the conductor pronounced loudly that he was not moving the train until the young guy got off. Thus inciting the crowd to become involved. To some extent I'm surprised more people didn't get involved verbally at least given that.

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

Yep, its that simple. Add very bad behaviour to that and so far he's gotten off light.
With police looking at charges for him, it looks like that time has run out.

Gotten off light? He got assaulted by a member of the public who had no authorisation to go near him...for having an argument with an inspector who didn't follow proper procedure ...if you want the world to descend into anarchy, then here is a good place to start ....coz next time Biggins youre in a verbal argument with someone, and you get assaulted as a result, don't bother looking sympathy or justice, coz that's what you're signing up to with that statement....the right to assault others when you feel justified in doing so...regardless of the law.....

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

But the conductor pronounced loudly that he was not moving the train until the young guy got off. Thus inciting the crowd to become involved. To some extent I'm surprised more people didn't get involved verbally at least given that.

huh? not sure you are seeing the point Ive made about the claim that he offered to pay to the conductor.

The conversation recorded on phone doesnt follow a logical progression IF that offer to pay on board had been made. Therefore it is unlikely to have been made in my view.

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

Gotten off light? He got assaulted by a member of the public who had no authorisation to go near him...for having an argument with an inspector who didn't follow proper procedure ...if you want the world to descend into anarchy, then here is a good place to start ....coz next time Biggins youre in a verbal argument with someone, and you get assaulted as a result, don't bother looking sympathy or justice, coz that's what you're signing up to with that statement....the right to assault others when you feel justified in doing so...regardless of the law.....

PLEASE someone show me where exactly according to some rules he didn't follow procedure.

PLEASER state the supposed official procedures that many experts here seem to know about but none have yet to show in official link and/or copy of those procedures!

ANYONE!

Let me ONCE AGAIN spell it out for the blind and uneducated - and frankly those that just don't want to hear it but continue talking uneducated, stupid crap!

If a person feels that another person is a risk to themselves, to others around them, they have the legal right to halt a transport under the know CIVIL laws of "Legal Duty OF Care" to others on transport till the matter is dealed with (even fellow passengers can do this by pulling an emergency break system), up to an assessment that its then safe to travel.
We have seen this offloading of undesirables with even air-planes turning back to get rid of unwanted passengers.

They have the legal obligation to ensure that others are not adversely affected by any one persons or persons actions, be it violence or any disruptive behaviour - and that they too are not abused.

Besides the state insuring those rights to fellow passengers and workers on such transports, the transport companies are ALSO liable to the effect of damages and punitive damages if they too do not - and are not seen - following the state laws as regards Legal Duty Of Care towards the other passengers.

The transport companies have the right to take whatever measures is necessary to ensure that any possibly of a breach of the peace being incoming or assessed as such that its likely to happen, that they take preventative efforts to see disruption and the public peace is lessened.

There is more but frankly some here don't want to hear it and will still argue with the above alone!

---

So lets look at the videos and what now in the hands of the police.

* Its been stated by a number of sources that the young man supposedly tried to FIRSTLY earlier, to trip the elderly conductor.
According to the official rail company, their assessment of looking at the footage is that their CCTV bears out this incident and in fact is backed possibly up by witness statements.

* Regardless of ANY excuses genuine in foundation or not, from the very beginning of the man asking for a show of a PROPER ticket, the young man produced a wrong one.
When he was asked to show the right one, not only did he not do so or was unable to - but he then started getting more aggressive.

* At a point in time it was assessed that the transport should go nowhere till the safety and peace of the other passengers was assured.
Again if anyone bothers to read the prior above, there is clear cut justification for this.
The collector was doing his job, one that he had done quite successfully all possibly day and night till he was unfortunate to come across one ill-mannered man!
(One that is also looking at facing charges now for HIS actions)

So once again I ask:

PLEASE someone show me where exactly according to some rules he didn't follow procedure.

PLEASER state the supposed official procedures that many experts here seem to know about but none have yet to show in official link and/or copy of those procedures!

ANYONE!

The ticket collector as far as can be assessed DID as much as he could in regarding the safety and peace of the fellow passengers.
Where its ONLY open for debate is IF he was justified in saying "Yes" to the Big Man.
The Big Man himself will answer for his own actions - and rightly so.

Additional reference:

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law).
Duty of care may be considered a formalization of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

In English tort law, an individual may be owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the duty-ower, to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. Its origins can be found in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson,[1] where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.
Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically. This includes common activities such as driving (where physical injury may occur), as well as specialised activities such as dispensing reliant economic advice (where economic loss may occur). Where an individual has not created a situation which may cause harm, no duty of care exists to warn others of dangerous situations or prevent harm occurring to them; such acts are known as pure omissions, and liability may only arise where a prior special relationship exists to necessitate them.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law

DUTY OF CARE IN TORTS LAW, LIABILITY, FORESEEABILITY OF NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, NUISANCE


Duty of care in Donaghue -v- Stevenson 1932 was defined as exercising such care as is due in such 'acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure persons so directly affected that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation' and Caparo Industries -v- Dickman 1990 referred also to situations in which it would be fair, just, and reasonable to impose.

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/the-legal-duty-of-care-in-tort-law-foreseeability-of-injury-200687.html

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100[1] was a decision of the House of Lords that established the modern concept of negligence in Scots law and English law, by setting out general principles whereby one person would owe another person a duty of care. It is the origin of the modern law of delict in Scots law and the tort of negligence in English and Welsh law as well as in many other Common Law jurisdictions.


Legal background

In common law, a person can claim damages from another person where that other person owed the first person a duty of care and harmed that person through their conduct in breach of that duty.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

Scotch v's English definitions: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=scotalnd%20legal%20duty%20of%20care&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jisclegal.ac.uk%2FPortals%2F12%2FDocuments%2FPDFs%2Fdutyofcare.pdf&ei=QV7zTvKhO4TBhAeCtYHQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGY9XuFkrFlJZEYzoj61uH5YftVDg


If anyone is going to expertly start spouting about procedures - at least have the decently to state what they are and show link to them for such eventualities for such unfortunate events as caused by one young man!
That or stop talking rubbish!

Till then, we can definably refer back to civil, tort and company laws as set up by individual states in regard to punishment and liability laws alone!

BBDBB

you're magnificent when roused ya big lug

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

huh? not sure you are seeing the point Ive made about the claim that he offered to pay to the conductor.

The conversation recorded on phone doesnt follow a logical progression IF that offer to pay on board had been made. Therefore it is unlikely to have been made in my view.

Without seeing the previous conversation I really don't think we can interpret things definitively either way.


Biggins - by deputising the Big Man as he did he put the safety of OTHER passengers at risk - never mind Sam Main. Watch the video the woman and kids almost get clobbered. A kid could easily have been injured if Sam Main fell on him through no fault of his own.
Therefore he failed in his duty of care to other passengers as the actions that happened put others at risk. There was no risk to anyone prior to this.

QED

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

Without seeing the previous conversation I really don't think we can interpret things definitively either way.


Biggins - by deputising the Big Man as he did he put the safety of OTHER passengers at risk - never mind Sam Main. Watch the video the woman and kids almost get clobbered. A kid could easily have been injured if Sam Main fell on him through no fault of his own.
Therefore he failed in his duty of care to other passengers as the actions that happened put others at risk. There was no risk to anyone prior to this.

QED

perhaps not but we can say which scenario is more likely as a pre-cursor based upon the evidence we do see

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

...Watch the video the woman and kids almost get clobbered. A kid could easily have been injured if Sam Main fell on him through no fault of his own.

QED

There is no debate there between you and I - and he is equally answerable for his actions under the eyes of the law.

Therefore he failed in his duty of care to other passengers as the actions that happened put others at risk. There was no risk to anyone prior to this.

Its my own opinion that anyone should be able to say "yes" to assistance offered.
No one is a fortune teller - including a train ticket collector.
He said "yes" to assistance only. The outcome THEN came about due to the unwillingness of one other man not wishing to vacate peacefully.
If the Big Man is found guilty then the transport company is open to paying out damages.

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

perhaps not but we can say which scenario is more likely as a pre-cursor based upon the evidence we do see

Yes so long as we realise neither of us can be sure.
If you care to read through the entire debate again objectively you will see that those of us arguing that Sam Main was treated harshly are being more open than those who are decrying him as a hoodie thug saying he deserves what he got.

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes so long as we realise neither of us can be sure.
If you care to read through the entire debate again objectively you will see that those of us arguing that Sam Main was treated harshly are being more open than those who are decrying him as a hoodie thug saying he deserves what he got.

actually, I think your analysis is every bit as flawed and partial.

The objective facts tend to be where the anti fare dodgers hold the strong ground imo. He did not display a valid ticket. He was asked to leave the train. He got abusive.

I appreciate you dont see it that way, but I felt it only fair to point out I had reached a similar conclusion to yourself but towards the opposite view