Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

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!


That or stop talking rubbish!

!

"Frankly"... I'm not the one resorting to personal abuse....there have been many posts in this thread that I would have liked to reply to that tone, but haven't ..:).

I'm not going to quote you Scotish rails policy for handling those passengers without a ticket...because simply, I dont know it....but I do know that (a) the company has stated in the media that they do not want members of the public getting involved in such incidents and (b) I am pretty confident that shouting in manner the conductor did towards the student, thus raising the level of aggression within the conversation to an even higher level, is more than likely also not in those procedures....So yes, the conductor didnt handle the conversation according to procedures.....

Cicero

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

^^^ this is my biggest gripe of the whole thread....a lot of posters put the person down as an outright thug and wrote him off as being 100% in the wrong based on the fact he didnt have the correct ticket....none of us dispute that he didn't have the correct ticket

....my issue is not with the student being in the wrong due to not having a correct ticket....
but the fact that the student was man handled by a member of the public while having a verbal arguement with a rail conductor....That's the whole point of the thread....I've seen absolutely no arguement so far that justifies the force and the person, used , in taking the student off the train....absolutely none.

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

...(a) the company has stated in the media that they do not want members of the public getting involved in such incidents...

Thats fair enough now of them to point out!

Cicero wrote: »

...I am pretty confident that shouting in manner the conductor did towards the student, thus raising the level of aggression within the conversation to an even higher level, is more than likely also not in those procedures....So yes, the conductor didnt handle the conversation according to procedures.....

WHERE is these procedures you keep expertly referring to?

You say "Shouting" - others say raising his voice enough to be heard of a level of vocal bad attitude, possible lies and non-compliance.

The fact is that the man was replying to a clear level of abuse. May-be he had to raise his voice to show a form of authority/command! He wouldn't be the first in the world to have to use this tactic daily!

He just didn't collect/check everyone else's train ticket and then mind-read the young man from a distance, stroll up to him and started right away to raise his tone automatically!
Something led him down that road and guess what - it was that single young man with his replies from the outset we can assume.
That or the ticket collector is indeed a mind reader!

* Please tell me/us where these "procedures" is that you keep referring to! (You DO say "...but I do know that...")
How do you know? Please back that up!
I suspect once again you will avoid telling us.

opinion guy

Cicero wrote: »

^^^ this is my biggest gripe of the whole thread....a lot of posters put the person down as an outright thug and wrote him off as being 100% in the wrong based on the fact he didnt have the correct ticket....none of us dispute that he didn't have the correct ticket

....my issue is not with the student being in the wrong due to not having a correct ticket....
but the fact that the student was man handled by a member of the public while having a verbal arguement with a rail conductor....That's the whole point of the thread....I've seen absolutely no arguement so far that justifies the force and the person, used , in taking the student off the train....absolutely none.

Oh didn't you know, being late is now a valid excuse to batter the ****e out of people:rolleyes:

BBDBB

see what I mean about being partial?

A Dub in Glasgo

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh didn't you know, being late is now a valid excuse to batter the ****e out of people:rolleyes:

You live a sheltered life if you think that was even close to battering the ****e out of someone

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

Thats fair enough now of them to point out!



WHERE is these procedures you keep expertly referring to?

You say "Shouting" - others say raising his voice enough to be heard of a level of vocal bad attitude, possible lies and non-compliance.

The fact is that the man was replying to a clear level of abuse. May-be he had to raise his voice to show a form of authority/command! He wouldn't be the first in the world to have to use this tactic daily!

He just didn't collect/check everyone else's train ticket and then mind-read the young man from a distance, stroll up to him and started right away to raise his tone automatically!
Something led him down that road and guess what - it was that single young man with his replies from the outset we can assume.
That or the ticket collector is indeed a mind reader!

* Please tell me/us where these "procedures" is that you keep referring to! (You DO say "...but I do know that...")
How do you know? Please back that up!
I suspect once again you will avoid telling us.

I referenced the rail companys press statement as proof that members of the public shouldnt get involved...that obviously isn't enough proof for you...


Here is section 4.2 of Transport Scotlands Complaints policy....I'll let you find it yourself on the net as frankly I couldn't be bothered and I'm sure you'll be quoting the policy at me ad nausem for the rest of the evening to support your suppositions, theories and opinions that lack any grounding in what counts...fact.

The threat or use of physical violence, verbal abuse or harassment towards Transport Scotland staff is likely to result in the ending of all direct contact with the complainant. Incidents may be reported to the police. This will always be the case if physical violence is used or threatened.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why are you bringing Transport Scotland into this?

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

I referenced the rail companys press statement as proof that members of the public shouldnt get involved...that obviously isn't enough proof for you...

I deeply know your not stupid.

You previously stated:

Originally Posted by Cicero
...(a) the company has stated in the media that they do not want members of the public getting involved in such incidents...

My reply was:

Thats fair enough now of them to point out!

Your bizzare reply is:

I referenced the rail companys press statement as proof that members of the public shouldnt get involved...that obviously isn't enough proof for you...

Where the hell are you coming from!

Bizzare reply!

---

Cicero wrote: »

Here is section 4.2 of Transport Scotlands Complaints policy....I'll let you find it yourself on the net as frankly I couldn't be bothered and I'm sure you'll be quoting the policy at me ad nausem for the rest of the evening to support your suppositions, theories and opinions that lack any grounding in what counts...fact.

The threat or use of physical violence, verbal abuse or harassment towards Transport Scotland staff is likely to result in the ending of all direct contact with the complainant. Incidents may be reported to the police. This will always be the case if physical violence is used or threatened.

Aye yes - a COMPLAINTS POLICY!

NOT an example of any training and procedure policy for staff operating on a day to day basis as you might find in any possible instructional manual.
...But to give the above additionally any benefit of the doubt - IF - a complaints policy - not staff procedure - states "staff is likely to result in the ending of all direct contact..."

We can assume "is likely" refers to when the circumstances and person is assessed to be able to be walked away from and subsequently not be a nuisance to then left within others around him/her (again, within the confines of "Legal duty of care") - which according to reports, this man was!
...So he was asked to vacate the train!

opinion guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You live a sheltered life if you think that was even close to battering the ****e out of someone

We don't all live in Glasgow friend

Cicero

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why are you bringing Transport Scotland into this?

It's no less relevant than the bullsh!te pedalled as fact on this thread to date..

Cicero

Biggins wrote: »

I deeply know your not stupid.

You previously stated:


My reply was:


Your bizzare reply is:


Where the hell are you coming from!

Bizzare reply!

---

Aye yes - a COMPLAINTS POLICY!

NOT an example of any training and procedure policy for staff operating on a day to day basis as you might find in any possible instructional manual.
...But to give the above additionally any benefit of the doubt - IF - a complaints policy - not staff procedure - states "staff is likely to result in the ending of all direct contact..."

We can assume "is likely" refers to when the circumstances and person is assessed to be able to be walked away from and subsequently not be a nuisance to then left within others around him/her (again, within the confines of "Legal duty of care") - which according to reports, this man was!
...So he was asked to vacate the train!

*Ma...someone on the internet is wrong again...can you bring me up a cup of tea....pleaaassseeee....tanks ma.*

Seriously Biggins, I wanted this to be a serious debate on when is it justified to use physical force against someone else...as the OP alluded to in their post...i.e. when does verbal aggression merit physical aggression...that argument has been lost somehow along the way....and were in the realm now of counter argument, supposition, inference and all sorts...it's been a blast but I don't think I can add anything to this debate at this stage.

Happy Christmas.

Biggins

Cicero wrote: »

*Ma...someone on the internet is wrong again...can you bring me up a cup of tea....pleaaassseeee....tanks ma.*

Seriously Biggins, I wanted this to be a serious debate on when is it justified to use physical force against someone else...as the OP alluded to in their post...i.e. when does verbal aggression merit physical aggression...that argument has been lost somehow along the way....and were in the realm now of counter argument, supposition, inference and all sorts...it's been a blast but I don't think I can add anything to this debate at this stage.

Happy Christmas.

No worries.
Its been a good debate. To and fro.

ALL those involved clearly - and rightly - should answer for their actions.
Its as we should expect and those upholding those laws should see that at the very least investigation happens if only to see that such possible laws are adhered to and also act as a reminder to all.

Mr Pollock is answerable for his actions as is Mr Main.
As for the train conductor - he too I'm sure is under question by his company.

...Anyway, its been good debating!

Have a good Christmas.

Intensive Care Bear

10 days on and i'm still reading the thread title as "Scrotrail"

Manic Moran

Cicero wrote: »

I referenced the rail companys press statement as proof that members of the public shouldnt get involved...that obviously isn't enough proof for you...

It is always up to a company to place greater restrictions on its staff than the law would place. There is a part of the Railways Act quoted above which specifically says that agents of the railway may enlist the aid of members of the public. What Scotrail internal policy has to say on the matter may be a different issue, but it's unreasonable, I think, to expect anyone other than a Scotrail employee to know it.

It's like the police saying that you shouldn't get involved if you see a crime taking place. They always say it, even after the successful lawful citizen's detention of a criminal.

Biggins - by deputising the Big Man as he did he put the safety of OTHER passengers at risk

Presumably such a risk is a factor in any 'deputising' of passengers, yet the legislature still specifically enacted such a capability. The wisdom of the act is therefore presumably verified by the results: Was any other passenger injured?

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

A bump on this to say that the authorities have decided not to proceed with the case against Pollock aka the 'Big Man' as it is not in the public interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16954147

It is also believed Main aka the 'foul mouthed ticket evader' will not be charged either as he might go crying to his mammy

Cicero

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A bump on this to say that the authorities have decided not to proceed with the case against Pollock aka the 'Big Man' as it is not in the public interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16954147

It is also believed Main aka the 'foul mouthed ticket evader' will not be charged either as he might go crying to his mammy

And I was so looking forward to a two week trial complete with accusations of juror corruption, sordid back stories of the main protagonists and an "unexpected" last minute turn of events etc

Run_to_da_hills

Bawbag: Glasgow, Scotland origin, derogitary name given to one who is annoying, useless or just plain stupid. To compare one with such an ugly part of the male anatomy should be insult enough...:p

--Kaiser--

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A bump on this to say that the authorities have decided not to proceed with the case against Pollock aka the 'Big Man' as it is not in the public interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16954147

It is also believed Main aka the 'foul mouthed ticket evader' will not be charged either as he might go crying to his mammy

Good stuff. Let's hear it for the Big Man!