Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

SillyMcCarthy

Just wondering what the reaction would have been had the passenger been black? The two guys would have been accused as racists & the conducter would have been dismissed & the passenger would have been arrested!

Manic Moran

I am a little disappointed by all the 'leave it to the police' comments.

I figure there are three possible reasons for such a comment to be made.

1) Concern for physical safety. If you get involved, you open yourself up to being on the receiving end of violence, the level or skill of which you may be unprepared for ahead of time.

2) Concern for legal liability. "Touch me and I'll sue"

3) An honest belief that the only persons who should ever get involved in ensuring the civil running of society are the police.

The first is most understandable, and is the main reason that police tend to advise against persons resisting or interfering. They rarely, if ever, say it's wrong to 'have a go', but they do say that it's opening yourself up to safety risk. However, one's confidence in one's ability to come out the better for the encounter is a personal judgement call. I'll wager Makkikomi would be fairly confident of taking on most anyone he encounters and coming out the better of the exchange.

The second is equally understandable, given the publicity being given to instances of someone being punished for good intentions. I don't think it's such an issue here, however, as the 'big lad' appears to have been operating with the approval of Scotrail's agent. If you're at a party and some guests are unwelcome and the propertyowner insists that they leave, I don't believe there is any particular issue with another guest providing the muscle, for example.

The third, however, is the possibility which disappoints. We are all members of our community, we are all equally responsible for doing our bit to ensure the community is a good one. As long as we remain within the limits of the law, why should we not do what little we can? Sure, we're not paid to go careening around the town to go from one crime scene to another for an eight hour shift, but that's why the police get paid. Reduce the reliance on the police for every little thing which crops up, and let them focus on the matters which you or I are unable to deal with, such as groups of wrongdoers or those who are slightly better equipped to offer resistance. There are never enough police, why not reduce their workload? Everyone wins. Except the offenders.

NTM

Logical Fallacy

lol, a student finds out his surly bull**** won't fly outside of the college boozer and this is news.

Funny old world.

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am a little disappointed by all the 'leave it to the police' comments.

I figure there are three possible reasons for such a comment to be made.

1) Concern for physical safety. If you get involved, you open yourself up to being on the receiving end of violence, the level or skill of which you may be unprepared for ahead of time.

2) Concern for legal liability. "Touch me and I'll sue"

3) An honest belief that the only persons who should ever get involved in ensuring the civil running of society are the police.

You missed one

4) There wasn't any need for violence in the first place.

This situation didn't require it had the proper procedure been followed. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread the correct procedure was to have transport police meet him at the next stop as has been witness by other posters in previous circumstances. No need for any violence, no need for any delays, no need for any drama.

This point has been consistently ignored by those in the 'he had it coming to him' camp

This is the problem with have a go heroes - 9 times out of 10 they make things worse. The 1 time out of 10 when someone should act are usualy the times when concerns of personal security etc kick in.

bruschi

just reading that dailymail report http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073929/Big-Man-Alan-Pollock-threw-fare-dodger-Sam-Main-train-defended-father.html

and it seems that the student has his stories mixed up about having a valid ticket that he claims to have:

'I did pay for my fare, I just didn't get a chance to tell the conductor what happened.'
I did have a ticket but I must have handed over the wrong one to the conductor,' he added

Sam's uncle, who asked not to be named, claimed Sam did have a ticket, but it was the wrong one.

He said Sam went to the railway station at Polmont at 8am to buy a return ticket, but was told two singles would be cheaper as he planned to return off peak.

He said: 'He was sitting on the train when he noticed both tickets were for Polmont to Edinburgh Park, but he decided to concentrate on his exam and explain the mix-up to the inspector on the train home.

'After his exam he went out for a few drinks. He got on the train and everyone's seen the video, but he's no fare dodger, he was just sold the wrong ticket and the inspector's decided he's off at Linlithgow.

so which was it? he had the right ticket but gave the wrong one to the inspector? or he was sold the wrong ticket and had to explain this to the inspector?

I'd wager he was chancing his arm having got the single earlier, had a few pints, and said feck it, I wont be caught on the return journey.

k.p.h

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am a little disappointed by all the 'leave it to the police' comments.

I figure there are three possible reasons for such a comment to be made.

1) Concern for physical safety. If you get involved, you open yourself up to being on the receiving end of violence, the level or skill of which you may be unprepared for ahead of time.

2) Concern for legal liability. "Touch me and I'll sue"

3) An honest belief that the only persons who should ever get involved in ensuring the civil running of society are the police.

The first is most understandable, and is the main reason that police tend to advise against persons resisting or interfering. They rarely, if ever, say it's wrong to 'have a go', but they do say that it's opening yourself up to safety risk. However, one's confidence in one's ability to come out the better for the encounter is a personal judgement call. I'll wager Makkikomi would be fairly confident of taking on most anyone he encounters and coming out the better of the exchange.

The second is equally understandable, given the publicity being given to instances of someone being punished for good intentions. I don't think it's such an issue here, however, as the 'big lad' appears to have been operating with the approval of Scotrail's agent. If you're at a party and some guests are unwelcome and the propertyowner insists that they leave, I don't believe there is any particular issue with another guest providing the muscle, for example.

The third, however, is the possibility which disappoints. We are all members of our community, we are all equally responsible for doing our bit to ensure the community is a good one. As long as we remain within the limits of the law, why should we not do what little we can? Sure, we're not paid to go careening around the town to go from one crime scene to another for an eight hour shift, but that's why the police get paid. Reduce the reliance on the police for every little thing which crops up, and let them focus on the matters which you or I are unable to deal with, such as groups of wrongdoers or those who are slightly better equipped to offer resistance. There are never enough police, why not reduce their workload? Everyone wins. Except the offenders.

NTM

I understand what you are saying, but it would not work to be honest. You say "within the limits of the law". By saying that you assume everyone knows the law and well, they don't. That would result in people acting on what they though was the law, that would pretty much result in people doing stupid stuff everywhere.

Would not work, simples.

I don't think the "big man" should be charged, but I do think he was wrong to do what he did. I can make that call because I have seen the video and read plenty of articles as it has been well covered in the news. He did not mean to harm the young lad and any injury's were accidental, but imagine if people had to make those calls every day. It would be impossible and more often than not would boil down to one persons word against another etc.

Society in general should never be charged with or responsible for keeping the peace and up holding the law.

Society on the other hand should be charged with defining what is acceptable and what is not, their fore defining the law itself.

I would take for example what happened in London earlier this year as an example if I had too, but I think you understand what I mean.

A Dub in Glasgo

The gob****e was changing his story all week as each version was debunked

Jackmcg

Manic Moran wrote: »

We are all members of our community, we are all equally responsible for doing our bit to ensure the community is a good one.

Again, if this system was effective (whereby ticket dodgers get thrown off the train by a member of the public twice their size), then all train companies would use this system. Obviously it doesn't work, so the authorities are brought in to kick ticket-dodgers off if there is a struggle, thus avoiding newspaper scandals, repetitive arguments on forums, and general outrage on a daily basis.

RDM_83 again

opinion guy wrote: »

You missed one

4) There wasn't any need for violence in the first place.

This situation didn't require it had the proper procedure been followed. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread the correct procedure was to have transport police meet him at the next stop as has been witness by other posters in previous circumstances. No need for any violence, no need for any delays, no need for any drama.

This point has been consistently ignored by those in the 'he had it coming to him' camp

This is the problem with have a go heroes - 9 times out of 10 they make things worse. The 1 time out of 10 when someone should act are usualy the times when concerns of personal security etc kick in.

Yeah the young guy actually says no I'm sitting here, transport police at the next stop would have had him off legally and safely, also though he is swearing he's not actually abusing the conductor at all though it doesn't excuse the language on a train with kids on it (but if you watch video the BIG MAN bashes off the kids father). Also when he throws the guy of train is there not an issue of theft occurring if they don't give him his bag

IMO they're all **** but the two older people should have more cop-on and the big guy should certainly be up for assault for what appears to occur with him being planted on the platform

A Dub in Glasgo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yeah the young guy actually says no I'm sitting here, transport police at the next stop would have had him off legally and safely, also though he is swearing he's not actually abusing the conductor at all though it doesn't excuse the language on a train with kids on it (but if you watch video the BIG MAN bashes off the kids father). Also when he throws the guy of train is there not an issue of theft occurring if they don't give him his bag

IMO they're all **** but the two older people should have more cop-on and the big guy should certainly be up for assault for what appears to occur with him being planted on the platform

The BTP don't magic out of thin air you know. They would not have been at the next stop. The gob****e committed at least two offences before the member of the public chucked him off, his bag followed him.

opinion guy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

(but if you watch video the BIG MAN bashes off the kids father).

Um .....mother actually.
By the way don't know if anyone noticed in the video but she got herself a dig in at someone also.

RDM_83 again

Oops :-o , yeah rewatching it looks like she may be shoving the big guy.

Is there seriously that little security on UK rail that they couldn't have been at next stop, like it would only have taken one licenced individual to remove the guy in a lot better fashion?

In terms of the bag presume thats his one the guy following is carrying, looks like its thrown behind your man so he probably didn't see it, also throwing somebodies property like that probably isn't ok

Yes the young guy may have broken two by or transport laws, but nothing as severe as the assault that occurred.

conor.hogan.2

Do people seriously have a problem with this tit being removed by the "big man"?

investment

like this comment if you think the mods should make a poll on who thinks the big man did the right thing

Jackmcg

investment wrote: »

like this comment if you think the mods should make a poll on who thinks the big man did the right thing

think big man wins judging by the thumbs up on previous comments!! like this is you think it should be shut cos this argument is going nowhere haha!

Gophur

SillyMcCarthy wrote: »

Just wondering what the reaction would have been had the passenger been black? The two guys would have been accused as racists & the conducter would have been dismissed & the passenger would have been arrested!

What a ridiculous post.

Deal with the facts and not something pulled out of thin air!

You forgot to ask what if he was a cross-dressing Jewish muslim?

the purple tin

Taltos wrote: »

Think the conductor did the best job he could with an abusive passenger and was doing his best not to escalate it, instead he merely stated his firm position and refused to allow the fare dodger to remain.

The 3rd party "Big Man" - actually I applaud his actions. Unlike many he sought to stand up and help the conductor and clearly was keen for everyone there to continue on their journey. In fact looking at the video it is clear he showed quite a bit of restraint, another person may have lashed out when the fare dodger struggled and even threw himself back onto the train - or attempted to.

Fare dodger and now parents - clearly they are now milking not only the media but also the laws, going after the citizen (we keep telling people to stand up for their communities).I don't buy his excuse of diabetes one bit - maybe I am cynical but this stinks of someone trying to excuse their foul language and abuse when caught on camera.

Hopefully the police will not persue the "Big Man" and will instead go after the fare dodger for public nuisance and anything else that is applicable.

I think the inspector actually escalated the situation by the way he dealt with the guy(who was being a prick admittedly).
I know we didn't see the whole exchange between them but once he realised the guy definitely wasn't going to leave the train, he should have radio'd ahead to the next station and had a couple of staff waiting for him there.

The stalemate situation (off-no, off-no, off-no) isn't a very effective way of dealing with this type of situation. I assume the inspector has been doing this job for a good while, is that really the best method he has learned for dealing with people who dig their heels in?

A Dub in Glasgo

the purple tin wrote: »

I think the inspector actually escalated the situation by the way he dealt with the guy(who was being a prick admittedly).
I know we didn't see the whole exchange between them but once he realised the guy definitely wasn't going to leave the train, he should have radio'd ahead to the next station and had a couple of staff waiting for him there.

The stalemate situation (off-no, off-no, off-no) isn't a very effective way of dealing with this type of situation. I assume the inspector has been doing this job for a good while, is that really the best method he has learned for dealing with people who dig their heels in?

1. He does not have a radio

2. Staff ahead do not appear out of thin air. At most, it would the ticket seller at the next station that would have met the train/ the gob****e was getting off at the next stop which is 5-6 minutes away.

What would you have done?

Johro

Feisar wrote: »

I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but I feel the conductor and the gentleman that got involved were in the wrong.

Basically agreeing with their actions is agreeing vigilantism and the use of force to get your own way/problem solve!

Had it been the train services security that ejected him then I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all.

Exactly. People caught on trains without a ticket usually just get asked to pay for one there and then, or put off at the next stop, where they may or may not be fined by the transport cops, who will have been notified and ready to pick him/her up when the train stops at the station. There's no need for any aggro from the conductor at all. His job is collecting tickets. He knows what to do when someone doesn't have one. The conductor's role in this stupid little row was irresponsible. As for peoples opinions of the teenager as a drunk or a scumbag or whatever, they're assumptions based on his behaviour when confronted with the angry conductor, who imo was out of order. As I said earlier, what if the teenager was mentally handicapped or something? Who's to know? And him trying to get back on the train was because he thinks his bag with his belongings were still on it. This is just a nasty little incident that could easily have been avoided had the adults involved just kept their heads. Teens will be teens. F#ckheads yeah, but I used to be one.

pragmatic1

I thought that was a bit cunty on the young fella. Tough man throwing around a kid and humiliating him.

Biggins

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I thought that was a bit cunty on the young fella. Tough man throwing around a kid a nineteen year old adult and humiliating him.

He only humiliated himself.

Manic Moran

Jackmcg wrote: »

Again, if this system was effective (whereby ticket dodgers get thrown off the train by a member of the public twice their size), then all train companies would use this system. Obviously it doesn't work, so the authorities are brought in to kick ticket-dodgers off if there is a struggle, thus avoiding newspaper scandals, repetitive arguments on forums, and general outrage on a daily basis.

It seems to have worked in this case. I don't think a train company can rely on it working, but that doesn't mean that they should refuse the asset when it's made available.

Let me expand the concept. How about Joe Public assisting police in dealing with trouble? How would this differ from aiding the ticket inspector?

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

Exactly. People caught on trains without a ticket usually just get asked to pay for one there and then, or put off at the next stop, where they may or may not be fined by the transport cops, who will have been notified and ready to pick him/her up when the train stops at the station. There's no need for any aggro from the conductor at all. His job is collecting tickets. He knows what to do when someone doesn't have one. The conductor's role in this stupid little row was irresponsible. As for peoples opinions of the teenager as a drunk or a scumbag or whatever, they're assumptions based on his behaviour when confronted with the angry conductor, who imo was out of order. As I said earlier, what if the teenager was mentally handicapped or something? Who's to know? And him trying to get back on the train was because he thinks his bag with his belongings were still on it. This is just a nasty little incident that could easily have been avoided had the adults involved just kept their heads. Teens will be teens. F#ckheads yeah, but I used to be one.

A couple of points

1. A 19 year man is an adult

2. You say people are making assumptions when your own post is riddled with assumptions

k.p.h

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Do people seriously have a problem with this tit being removed by the "big man"?

I don't think anyone has much of a problem with it, maybe it opens up a few hypothetical question marks.

But the manner it happened, opens up a lot of hypothetical and real questions.

giles lynchwood

The dispute was between scotrail and the passenger,the member of the public had no right to intervene as the big man will soon find out when legal action is taken against him,also at the point where the BM put his hand´s on the passenger that was assualt and the ticket collector was obliged as a agent of scotrail to intervene on behalf of the passenger to ensure his safety and you can see him doing this on the platform when he realises the situation is getting out of control and he,ticket collector, did not follow proper procedure,i.e.call ahead to the next station to have passenger removed there.The passenger with the right solicitor(,and they will be queuing up),is in for a massive payday from Scotrail and the Bully.If is was me i would have been stretchered off in a neck brace to hospital.Right or wrong this is the reality of the situation.

opinion guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A couple of points

1. A 19 year man is an adult

2. You say people are making assumptions when your own post is riddled with assumptions

Everyone on both sides is making assumptions here -its impossible not to since the video is incomplete and none of us were there

giles lynchwood wrote: »

If is was me i would have been stretchered off in a neck brace to hospital.Right or wrong this is the reality of the situation.

Wow I would have thanked your post right up until this neck braces stuff :mad:

the purple tin

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

1. He does not have a radio

2. Staff ahead do not appear out of thin air. At most, it would the ticket seller at the next station that would have met the train/ the gob****e was getting off at the next stop which is 5-6 minutes away.

What would you have done?

Use the train drivers radio to call the transport police that's what I would have done.
Do you know that line/station personally Dub?

IdidIt

giles lynchwood wrote: »

The dispute was between scotrail and the passenger,the member of the public had no right to intervene as the big man will soon find out when legal action is taken against him,also at the point where the BM put his hand´s on the passenger that was assualt and the ticket collector was obliged as a agent of scotrail to intervene on behalf of the passenger to ensure his safety and you can see him doing this on the platform when he realises the situation is getting out of control and he,ticket collector, did not follow proper procedure,i.e.call ahead to the next station to have passenger removed there.The passenger with the right solicitor(,and they will be queuing up),is in for a massive payday from Scotrail and the Bully.If is was me i would have been stretchered off in a neck brace to hospital.Right or wrong this is the reality of the situation.

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

Scruffles

whether it was wrong to use that amount of force or not,it is about time people in the community had a little care for each other instead of just looking on.

fare dodgers shoud not get a free ride and the consequences later,they shoud be put off at the nearest station and seen to by staff/police,and it is understandable why pass using/paying passengers get pissed off at these selfish gets who coudnt give a damn how their stubborness to pay and abuse affects others.

Jackmcg

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to have worked in this case. I don't think a train company can rely on it working, but that doesn't mean that they should refuse the asset when it's made available.

Let me expand the concept. How about Joe Public assisting police in dealing with trouble? How would this differ from aiding the ticket inspector?

NTM

I dont think it worked very well. Sure he was removed from the train, which was indeed the goal, but the amout of negative publicity and the legal risks involved would indicate quite an unsuccessful method here.

It would be great if the public could assist police successfully but unfortunately (as mentioned already) Joe Public generally doesn't have the same knowledge of the law as a trained policeman.
same goes for trained inspectors and their methods of dealing with ticket-dodgers, when Joe Public gets involved, it can go pear-shaped very easily

Manic Moran

It would be great if the public could assist police successfully but unfortunately (as mentioned already) Joe Public generally doesn't have the same knowledge of the law as a trained policeman.
same goes for trained inspectors and their methods of dealing with ticket-dodgers, when Joe Public gets involved, it can go pear-shaped very easily.

Why can't they? I've helped out before on traffic duty, letting the cop do something more important at an accident. Didn't seem to go pear shaped, though as a non-cop I had as much authority and training to direct traffic at an accident scene as an armadillo.

This article by an American police trainer is interesting
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/2143085-Would-be-warriors-in-waiting-Getting-help-when-you-need-it/

Would-be warriors in waiting: Getting help when you need it

Sir Robert Peel rightly said, "Police are the public and public are the police" ... particularly when you’re struggling with a suspect and need a citizen’s assistance. [...]Quite often, when officers are in these lone street battles they are surrounded by members of the community, yet few officers have been trained to consider asking a bystander for help[...]Some of these statutes allow for officers to arrest citizens who refuse or fail to come to their aid when so ordered.

From another author, same site:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/2144601-Dealing-with-citizens-legally-carrying-a-concealed-weapon/

I have found, by and large, that citizens who do carry concealed are very pro-law enforcement and would be very willing to come to your aid if you were in the middle of a fire fight.

The thought process seems simple to me. "There is an issue which needs dealing with. The law permits us to deal with it. We can deal with it without outside assistance. We are members of the community this affects and we have the intentions of the community in mind. We should deal with it." Otherwise you end up with a situation where you need to call the police for every possible altercation or dispute, which is utterly impractical.

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

the purple tin wrote: »

Use the train drivers radio to call the transport police that's what I would have done.
Do you know that line/station personally Dub?

The guard does not have access to any train radio

Yes, I do know the line, the next stop was Polmont (6 minutes away) where the gob****e wanted to get off. I have also experienced the delay associated with a gob****e who does not want to pay

conor.hogan.2

He did not pay.

He was cheeky and rude, to an elderly staff member and everyone else.

He was delaying everyone else.

Big man is the same as countless other people, except he got filmed doing the right thing and will likely pay the price even though he should not be punished.

Jackmcg

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why can't they? I've helped out before on traffic duty, letting the cop do something more important at an accident. Didn't seem to go pear shaped, though as a non-cop I had as much authority and training to direct traffic at an accident scene as an armadillo.

Yeah I agree with you- leaving the more important jobs to the most authorized people while the public help with the smaller jobs is peachy. But in this case, the most important job was to remove him from the train, so i think the inspector should have taken care of that while big man could do something of less importance to help.

Anyway I dont think its fair to compare directing traffic with removing an aggressive person from a train. To get your driving license you need to have knowledge of traffic directions.. Whereas a lot more can go pear-shaped when handling a violent person. Police will have more experience and will rarely use excessive force. In this instance, I think a face-to-the-platform was a bit excessive.

Manic Moran

Jackmcg wrote: »

Yeah I agree with you- leaving the more important jobs to the most authorized people while the public help with the smaller jobs is peachy. But in this case, the most important job was to remove him from the train, so i think the inspector should have taken care of that while big man could do something of less importance to help.

I would beg to differ. We have no idea if that was the most important job that the police could be doing at that moment and time. Maybe there was an assault at another station, for example. The bottom line is that it requires the direction of assets to deal with an issue which seems to have been rather solidly dealt with without them, and as long as those assets are dealing with an impolite young chap, they are committed and unavailable for things which perhaps Joe Public would be less able to deal with.

NTM

Jackmcg

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would beg to differ. We have no idea if that was the most important job that the police could be doing at that moment and time.

Sorry, think I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you meant you worked with a cop at the same incident while he did the more important job (attending to the injured or something) while you did something less important (directing traffic around the incident).. Dunno how my brain jumped to that conclusion
But yeah I meant that the big man could assist a cop if in a different way if one arrived on scene, sorry for the confusion

Manic Moran

No, no, you were right, that was exactly what I meant.

But the point here was that we should be expected to be able to deal with issues on our own without having to call the police when we can do so. It's like calling the fire brigade for a cat up a tree. Sure, they're experts at climbing ladders and retrieving lives, but they have better things to be doing with their time considering the average neighbour tends to have a ladder in the garage somewere which is just as serviceable.

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A couple of points

1. A 19 year man is an adult

2. You say people are making assumptions when your own post is riddled with assumptions

NaNaNaNa-Nineteen? F#ckin hell. Sure don't look it. All the news reports referred to him as a teenager anyway. As for assumptions, I only mentioned assumptions made by people about the teenager, of which there were plenty. I don't see you picking holes in the rest of my post, probably because you can't. The conductor lost control and the guy that threw him off the train could indeed be called a scumbag.
There are proper ways of dealing with this kind of thing, as has been pointed out plenty of times. I'm not saying the teenager involved is innocent or hasn't acted like a dick but what the adult in charge did was stupid and irresponsible as he could've just let the transport cops deal with it and the 'big guy' in the vid just provided the teen with an excuse for self-righteous anger and recrimination. Stupid stupid stupid on all counts.

Johro

Scruffles wrote: »

whether it was wrong to use that amount of force or not,it is about time people in the community had a little care for each other instead of just looking on.

fare dodgers shoud not get a free ride and the consequences later,they shoud be put off at the nearest station and seen to by staff/police,and it is understandable why pass using/paying passengers get pissed off at these selfish gets who coudnt give a damn how their stubborness to pay and abuse affects others.

Got no problem with that. So let the proper authorities deal with it. If you condone this kind of behaviour from the public you're leaving society open to all sorts of vigilantism. That's the issue. People can think of lots of excuses for throwing their weight around with people who don't come up to their own high standards.:rolleyes:

Biggins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

THIS is what an arrogant 18 year old is capable of when they decide not to pay their fare and get caught.

A ticket inspector has been stabbed on a C2C train travelling from Essex into London, prompting an investigation by British Transport Police (BTP).

The attack at East Tilbury happened on the 20:20 Southend Victoria to London Fenchurch Street service on Friday.

BTP said the inspector had asked two men without tickets, aged about 18, to leave the train. They got off, but one returned and stabbed him in the back.

The inspector was said to be in a comfortable condition in hospital.

Officers are now looking through CCTV images and are appealing to any passengers on the train who witnessed anything to contact them.

'Severely punished'
One of the suspects wore a black hooded top and the second a grey flat cap and grey top.

The police force said there had been four ticket inspectors on the service at the time of the stabbing and that they worked in pairs.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union representing many railway workers, said anyone with any information should contact police urgently.

"Once again it shows the dangers that transport staff face every day and particularly over the Christmas and new year period.

"The perpetrators of this vicious and cowardly assault must be caught and the authorities need to show that those who attack public service workers will be severely punished," he said.

You will note once again they were asked to get off.
CLEARLY that is within the right of the company and ticket inspector to ask them to do.

opinion guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The guard does not have access to any train radio

Yes, I do know the line, the next stop was Polmont (6 minutes away) where the gob****e wanted to get off. I have also experienced the delay associated with a gob****e who does not want to pay

The driver has a radio and since the guard told the driver to stop he can clearly communicate with him so all he has to do is ask the driver to call the cops.

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

THIS is what an arrogant 18 year old is capable of when they decide not to pay their fare and get caught.



You will note once again they were asked to get off.
CLEARLY that is within the right of the company and ticket inspector to ask them to do.

Biggins will you ever cop on. Thats the worst strawman I've seen in a while and I KNOW you are better than this. THIS teeneager that we are talkign aobut was not in any way violent. He was the victim of violence. Not all teenagers are the same - its very clear you are biased on this point.

A Dub in Glasgo

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

THIS is what an arrogant 18 year old is capable of when they decide not to pay their fare and get caught.



You will note once again they were asked to get off.
CLEARLY that is within the right of the company and ticket inspector to ask them to do.

Ah come on, they were only kids :pac:

A Dub in Glasgo

opinion guy wrote: »

The driver has a radio and since the guard told the driver to stop he can clearly communicate with him so all he has to do is ask the driver to call the cops.

The driver has access to NRN which puts a call through to Network Rail control who would then have to request the BTP attendance. The normal police would not attend and the BTP would not have got there for another 30 minutes or so

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

THIS is what an arrogant 18 year old is capable of when they decide not to pay their fare and get caught.



You will note once again they were asked to get off.
CLEARLY that is within the right of the company and ticket inspector to ask them to do.

That is a totally different incident which only relation to the one discussed is that the person/persons without ticket were asked to get off, though in the one discussed rather more forcefully on the conductors part. But I don't see a problem with a train conductor asking that person to get off. It is indeed the right of the company and the ticket inspector.
In your example though, wouldn't the ticket inspector have been better off to have had the transport cops waiting for them at the next stop?- which, again, is the usual procedure. What's wrong with that scenario? I don't get why a member of the public throwing a person off the train is better or more acceptable than that.
Also, you can't punish people for what you perceive them to be 'capable of '.
Your news item is about a violent murderous assault. Hardly relates to this incident.

Biggins

Johro wrote: »

...Hardly relates to this incident.

It does in that:
1. It shows that someone lashing back over not having a ticket can always be a danger.
2. If no one always does not offer to help out - there can be just as bad consequences as a man being thrown off a train.
3. Some have said they had no right to throw the man off the train - THEY DO!
4. Sometimes the cops are not there to protect quickly enough.
5. Would the elderly man been able to defend himself against a grow aggressive youth on his own?
6. What if no one had stood up to help the aged ticket collector?
7. Sometimes people do have to get up off their arse and do the right thing - the consequences otherwise just might be worse!

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

It does in that:
1. It shows that someone lashing back over not having a ticket can always be a danger.
2. If no one always does not offer to help out - there can be just as bad consequences as a man being thrown off a train.
3. Some have said they had no right to throw the man off the train - THEY DO!
4. Sometimes the cops are not there to protect quickly enough.
5. Would the elderly man been able to defend himself against a grow aggressive youth on his own?
6. What if no one had stood up to help the aged ticket collector?
7. Sometimes people do have to get up off their arse and do the right thing - the consequences otherwise just might be worse!

1. Fair enough.
2. It's not the public's job and leaves people open to abuse, recriminations and/or criminal prosecution. It's a job for the relevant authorities, plain and simple.
3. I didn't. I said the 'big guy' had no right to throw him off the train. Btw, I mean 'throw' as in put him off while not using excessive force, which I guess would be at the discretion of the ticket inspector, who, in this case, didn't do so well, considering he let a member of the public manhandle the guy. Much better to let the transport cops deal with it at the next stop. Let's no forget, this incident was also a disruption to other passengers and would have scared elderly passengers. There's just no sense in it.
4. Well maybe this serves as a reminder that here's something that needs to be addressed by the railway authorities.
5. Moot point. See reply in italics in #3.
6. See above.
7. Jeez... See #2.

efb

Moot not mute.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

In your example though, wouldn't the ticket inspector have been better off to have had the transport cops waiting for them at the next stop?- which, again, is the usual procedure. What's wrong with that scenario? I don't get why a member of the public throwing a person off the train is better or more acceptable than that.

There are hardly any BTP officers about and they view fare evasion as a minor crime therefore your rose tinted view of a BTP officer at the next station is not realistic at all.

The BTP in conjuction with the various train operators do campaigns to tackle fare dodgers rather than respond to individual calls (unless the fare dodger is threatening or has a weapon)

BBDBB

just an additional point about the situation being dealt with at the "next station"........they were at a station, it was being dealt with and the fare dodger was being asked to leave the train

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.