Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

Biggins

MyKeyG wrote: »

Yep you're right let's go around physically assaulting everyone who as much as swears at another person. You think the correct punishment for not paying your fair is a beating??? That's what you call 'wisdom beyond years??? Mate, you're for the birds.

I think there's a kid in your local shop stealing sweets if you're quick you can give him a good kicking, hurry now!!!

I'll leave you to your own opinion.
We differ - end of story.

HellFireClub

HellFireClub wrote: »

Ok, to return this scenario to one that is based within your rules...

Someone breaks the law by breaking a red traffic light. A crash is the outcome, and a traffic jam is caused. It still isn't open to people held in the traffic jam to interfere, we have a process that involves the gardai being called, the matter being investigated and an outcome delivered.

It isn't open to people to start getting involved because God forbid, they get delayed for a few minutes, THAT'S LIFE, DELAY'S HAPPEN!!!

Unfortunately these days, people will walk over other people to get to where they are going, all part of the sheer selfishness that is an overhang of our Celtic Tiger years.

Only a few years back there was a priest who had a heart attack on a train in Bray I think it was, and because he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, people thought he was homeless or drunk or something and literally walked over him and around him as he was breathing his last breath.

It takes alot of confidence to even try and fare-dodge, especially on such a long commute. Say the inspector ignored his incorrect ticket and carried on his journey. He gets off at his destination and full of confidence an still empty of funds, he mugs someone like you. Someone passive who is scared of any confrontation. Would you mind the same 'bully' chasing after him or offering you his phone to call authorities? If its an injury or dangerous then most will wait. if its just some young idiot who needs to be put in his place, no point wasting time, get him off

MyKeyG

Biggins wrote: »

I'll leave you to your own opinion.
We differ - end of story.

Don't stir it up in the first place if you can't handle the debate.

MyKeyG

Deleted User wrote: »

It takes alot of confidence to even try and fare-dodge, especially on such a long commute. Say the inspector ignored his incorrect ticket and carried on his journey. He gets off at his destination and full of confidence an still empty of funds, he mugs someone like you. Someone passive who is scared of any confrontation. Would you mind the same 'bully' chasing after him or offering you his phone to call authorities? If its an injury or dangerous then most will wait. if its just some young idiot who needs to be put in his place, no point wasting time, get him off

Now you're just contriving arguments. Loads of different people fare dodge not just thugs. That getting away with it gives them the confidence to commit more serious crime is ridiculous.

Latchy

I once saw a guy beating up on a girl on a public street and as I was so concerned about what I was seeing , which was the guy shouting at her and beating her around the head a lot , I called the police on mobile phone .This was happening just 20 yards away from me as I was walking home and I was aware that this guy had he seen me, could so easy turn his attention to me but instinct kicked in and I knew I had to get help for the girl who was in a lot of emotional not to mention physical stress .

Sure enough police soon arrived arrived and took over the situation but I would have been sick and horrified if I had read the next day that the girl had been murdered in public and as far as I could see I ... the only witness ...had done nothing , which is what I explained to the police . My point is that people will do the right thing if the feel it needs to be done and where a persons life is at stake .

Biggins

MyKeyG wrote: »

Don't stir it up in the first place if you can't handle the debate.

I'm debating - your insinuating that I'd like to go kicking kids in sweet shops.
One can't DEBATE with someone else that has to stoop to that low mentality, to put forward their opinion.

Latchy

MyKeyG wrote: »

Now you're just contriving arguments. Loads of different people fare dodge not just thugs. That getting away with it gives them the confidence to commit more serious crime is ridiculous.

Which is 'sometimes' lost on people .

MyKeyG

Biggins wrote: »

I'm debating - your insinuating that I'd like to go kicking kids in sweet shops.
One can't DEBATE with someone else that has to stoop to that low mentality, to put forward their opinion.

Believe that all you want. It's not fooling anyone else. You advocated a violent act. At least have the courage to stick to your convictions instead of saying 'you're entitled to your opinion' to close out an uncomfortable debate.

Biggins

MyKeyG wrote: »

Believe that all you want. It's not fooling anyone else. You advocated a violent act. At least have the courage to stick to your convictions instead of saying 'you're entitled to your opinion' to close out an uncomfortable debate.

I advocate a retrained and appropriate response.
...But you continue to think you know me! Carry on with your rubbish!

HellFireClub

Biggins wrote: »

...And personally I'm disgusted that some youths (Not ALL - some here clearly are wiser beyond their years) here are standing up for the young abusive thug!

Instead of standing up for a young teenage abusive thug that CLEARLY has no respect for the elderly, never mind a younger worker – how about you equally stand up for fellow passengers that have to live daily with abusive pups that often make their ugly presence known on similar journeys via train or bus etc!

No - that would be too much to ask for, from some here clearly!

There is a wider issue here, but the resolution of it is not to say that people should jump out of their seats these days and start wrestling people off public transport.

First of all, arguing your case in the event that you are convinced that you are absolutely in the right, is not a criminal offence!

Also, the inspector has no power to order someone off the train for non or incorrect payment of a fare, at least not in this jurisdiction, to the best of my knowledge and I can't imagine that it is much different in the UK.

The correct response as far as I'm aware, is to issue a fine, and ask the person for their personal details so that the fine can be attached to them. If they don't agree that they were in the wrong, there is an appeals process for the matter. The inspector has no authority whatsoever to instruct one passenger to remove another passenger from the train.

He could and should lose his job over this, he actually created a public safety incident that has resulted in someone being injured. There is a procedure from removing someone from a train who is causing a problem, he has back up and TRAINING TO USE THE FACILITIES THAT ARE THERE TO DEAL WITH AN INCIDENT SUCH AS THIS, (police and I'm sure security personnel at the next train stop), but I'm sure of one thing, that the training doesn't involve arguing with a customer and then telling another customer to remove the customer that he has a problem with, from public transport, you wouldn't see the likes of this in Zimbabwe.

The ticket inspector demonstrated what could only be described as worst practice when dealing with an incident such as this, antagonising someone who appeared to genuinely believe that he is in the right, all the time escalating the event that was unfolding and putting as much pressure on him as possible, when the correct approach I'm fairly sure, should have been to try to deal with the issue by generating a fine, (which doesn't have to be paid immediately by the way, thereby negating the fact that the kid said he didn't have any money on him which would be normal enough for a student)...

MyKeyG

Biggins wrote: »

I advocate a retrained and appropriate response.
...But you continue to think you know me! Carry on with your rubbish!

Calling some ones opinion rubbish isn't stooping low? Just because you don't like what I have to say. Well your posts are there to prove my point so I'm done with this thread. You can get back to belittling others.

Biggins

HellFireClub wrote: »

...the inspector has no power to order someone off the train for non or incorrect payment of a fare, at least not in this jurisdiction, to the best of my knowledge and I can't imagine that it is much different in the UK.

Look up the term "Legal duty of care".

HellFireClub wrote: »

The inspector has no authority whatsoever to instruct one passenger to remove another passenger from the train.

He didn't as far as I know and as far as can be told by the video - but nice try at throwing that one out there!

HellFireClub wrote: »

...He could and should lose his job over this, he actually created a public safety incident that has resulted in someone being injured. There is a procedure from removing someone from a train who is causing a problem...

No, he won't. He was following the procedure of asking the youth for a ticket.
...Then the abuse started... and under the standard legal mater of "legal duty of care" the youth was asked to vacate (in the interests of public safety alone I assume).

HellFireClub wrote: »

The ticket inspector demonstrated what could only be described as worst practice when dealing with an incident such as this, antagonising someone who appeared to genuinely believe that he is in the right, all the time escalating the event that was unfolding and putting as much pressure on him as possible, when the correct approach I'm fairly sure, should have been to try to deal with the issue by generating a fine, (which doesn't have to be paid immediately by the way, thereby negating the fact that the kid said he didn't have any money on him which would be normal enough for a student)...

We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
The man was doing his job and he replied according to the abusive treatment he immediately got from the young pup.
Had the youth behaved better, he wouldn't have possibly been in this situation in the first place.

Biggins

MyKeyG wrote: »

Calling some ones opinion rubbish isn't stooping low? Just because you don't like what I have to say. Well your posts are there to prove my point so I'm done with this thread. You can get back to belittling others.

I'm calling your tainting of me, to like acting violently to a kid in sweetshop as rubbish.
Get back on topic, start debating with sense at least!

weeder

if the ticket inspector hadnt of told big man to get him off this wouldnt have happened. yer man was only trying to get back on to get his bag off according to the article so why couldnt he say that to the lad instead of trying to get back on for it.

Big man shouldnt have gotten involved, end of story. yer man didnt deserve to have his face split open over the sake of a £5 ticket. another thing about this story.

the lad had an unused valid ticket for the journey the other way which is the exact same price and he was given it in error so he was hardly fare dodging.

if the inspector had accepted his ticket and got on with the journey, this wouldnt have happened, nobody would hve been delayed, the lad would have paid for his journey, the company wouldnt have been out any more money and fares would have stayed the same price

ringadingding

I kinda lost any sympathy I had for the kid, when I found out he was not a kid, but a 19 year old......

Ive lived in England and seen the absolute cockiness in which teens and hoodies waltz around with, seemingly untouchable.
I live in Vienna where street violence is nearly an urban legend, first person to throw a punch goes to prison, simple as that. England is another matter though.

Had the guy been 13, yeah it's unwarranted, but a 19 year old should know better and made his own bed in my opinion.

I've a feeling more stuff went down before the camera was turned on tbh also with this guy.

MagicSean

weeder wrote: »

if the ticket inspector hadnt of told big man to get him off this wouldnt have happened. yer man was only trying to get back on to get his bag off according to the article so why couldnt he say that to the lad instead of trying to get back on for it.

Big man shouldnt have gotten involved, end of story. yer man didnt deserve to have his face split open over the sake of a £5 ticket. another thing about this story.

the lad had an unused valid ticket for the journey the other way which is the exact same price and he was given it in error so he was hardly fare dodging.

if the inspector had accepted his ticket and got on with the journey, this wouldnt have happened, nobody would hve been delayed, the lad would have paid for his journey, the company wouldnt have been out any more money and fares would have stayed the same price

Perhaps he could have explained that to the inspector instead of telling him to **** off. He might have done better out of the situation.

Biggins

In reality IF the young lad had the right ticket, he would have been fine.
* If he had not got abusive, he would have been fine I suspect.
* If he hadn't have been particularly abusive to an elderly man, he might have been fine.
* If what he says might have been true that he supposedly had "an unused valid ticket for the journey" he might have been fine and explained about this calmly - but he didn't!
* If the "Big Man" hadn't interceded, everyone would have had to wait for god knows how long - but all would have arrived at their destinations somewhat late and annoyed - but the actions/words of the young man put paid to that!
* If the youth had got away once with using an invalid ticket, who's to say he or someone else has not done/tried this trick before - and the staff of such trains were used to this fare dodging trick?

weeder

MagicSean wrote: »

Perhaps he could have explained that to the inspector instead of telling him to **** off. He might have done better out of the situation.

how do we know he didnt? as said before the argument was ongoing before the camera started rolling, to say he definitely did or didnt is just speculation.

HellFireClub

Biggins wrote: »

No, he won't. He was following the procedure of asking the youth for a ticket.
...Then the abuse started... and under the standard legal mater of "legal duty of care" the youth was asked to vacate (in the interests of public safety alone I assume).

He wasn't following the procedure. First of all, how to you know what the formal procedure is at the current time?!? Leaving out the age of the person in this incident, are you going to tell me that if the person without the correct ticket is an 80 year old pensioner, that the current procedure is to throw them off the train?!?

Biggins

HellFireClub wrote: »

He wasn't following the procedure. First of all, how to you know what the formal procedure is at the current time?!? Leaving out the age of the person in this incident, are you going to tell me that if the person without the correct is an 80 year old pensioner, that the current procedure is to throw them off the train?!?

As with hospitals and other public areas, even bars etc, if you eventually become a public nuisance (by continuous aggressiveness, possibly indicating at times, worse is to come) and are further deemed to be troublesome, something that might lead to a breach of the peace and/or risk to people/property, you can be asked to leave ANY property under the law that a business or organisation has an equal "Legal Duty Of Care" towards others that are in the area at the time.

HellFireClub

Biggins wrote: »

As with hospitals and other public areas, even bars etc, if you eventually become a public nuisance (by continuous aggressiveness, possibly indicating at times, worse is to come) and are further deemed to be troublesome, something that might lead to a breach of the peace and/or risk to people/property, you can be asked to leave ANY property under the law that a business or organisation has an equal "Legal Duty Of Care" towards others that are in the area at the time.

The original problem here is one of an incorrect ticket. Someone is entitled to argue their point in relation to what they believe is the correct position that they are standing in. There is nothing illegal in having a point of view and standing by it, in fact it's to be commended. Before there was any "public order" incident here, the kid was ordered off the train. I don't believe that this is company policy, and the reason I don't believe that it is company policy, is because I don't believe it is company policy in a modern democracy in the developed world, to throw any person off a public transport vehicle over a ticket issue, and this as I have already pointed out, could involve a vunerable elderly pensioner being kicked off the train and left stranded somewhere miles from their home. Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.

So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.

That didn't happen here because the rail official departed from the policy and instead tried to bully the kid off the train, contrary to what I would believe is company policy. He was properly confronted by the kid who probably dispaired at being kicked off the train miles from home with possibly not even the money to call his family for help.

You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.

The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.

Biggins

HellFireClub wrote: »

The original problem here is one of an incorrect ticket. Someone is entitled to argue their point in relation to what they believe is the correct position that they are standing in. There is nothing illegal in having a point of view and standing by it, in fact it's to be commended. Before there was any "public order" incident here, the kid was ordered off the train. I don't believe that this is company policy, and the reason I don't believe that it is company policy, is because I don't believe it is company policy in a modern democracy in the developed world, to throw any person off a public transport vehicle over a ticket issue, and this as I have already pointed out, could involve a vunerable elderly pensioner being kicked off the train and left stranded somewhere miles from their home. Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.

So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.

That didn't happen here because the rail official departed from the policy and instead tried to bully the kid off the train, contrary to what I would believe is company policy. He was properly confronted by the kid who probably dispaired at being kicked off the train miles from home with possibly not even the money to call his family for help.

You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.

The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.

The actual travel rules of the company would have to be looked at as to if a person could be ejected if or not alone, they had no ticket or a wrong one.
As I (myself) assume, the ticket collector has training and considerable experience of such company rules, I suspect he was acting on them and acting in accordance to them.
Till we hear otherwise, we only only assume this might/should be the case.

Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.

Very true.

So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.

Again possibly true - BUT - we don't know what the actual policy is but can guess the trained and experienced ticket collector was acting in accordance with it?
We don't know he went against company rules.
It would be not in his own jobs-worth not to?

You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.

A fine at times is an appropriate and sensible response - however the growing aggressiveness of the youth made that direction path it seems, harder to take and the ticket collector for the sake of others there, took the possible route of possible further aggressiveness and even assault/fighting taking place.
For the sake of safety, he erred on the side of caution.
Its easy to criticise in hindsight and knowledge - not in real-time and in not knowing whats possibly coming next but fearing the worse and acting accordingly as a pre-caution to others - if not just himself.

The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.

I SERIOUSLY doubt he acted just on his own violation and without reason.
Again WE don't now what company policy was/is - but we can assume the ticket collector does!

Good debating by the way. You make some valid points to be possibly addressed.

amacca

Batsy wrote: »

Oh, well he would be of course. He must be positively evil. He probably microwaves kittens, too.

oven baking takes too long and can be inconvenient tbh

a nice hot kitty in minutes with a microwave...you just have to make sure to puncture them in a couple of places with a fork to let the steam out, it tends get messy otherwise.

gerryo777

Maximiliano Low Hawk wrote: »

I must be seeing a different video to everyone else. I see a conductor with an attitude and a bully who should have minded his own business. Sure, the teenager was rude, but throwing him off the train was totally uncalled for. He didn't deserve to be physically assaulted.

Here we go.....:rolleyes:

prinz

HellFireClub wrote: »

As I said, delay's happen, traffic jams happen, ticket disagreements happen, the problem is that nobody has any patience these days and the world is full of people like this c*nt who start throwing the head when there is the slightest delay to their precious daily itinary.

Do you use public transport on a regular basis? To commute? If you are in the cinema and someone is making noise/disrupting the film do you call people "c*nts" if they object? Sure they should just have some patience..

HellFireClub wrote: »

Unfortunately these days, people will walk over other people to get to where they are going, all part of the sheer selfishness that is an overhang of our Celtic Tiger years.

You mean like people who don't pay the correct fare/puchase the right ticket and still think they have a god-given right to be abusive? ...and inconvenience everyone else?

HellFireClub wrote: »

Only a few years back there was a priest who had a heart attack on a train in Bray I think it was, and because he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, people thought he was homeless or drunk or something and literally walked over him and around him as he was breathing his last breath.

But your advice was that people should mind their own f*cking business....

Latchy wrote: »

I would have been sick and horrified if I had read the next day that the girl had been murdered in public and as far as I could see I ... the only witness ...had done nothing.

How would you feel if by the time the gardaí arrived she was already dead?

Latchy wrote: »

My point is that people will do the right thing if the feel it needs to be done and where a persons life is at stake .

Why only if someone's life is at stake? What if you saw a 15 year old bullying a 9 year old and stealing his phone/money/whatever. Would you say .. well no-ones life is at stake....keep walking..

HellFireClub wrote: »

Also, the inspector has no power to order someone off the train for non or incorrect payment of a fare, at least not in this jurisdiction, to the best of my knowledge and I can't imagine that it is much different in the UK..

Dublin Bus drivers and inspectors certainly have that right and are allowed to use "reasonable force" as is necessary to remove someone from the vehicle. Can't open the PDF of Irish Rail at the moment but I'd imagine as part of CIE they'd have similar provisions in their bye-laws.

(a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or of attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws may be removed from the vehicle by an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána acting on the request of such authorised person.
(b) In the exercise of the power conferred on him under paragraph (a) of this Bye-Law an authorised person or member of the Garda Síochána may use such reasonable force as is necessary.

HellFireClub wrote: »

Leaving out the age of the person in this incident, are you going to tell me that if the person without the correct ticket is an 80 year old pensioner, that the current procedure is to throw them off the train?!?

Are you going to tell me that if the inspector wasn't an elderly man the young lad would have been as abusive and arrogant?

omega666

HellFireClub wrote: »

Rubbish, it's not open to you or me to make a that call, there is a process there for having these things dealt with and investigated. Allowing some fat c*nt to jump out of his chair and intervene and throw someone off public transport is aspiring to live in a banana republic.

If i was sitting on that train along with a couple of hundred other people
id want his ass kicked off it as well and let me on my merry way.
waiting for the police to arrive could take an hour or more possibly.

What we saw on the video was only a snippet, from the reaction of the other people in the carrige they seem to be happy enough with the result.

He chanced his arm and was caught, he should have got off the train when he was asked to and none of this would have happened.

Feisar

Biggins wrote: »

...And personally I'm disgusted that some youths (Not ALL - some here clearly are wiser beyond their years) here are standing up for the young abusive thug!

Instead of standing up for a young teenage abusive thug that CLEARLY has no respect for the elderly, never mind a younger worker – how about you equally stand up for fellow passengers that have to live daily with abusive pups that often make their ugly presence known on similar journeys via train or bus etc!

No - that would be too much to ask for, from some here clearly!

Biggins, he hardly looked like a thug. Apart from the cursing which was not directed at the ticket inspector. He said he had a f**king ticket. Didn't actually tell the inspector to f**k off.
I'm not saying it's OK, only highlighting the difference.

Also that have a go hero asked the inspector if he wanted him the remove the chap and the inspector said yes. This was totally wrong, allowing another passenger to become involved. It also escalated the situation to a physical one. The student was not physically aggressive from what I saw.

I know what the lad was trying with the ticket, had got a single and was chancing his arm but the inspector and other passenger were wrong in my point of view.

Respect for the elderly doesn't come into it. The gentleman was acting as a ticket inspector not as an OAP.
I'm 27 btw and while I always give up my seat to elderly people I don't give them any extra respect due to the fact they've clocked up more miles than me.

Latchy

prinz wrote: »

How would you feel if by the time the gardaí arrived she was already dead?

How do you know I would not have intervened before the bobbys arrived ? ( the incident happened in England btw )The police response was pretty quick because most neighbourhoods, including the one I live in have several mobile patrols who are never far away .

Why only if someone's life is at stake? What if you saw a 15 year old bullying a 9 year old and stealing his phone/money/whatever. Would you say .. well no-ones life is at stake....keep walking..

Now ya see I'm old enough to know that in a situation like this you would rightly chase the older kid away ,if only for fear the younger kid could come to some serious damage (phones and money can be replaced ...life can't )

Like the man on the train and in similar situation ,you size up and see what it is you could or should do but if you are saying that man would have tackled several more agressive people on his own instead of just one weak individual , then I'm telling you he most he likely wouldn't or if he did would have expected others to come to his aid... but what if they didn't ? He loses his life because of a fare dodger ?

Most people have self preservation on their mind but in all walks of life people will and do stand up to bullys .

HellFireClub

prinz wrote: »

Dublin Bus drivers and inspectors certainly have that right and are allowed to use "reasonable force" as is necessary to remove someone from the vehicle. Can't open the PDF of Irish Rail at the moment but I'd imagine as part of CIE they'd have similar provisions in their bye-laws.

I'm not replying to the rediculous multi quotes you are using. This kid could have been completely innocent here, he could have asked for the correct ticket from a teller at the station, been charged the correct amount by the teller, yet handed the wrong ticket by the teller. The fault might not even have been his own, this could have been a simple mix up when the ticket was purchased (and he did have a ticket but for the wrong direction), yet the remedy is to be told to be immediately ordered off the train by the ticket inspector, without any recourse to fair procedure, and then when he remonstrates with that person, he gets f*cked off the train and injured by some thug of a stranger?!?

This is why a fine is used and not immediate ejection from the service in question, because it brings fair procedure and due process around the situation, because you can subsequently challenge it, you can attempt to explain yourself in a more elabolate way in writing after you have the opportunity to put the chain of events together as you understand them.

This guy will probably be fired from his job for this incident and rightly so. He's one of these old school intrasigent and belligerent arséholes that you will find doing security work in any government building in Ireland, in a union, so can't be touched, and at the same time, to old, bitter and stupid to be able to be trained to do things in accordance with the fair and reasonable standards that are demanded in the 21st century in relation to the delivery of proper public services.

prinz

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'm not replying to the rediculous multi quotes you are using. This kid could have been completely innocent here, he could have asked for the correct ticket from a teller at the station, been charged the correct amount by the teller, yet handed the wrong ticket by the teller. The fault might not even have been his own, this could have been a simple mix up when the ticket was purchased (and he did have a ticket but for the wrong direction), yet the remedy is to be told to be immediately ordered off the train by the ticket inspector, without any recourse to fair procedure, and then when he remonstrates with that person, he gets f*cked off the train and injured by some thug of a stranger?!?

Have you ignored the fact that the conversation was going on long before the video started recording it? Seems so.

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is why a fine is used and not immediate ejection from the service in question...

Ignoring of course the bye-laws I quoted. Must be that "rediculous" multi-quote problem.

HellFireClub wrote: »

This guy will probably be fired from his job for this incident and rightly so. He's one of these old school intrasigent and beliggerant arséholes that you will find doing security work in any government building in Ireland, in a union, so can't be touched, and at the same time, to old, bitter and stupid to be able to be trained to do things in accordance with the standards that are demanded in the 21st century in relation to the delivery of proper public services.

A picture is starting to form here. You keep on grinding that axe!

Jackmcg

Biggins wrote: »

Again WE don't now what company policy was/is - but we can assume the ticket collector does!

I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth!

JJayoo

I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth

The guy is 19. He's a grown man

Biggins

Jackmcg wrote: »

I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth!

I think its also safe to assume that that the company policy does allow the staff to take steps to ensure the safety of other passengers and themselves when its assessed and deemed necessary, that abusive travellers vacate the transport they are on if they cannot abide by the rules the rest of the other passengers are following, quietly in peace!

Jackmcg

Biggins wrote: »

that abusive travellers vacate the transport they are on if they cannot abide by the rules the rest of the other passengers are following, quietly in peace!

Seriously, watch the video again- tell me which passenger seems more abusive- the youth,sorry 19 year old :rolleyes: who is sitting and verbally arguing his point, or the huge lad who picks him up and body-slams him onto the platform??

Biggins

Jackmcg wrote: »

Seriously, watch the video again- tell me which passenger seems more abusive- the youth,sorry 19 year old :rolleyes: who is sitting and verbally arguing his point, or the huge lad who picks him up and body-slams him onto the platform??

If "verbally arguing" includes abuse that he gave the man just going about doing his job, once again I say he reaped what he sowed.

The outcome CLEARLY could have been different if he behaved himself and explained his possible situation in a decent manner - he didn't - thus his outcome!

I still have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

prinz

I used to wonder about the mindset behind the people who think it's appropriate to verbally argue their point be loud, abusive and obnoxious to people like bouncers, barmen, airport security, check-in staff at the airport, gardaí, etc etc whenever they don't get their own way. I'm getting an insight.

Jackmcg

Biggins wrote: »

If "verbally arguing" includes abuse that he gave the man just going about doing his job

he wasn't just going about doing his job! his job isn't to authorize members of the public to assault others, simple as. if a system worked whereby every person that protests a fine was to be assaulted in turn, im sure that system would be used on all forms of public transport worldwide.. but its not!

Biggins wrote: »

The outcome CLEARLY could have been different if he behaved himself and explained his possible situation in a decent manner

I think its pointless arguing this because we don't know what was said in before the clip starts.. he may or may not have tried to explain himself already.

I just dont understand how you can justify a man picking up someone half his size and slamming him off a train- looks like he really could have injured him and instead of getting in trouble, he gets treated like a hero

Jackmcg

prinz wrote: »

I used to wonder about the mindset behind the people who think it's appropriate to verbally argue their point be loud, abusive and obnoxious to people like bouncers, barmen, airport security, check-in staff at the airport, gardaí, etc etc whenever they don't get their own way. I'm getting an insight.

you'll find that it can be provoked by people on power trips/ people who are clueless as to handle certain situations a lot of the time, which can lead to frustration

prinz

Jackmcg wrote: »

you'll find that it can be provoked by people on power trips/ people who are clueless as to handle certain situations a lot of the time, which can lead to frustration

It can be, but it generally isn't. Far more often it's caused by ignorant twats who think they can shout and bully their way into getting what they want.

The Scientician

Regardless of the 19 year old's claim to have bought a ticket or not, the Scotrail employee shouldn't have allowed another member of the public to get involved. It'd be different if the kid had actually taken a swing at the conductor, but he didn't. The kid was being a bollocks but I'm not sure that gives carte blanche to a member of the public to lay a hand on him. To be clear, if a burly Scotrail employee had come down to see what the fuss was I'm not sure I'd have any problem whatsoever.

Plus, does anyone know, has the big man left himself open to a charge of assault?

Johro

Maximiliano Low Hawk wrote: »

It wasn't the big guy's business. He had no right no throw him off. Definitely no right to throw him off and cause him to cut his face open.

Yeah I agree. The conductor should've let the transport cops deal with him at the next stop. That's how it usually works. The big guy in the vid would've minded his own business too if the conductor hadn't had a bee in his bonnet and kept on at the teenager. It's not on really, it sets a dangerous precedent, you can't just start man-handling people coz you feel justified. The teen could've been mentally ill. Or just a wanker. Point is, it's not up to anyone else to put him off the train. Could've ended up a lot worse too.

Jackmcg

@prinz
yes but in this case- the inspector initiates the shouting and seems to be quite clueless about dealing with the public.

prinz

Jackmcg wrote: »

yes but in this case- the inspector initiates the shouting and seems to be quite clueless about dealing with the public.

Er, no he doesn't. He explained why the ticket wasn't valid. Repeatedly asked him to get off, and then repeatedly asked him to stop swearing... (first shouting comes from young lad 1m 18s into clip)

Jackmcg

prinz wrote: »

Er, no he doesn't. He explained why the ticket wasn't valid. Repeatedly asked him to get off, and then repeatedly asked him to stop swearing...

He just shout "OFF" at him, thats no way to get someone to cooperate! and only then he becomes riled up and starts swearing.. watch the video!

Jackmcg

he has his voice raised for the whole conversation so that the public can hear him, reminds the public that they should be angry, and because of this they applaud a man for throwing a teenager face-down onto the platform

prinz

Jackmcg wrote: »

he has his voice raised for the whole conversation so that the public can hear him, reminds the public that they should be angry, and because of this they applaud a man for throwing a teenager face-down onto the platform

His voice is strong and clear and authoritative. Exactly as it should be. It's the scrote who starts getting hysterical and cursing. The inspector was consistent throughout.

Jackmcg

nah ill say it once more before i go to bed, watch the video!
at the very beginning they're having a conversation at normal levels, then the inspector sees he isn't getting his way so he raises his voice and orders him to get off. he doesn't deal with him well and causes the lad to become frustrated- exactly like i explained about 10 posts up^^

prinz

Jackmcg wrote: »

at the very beginning they're having a conversation at normal levels, then the inspector sees he isn't getting his way so he raises his voice and orders him to get off. he doesn't deal with him well and causes the lad to become frustrated- exactly like i explained about 10 posts up^^

Even if that was the case, which it isn't, what right does the lad have to get "frustrated" and start cursing and shouting exactly? He's the one without a valid ticket. Jesus wept, you want someone to hold his hand?

I notice that there are a few posters who have called the inspector, and the 'big man' all sorts of names and insults, but haven't once said a word against the the fella thrown off. Says it all really.

From the Railway Byelaws 2005 which apply to all rail operators in the UK (Including Scotrail)

(2) Removal of persons
(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

So much for the claims that you aren't allowed kick someone off a train :rolleyes: let's see what bye-laws he might have broken shall we..

6. Unacceptable behaviour
(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.
(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.
(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/2005RailwayByelaws.shtml

That's before you get to not having a valid ticket. The only question left is if the inspector has the power to delegate the authority given to him. I would say yes.

opinion guy

My my this has been an eye-opening thread.

For one thing I've learned being late is a perfectly acceptable reason for bodyslamming the person holding you up face first onto concrete. Oh this will make life interesting. Next time someone is double parked in my way I can get out and bodyslam them, next time some idiot cuts me up whilst talking on the phone I'll just ram them off the road, next time someone litters in the street right in front of me I'll just clothes line them, next time I'm stuck in a queue because the customer at the counter is having a dispute with the employee I'll just walk up non-chalantly, face smash them off the counter, get my business done and head off with a whistle.

/sarcasm

The attitudes in this thread are appalling. Biggins I'm particularly surprised at you - you are normally a rock of sense, but you are shocking me here, but you seem to be of the attitude because the guy is a teenager who says **** (wow how original), because the conductor has white hair and because the fat bloke didn't want to be late, then its perfectly acceptable for FatMan to face slam a dude half his size onto concrete.

The Scientician wrote: »

Plus, does anyone know, has the big man left himself open to a charge of assault?

Absolutely. No debate there. The ejectees uncle is on record as saying the kid just wants to get on with his exams. I think that can be interpreted as he has decided not to press charges and just wants it all to go away.

HellFireClub made interesting comparisons to Europe
There was outrage in Germany a few years back after some teenage girl was put off a train in the middle of nowhere with no money for not having paid the correct fare and like almost dying or something. I tried to google the link but can't find it.s

LisaLee

This really isn't as simple as right or wrong, however according to the National Rail conditions, the conductor was probably in the right.

Same info as Prinz here.

58. Unacceptable conduct
Any person who a Train Company believes is likely to act in a riotous, disorderly or
offensive manner may be refused access to, or may be required to leave trains, platforms
or stations.
59. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these
Conditions.

It had gone beyond a simple ticket error, the young lad had been drinking, got the wrong ticket and didn't get it rectified before getting on the train. Instead he became verbally abusive and forfeited his rights as a customer in this instance.

http://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/documents/NRCOC.pdf