Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

Manic Moran

cougar1 wrote: »

While I commend the big guy for taking care of the problem, it would've been interesting to see (purely from a behavioural perspective) his response if there was 5 or 6 yobs involved and they were hounding and harassing passengers as can happen on public transport.

He may well have had one of 'those' days and decided enough is enough but I can't help feeling that the 'big guy' dealt with this yob merely because this was an 'easy' one to resolve and at the same time he also had an opportunity to show a bit of bravado and stamp his authority over the situation.
It was a single teenage fare dodger, skobe definitely, but hardly someone threatening to rob woman with a knife or harassing old folk, in which case 'big guy' may have sat and kept stum like the vast majority of the public usually do.

If the general public were a bit more pro-active in dealing with more serious asb rather than an opportunistic fare dodger then there might have been less burning and looting during the summer in London.

It's interesting, but these isolated single skanger incidents are usually resolved easily enough as in the manner above but when the numbers increase and there is a group of them (usual case!), the 'big guys' will often just blend into the background in a similar manner to everyone else. Would it be so difficult when a 'gang' are in 'action' for 4 or 5 blokes to give a nod to each other and step up and dissolve a situation? It never happens in these circumstances though.
Just an observation.

The converse is equally true. Most unsociable behaviour in public seems to occur when the miscreants have the safety in numbers: They know that nobody is going to interfere with them until they have a better than even chance of coming out the better of the exchange. A gang of miscreants are generally fairly confident of the commitment of their colleagues, wheras even if we were to 'nod' to each other, we'd be in complete darkness as to just how much we can rely on each other if the going gets tough.

As a result, practicalities dictate that we cannot intervene every time we see some behaviour which requires action (unless you are very well trained, or quite well armed), but it if we refuse to intervene even if we -can- reasonably do something, then where are we?

It is also worth noting that British law does not appear to mandate that the only actions which can be taken to enforce public order may only be taken by police. That seems to have been the 'safe' policy that many corporations and people take, and has become a default mindset, but that doesn't mean that anything else is wrong. Even 'Breach of the Peace' can result in a legal citizen's arrest (any person's arrest in local lingo) in the UK, which thus would result in physical contact.

Supposedly some important British chap stated that the police were "only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Name of "Peel," he basically invented modern policing.

It will be interesting to see if he is even charged, given that he could reasonably be seen to be acting with the approval of the authority (He did ask first). Failing that, it would be equally interesting to see if any jury in Scotland would convict him.


NTM

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

...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.

It seems that the man injuries came about because after he was ejected from the train, in his fighting to get back on (which can be seen on the video), he then ended up hard on the station platform.
Again, consequences to his own stupid actions.

The ticket collector was wrong I feel to give permission to the "Big Man" - but I don't accept that the "Big Man" was just throwing his weight around. As I mentioned previously...

If that man wanted to push his full weight around, he clearly would have done some more serious damage if he wanted to.
He didn't - he used proportional force to see that the elderly worker was no longer abused and that the thug was ejected from the train without having to break bones, etc.

...There is also the aspect that the "Big Man" could claim in defence that he was was performing a "citizens arrest" given he judged that a possible breach of the peace was occurring.
Many would be VERY surprised if he was convicted by any jury of his peers.

The youth its appears now is wishing to put the incident behind him and get on with his life.
He obviously regrets his stupidity and at become a nation/international topic of conversation.
I think he suspects/knows that if he hadn't of been stupid in words and action in the first place, none of this crap would have happened - but it did and he was the instigator.
Cause and effect.
You reap what you sow.
Some people can't seem to accept that for their actions, there is always consequences. And as in this case, ALL involved will feel or is currently feeling some sort of outcome.

BBDBB

[QUOTE=Biggins;76011867I think he suspects/knows that if he hadn't of been stupid in words and action in the first place, none of this crap would have happened - but it did and he was the instigator.
Cause and effect.
You reap what you sow.
Some people can't seem to accept that for their actions, there is always consequences. And as in this case, ALL involved will feel or is currently feeling some sort of outcome.[/QUOTE]


Absolutely spot on

Ellis Dee

I see the scrote is now blaming his idiotic drunken behaviour on diabetes. I was a diabetic long before the eejit was born and don't behave as stupidly as he does. Anyway, he shouldn't be drinking all that sugar-laden stuff and neglecting to eat properly and on time.:rolleyes:

I will be extremely surprised if the passenger who intervened to help the elderly conductor is ever charged, and even more so if he is convicted by any jury that does not consist of 19-year-old drunken foul-mouthed louts.:):)

maximoose

So he's saying to sky news today that he bought two single tickets from A-B and B-A but was given two tickets from A-B by mistake, and he bought two singles "to save money". What utter bullsh*t, isn't the whole point of a return ticket that it's cheaper than getting two single journeys?! And I dont see him saying this once in the video, seems like he has been shown up as the ignorant little git he is and is trying to save face now.

Also like the fact that Sky news throw in the fact that he's diabetic. Who cares? What does that change? Garbage.

hardCopy

maximoose wrote: »

So he's saying to sky news today that he bought two single tickets from A-B and B-A but was given two tickets from A-B by mistake, and he bought two singles "to save money". What utter bullsh*t, isn't the whole point of a return ticket that it's cheaper than getting two single journeys?!

Sometimes two singles can be cheaper. An open return allowing peak time travel could cost more than two off-peak singles.

maximoose

hardCopy wrote: »

Sometimes two singles can be cheaper. An open return allowing peak time travel could cost more than two off-peak singles.

Then I stand corrected

Still, smells of bullsh*t. I dont once hear him trying to explain this in the video, just saying "I've already shown you my ticket"

Ray Palmer

I think it is weird how people go on about how the 19year old should respect his elders. That is just age descrimination, two adults arguing over a fair is what it is.
If it turns out he did pay then you can completely understand why he was annoyed and cursed.

His refusal to leave and behaviour after that are certainly questionable.

The other thing is how people are saying nobody should get involved yet on another thread about the teenager was in HSE care and why didn't others get involved. It's classic internet forum stuff

maximoose

maximoose wrote: »

So he's saying to sky news today that he bought two single tickets from A-B and B-A but was given two tickets from A-B by mistake, and he bought two singles "to save money". What utter bullsh*t, isn't the whole point of a return ticket that it's cheaper than getting two single journeys?! And I dont see him saying this once in the video, seems like he has been shown up as the ignorant little git he is and is trying to save face now.

Train fares are insane here. It often is cheaper to buy two singles, and station staff often let you know that when you're buying the ticket. I have also been given the wrong ticket more than once.

Also like the fact that Sky news throw in the fact that he's diabetic. Who cares? What does that change? Garbage.

Dodgy blood sugar can make you very irritable and irrational. I turn into a banshee if I have to wait too long to eat. Sure, he should have prepared for that, but he's a teenager in college. It's tough enough having a long term illness without having to miss out on all the 'normal' stuff.

Ray Palmer

Maximiliano Low Hawk wrote: »

Dodgy blood sugar can make you very irritable and irrational. I turn into a banshee if I have to wait too long to eat. Sure, he should have prepared for that, but he's a teenager in college. It's tough enough having a long term illness without having to miss out on all the 'normal' stuff.

Isn't drinking meant to be avoided too as it makes the issues worse?

I think he has been given a harder time than he should have been.

moco

It was on Ths Sun website yesterday that he kept trying to get back on the train because he thought his bag was still on it, containing his diabetes medication. Another passenger had thrown it out another door, but he didn't realise.

BBDBB

out of context the motive to simply get his bag with his medication in it (if its true) seems to be perfectly reasonable

However the context is that he was not behaving in a reasonable manner and had escalated the situation through his own aggression, insulting language and defiance. I believe that context is an important consideration when evaluating the reasonableness of him getting his bag back

opinion guy

LisaLee wrote: »

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.

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

Where is the regulation that says the conductor is allowed to incite the crowd, which he very clearly did, and where he allowed deputise an individual to do his dirty work ?

Biggins wrote: »

It seems that the man injuries came about because after he was ejected from the train, in his fighting to get back on (which can be seen on the video), he then ended up hard on the station platform.

His life saving medication was on the train. How would you feel if he was your son and someone f**ked him off the train without even giving him a chance to get his bag with his meds? The police would not have done that had they been involved. They would have asked him if he had a bag.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I see the scrote is now blaming his idiotic drunken behaviour on diabetes. I was a diabetic long before the eejit was born and don't behave as stupidly as he does. Anyway, he shouldn't be drinking all that sugar-laden stuff and neglecting to eat properly and on time.:rolleyes:

I will be extremely surprised if the passenger who intervened to help the elderly conductor is ever charged, and even more so if he is convicted by any jury that does not consist of 19-year-old drunken foul-mouthed louts.:):)

Well aren't you the Holy Mary of diabetes then. If indeed you are diabetic you should be well aware that a hypo or even a hyper could easily make you cranky, irrational and sweary at people.

AeoNGriM

The young lad was a right mouldy twat, no excuse for the rudeness he showed the conductor. The conductor, I felt, just assumed the young lad was a bit of a scummer and treated him as such. Not saying he was rude as such, but he definitely had a bit of a head on him about it and it coloured his response.

The fat bloke was bang out of order. Totally none of his business what was going on, has a right to complain alright, but to physically assault someone, pick the young lad up and faceplant him onto the concrete was totally the wrong thing to do. That was a physical assault right there and I hope he gets nicked and charged over it.

As to who was actually in the right? Don't really think it matters as all 3 of them went about it the wrong way. Conductor should have done his job properly and politely and called the police if there was a problem. The young lad should have kept his mouth shut, explained his situation and if he was eventually removed from the train by the police, he should have gone through the complaints process. Fat bloke should have kept his nose out of it, was absolutely nothing to do with him at all. Agree with the earlier poster saying he wouldn't have acted the big man if the young lad was a big, muscly fella.

opinion guy

AeoNGriM wrote: »

The young lad was a right mouldy twat, no excuse for the rudeness he showed the conductor.

Diabetes is a VERY good excuse for his behaviour if he had very high or low blood sugar at the time. Of course we can't know that at this point

Feisar

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.

jonnyfingers

moco wrote: »

It was on Ths Sun website yesterday that he kept trying to get back on the train because he thought his bag was still on it, containing his diabetes medication. Another passenger had thrown it out another door, but he didn't realise.

But you can see on the video that a passenger throws the bag out the same door after him. Unless there was another bag.



Either way I've been on a train in the UK where a person was drunk and refused to pay. He was allowed to stay on but was stopped at the platform when he got to his destination. Don't know what happened after that. But this is what should have happened in this case.

I've also been on a train where a woman with 4 kids in tow tried to explain to the conductor that she was sold the wrong ticket. She went to the ticket desk to buy a ticket and was sold an off-peak ticket. She was then told the next train was in 10 minutes, which is what she got on. The conductor then told her that she boarded 15 minutes before the off-peak time so had to pay £60 to upgrade her ticket to a peak ticket. She refused as she was sold a ticket and advised as to what train to get on by a rail employee so it was not her fault. Her and her 4 kids were then kicked off the train at the next stop where she had to wait 15 minutes before boarding a train so it was "off-peak". This was Christmas last year when it was freezing temperatures outside. The poor kids.

I told the conductor I thought what he did was disgraceful and was told to "shut the hell up". Nice customer service there.

My point of all this is that there is two sides to every story. This is only a short video so we don't know the full story. Multiple times I've seen incorrect tickets being sold to passengers by rail employees and then the rail company accepts no responsibility. That's not on in my opinion. If that's what happened in this case then I side with the guy who was thrown off.

If he was a fare dodger then I side with the "big man". But still if he was causing a scene let him stay on the train but contact someone, the police if necessary, at his destination. That way nobody needs to shout, nobody needs to throw or be thrown and nobody gets delayed.

opinion guy

jonnyfingers wrote: »

If he was a fare dodger then I side with the "big man". But still if he was causing a scene let him stay on the train but contact someone, the police if necessary, at his destination. That way nobody needs to shout, nobody needs to throw or be thrown and nobody gets delayed.

And the angry woman with the kids didn't need to have to get worried for her kids safety. Something bad could easily have happened to some other innocent passenger had the young guy been a bit bigger or more violently inclined.

--Kaiser--

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.

Top-rated comment from the Youtube page

The Law clearly states a member of public may intervene if a crime is being committed, providing minimum force necessary to achieve the objective is used.

Offence: Failing to pay a fair is also classed as theft, as well as refusal to leave the train.

Resolution: Removal of the no paying passenger.

Conclusion: Minimum force was used to achieve the resolution and no assault

opinion guy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8956985/Rail-inspectors-dont-know-how-to-handle-fare-dodgers.html

johngalway

They're all wrong.

The conductor couldn't do his job. Call whomever is legally entitled to physically remove a suspect fare dodger from the train and get on with it.

The young lad was a little ****. Cursing and acting like a spoilt brat. IF he had bought the wrong tickets in error then calmly explain it and get it sorted. He didn't so I don't buy it.

The "big man" is a fool. It's none of his business, he's just been got on camera assaulting someone, smart move :rolleyes:

Feisar

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Top-rated comment from the Youtube page

The Law clearly states a member of public may intervene if a crime is being committed, providing minimum force necessary to achieve the objective is used.

Offence: Failing to pay a fair is also classed as theft, as well as refusal to leave the train.

Resolution: Removal of the no paying passenger.

Conclusion: Minimum force was used to achieve the resolution and no assault

Hmm, good argument. I'd counter and say what was required to resolve this situation was a call to the Police to be at the next stop and that the use of force was not required in this instance.

Had the lad been injured the intervening party would have been in legal trouble.

opinion guy

Feisar wrote: »

Had the lad been injured the intervening party would have been in legal trouble.

Did you see his face ? He was injured. Reports today the transport police have received an assault complaint

LisaLee

opinion guy wrote: »

Where is the regulation that says the conductor is allowed to incite the crowd, which he very clearly did, and where he allowed deputise an individual to do his dirty work ?

I wonder were we watching the same video. He said that he didn't have the right ticket so he had to get off and that he would stay there all night because he was being paid to do so. The 'Big Man' became involved through his own choice by asking if there was a problem. There was no sign up sheet.

opinion guy wrote: »

If indeed you are diabetic you should be well aware that a hypo or even a hyper could easily make you cranky, irrational and sweary at people.

So can alcohol. :rolleyes:

opinion guy

LisaLee wrote: »

I wonder were we watching the same video. He said that he didn't have the right ticket so he had to get off and that he would stay there all night because he was being paid to do so. The 'Big Man' became involved through his own choice by asking if there was a problem. There was no sign up sheet.

He repeatedly said loudly so everyone could hear that the kid was holding everyone up (when in reality the conductor was holding everyone up). He attempted to make the kid the subject of the crowds anger so that they would do his job for him. When the Big Man showed up and ASKED FOR PERMISSION to throw the kid off, the conductor said yes. All of this is inexcusable.

So can alcohol. :rolleyes:

Your point ? There have been case you know where diabetics were presumed to be drunk and not treated and died. The public awareness of the symptoms of diabetes are dismally low.

AeoNGriM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Top-rated comment from the Youtube page

If the young lad can prove he was mis-sold tickets, then no crime was comitted. Except of course the assault.

Not that I give a rats arse what happens either way, but can sympathise with being mis-sold tickets and having to explain argue give up and pay extra to get where I was going.

Duggy747

Young guy was a twat.

"Big Guy" was a twat.

Scenario could've been dealt with far more appropiately like getting a hold of security at the station they stopped at and if they weren't there let the cops come and sort it out at the next stop.

When I used the train a good lot years ago, any trouble makers were dealt with at a next stop where the Gardaì were waiting to have a nice chat.

LisaLee

opinion guy wrote: »

He repeatedly said loudly so everyone could hear that the kid was holding everyone up (when in reality the conductor was holding everyone up). He attempted to make the kid the subject of the crowds anger so that they would do his job for him. When the Big Man showed up and ASKED FOR PERMISSION to throw the kid off, the conductor said yes. All of this is inexcusable.

I'd love to see your psychology degree to back up this theory, manipulating the crowd into anger so the minions could do the conducter's bidding.:rolleyes: The lad had been asked, on more than one occasion, to leave the train. He refused and was verbally abusive to the staff member. The Rail Charter says that if a passenger starts acting like this then they should be removed from the train. It doesn't state by whom. The 'Big Man' could have done a lot more damage due to his size, but he didn't. Proportionate force. Also, we only saw two minutes of what happened, a lot more had happened leading up to this.

opinion guy wrote: »

Your point ? There have been case you know where diabetics were presumed to be drunk and not treated and died. The public awareness of the symptoms of diabetes are dismally low.

The lad admitted to drinking to celebrate finishing his exams. Surely as a sufferer of diabetes he should know that consuming alcohol isn't advised. The alcohol would affect the amount of glucose in his body, he made that choice. If he had been rational and explained that he had been sold the same ticket twice by mistake then he could have paid the difference on the spot, no issue. Instead he chose to become verbally abusive. It was a day of bad decisions for him.

AeoNGriM

LisaLee wrote: »

If he had been rational and explained that he had been sold the same ticket twice by mistake then he could have paid the difference on the spot, no issue. Instead he chose to become verbally abusive. It was a day of bad decisions for him.

Am not trying to be a smartass, but how do you know this? We all saw the same video, and none of us saw how it kicked off. He may already have calmly and patiently explained what had happenned, and the Conductor may have just put his foot down and assumed he was a scummer trying to avoid paying.

I'm not making excuses for any of the people involved, but I don't think anyone can draw conclusions on how it all started just from the YouTube clip so might be worth a reconsider.

BBDBB

so suffering from an illness now negates the need to conduct yourself civilly in social situations

great, I have a slight sniffle so you can all feck aff

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

so suffering from an illness now negates the need to conduct yourself civilly in social situations

great, I have a slight sniffle so you can all feck aff

This is exactly what I am talking about when I said people are ignorant of the effects of diabetes

Is someone is suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis of severe hypoglycaemia they aren't capable of conducting themselves normally.

Go read up on it and educate yourself

LisaLee

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Am not trying to be a smartass, but how do you know this? We all saw the same video, and none of us saw how it kicked off. He may already have calmly and patiently explained what had happenned, and the Conductor may have just put his foot down and assumed he was a scummer trying to avoid paying.

I'm not making excuses for any of the people involved, but I don't think anyone can draw conclusions on how it all started just from the YouTube clip so might be worth a reconsider.

I agree that there is a lot that the video has missed but this eye report from an unbiased source swayed me tbh.

Chuileog wrote: »

The guy who made that recording was on the radio news earlier(scotland). He said the row had being going on for a few mins before he started recording. Initially he had the thought to pay the kids fare for him but with the foul language, attitude and abuse coming from the kid he thought no way and started recorded it instead.

I also find it a little odd that instead of keeping both tickets and showing them to a staff member to try sort it out, he threw one away. Conveniently leaving him with only one wrong ticket. If he paid by card then at least he could prove that he did indeed buy two tickets, albeit wrong ones, so he could deny the fact that he was trying to skip the fare.

Until that happens however, I'll remain skeptical.

BBDBB

On your reccomendation I just have

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Complications/Diabetic_Ketoacidosis/?gclid=CM33qIWYhK0CFUhrfAod_iuQTA

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_ketoacidosis

neither mention aggression or irrationality or a lack of self control or a propensity to swear

so far Im zero evidence for 2 attempts? shall I continue?


the symptoms that are mentioned are things like shortness of breath, vomiting, dehydration. He seemed pretty lucid, his responses were instant and on topic.

Im not having a go Opinion Guy, but I am cynical about his (or the medias) usage of his illness in this context and it making his behaviour excusable or permissable.

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

On your reccomendation I just have

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Complications/Diabetic_Ketoacidosis/?gclid=CM33qIWYhK0CFUhrfAod_iuQTA

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_ketoacidosis

neither mention aggression or irrationality or a lack of self control or a propensity to swear

so far Im zero evidence for 2 attempts? shall I continue?

Yes continue.

the symptoms that are mentioned are things like shortness of breath, vomiting, dehydration. He seemed pretty lucid, his responses were instant and on topic.

Those are symptoms also. But its often amounts to a confused, or irrational state, which is often confused for drunkeness. People with hypos can be very fatigued and cranky. You know like the youth in the video. He is on record as saying he hadn't eaten anything all day, and he is on insulin - this puts him at risk of hypoglycaemia

Im not having a go Opinion Guy, but I am cynical about his (or the medias) usage of his illness in this context and it making his behaviour excusable or permissable.

Yeah thats' possible. But to be honest his behaviour wans't that bad. So he said f**k. So what. People say that all the time. But he conductor and the Big Man were far more aggressive

--Kaiser--

Wow, I didn't know having diabetes gives you the right to be a dickhead

Canis Lupus

I had a quick look so sorry if reposting but the lads own comment on facebook: "There's a video of me on youtube hahahahaha! Scotrail no ticket "

Gophur

opinion guy wrote: »

This is exactly what I am talking about when I said people are ignorant of the effects of diabetes

Is someone is suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis of severe hypoglycaemia they aren't capable of conducting themselves normally.

.........

If that's the case then they should remove themselves from situations where it is likely to be a problem, and not expect the rest of Society to make allowances for them.

If you have a condition that you know causes you to affect others, then you have an obligation to make the necessary arrangements to limit this.

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes continue.


Those are symptoms also. But its often amounts to a confused, or irrational state, which is often confused for drunkeness. People with hypos can be very fatigued and cranky. You know like the youth in the video. He is on record as saying he hadn't eaten anything all day, and he is on insulin - this puts him at risk of hypoglycaemia



Yeah thats' possible. But to be honest his behaviour wans't that bad. So he said f**k. So what. People say that all the time. But he conductor and the Big Man were far more aggressive

ok, can you do me a favour and direct me as to where to look? Clearly I need a steer here as the symptoms Ive found so far dont support what you have said.

Even if symptoms are those akin to being drunk, that doesnt make the behaviour any more acceptable

As I said, he didnt appear confused, his answering back to the conductor was sharp enough. Sorry, but you seem to be making a leap here that I am not prepared to follow. Being fatigued and cranky doesnt make it acceptable for anyone to abuse someone and get aggressive or tell someone to f**k off repeatedly.

Actually the conductor was merely assertive. The Big Man used sufficient force and no more, to ensure the journey he had paid for could continue and not be delayed by someone who hadnt paid and was obstructing the onward journey.

the purple tin

The inspector really shouldn't have told the big guy to throw the small guy off the train.
He's left the big man open to an assault charge.
He's left the train company open to be sued.
He's left himself open to losing his job.

LisaLee

opinion guy wrote: »

. He is on record as saying he hadn't eaten anything all day, and he is on insulin - this puts him at risk of hypoglycaemia.

That was his decision, surely with a condition such as this he knows what he has to do in order to keep in control.

I think we're going a bit off topic here, the diabetes appears to be a smokescreen to try and generate a bit of sympathy for the lad. Fact is, he bought the wrong ticket(s), didn't rectify it, consumed alcohol which led to him verbally abusing a staff member, delaying and inconveniencing other passengers.

If he had taken care of himself, had eaten and not consumed enough alcohol to make him agitated and ratty then the matter could have been dealt with far more civilly. He chose not to, thus he was removed from the train. Perhaps not by the right person, but I don't know if the train conductor could have the physical capacity to remove him from the train unaided. Some could argue that the 'Big Man' was doing a civic duty, just depends where you're standing.

opinion guy

Gophur wrote: »

If that's the case then they should remove themselves from situations where it is likely to be a problem, and not expect the rest of Society to make allowances for them.

If you have a condition that you know causes you to affect others, then you have an obligation to make the necessary arrangements to limit this.

I'm sorry - are you actually saying diabetics should be segregated in society ?

BBDBB wrote: »

ok, can you do me a favour and direct me as to where to look? Clearly I need a steer here as the symptoms Ive found so far dont support what you have said.

Symptoms and Signs

It is important to note that to an untrained person the symptoms of acute DKA, such as breath odor, are very similar to alcohol intoxication, and it is easy to assume that the person is drunk instead of suffering from a diabetic emergency.

• Sluggishness, extreme tiredness.
• Extreme thirst, despite large fluid intake.
• Constant urination
• Fruity smell to breath, similar to nail polish remover.
• Hyperventilation, at first rapid and shallow, then progressively deeper and less rapid.
• Extreme weight loss.
• Oral Thrush and/or persistent vaginal yeast infections may be present; this is because the normal fungal flora present in the oral cavity and cervix is disrupted
• Muscle wasting.
• Agitation / Irritation / Aggression / Confusion

http://kiwix.org:4201/A/Diabetic_ketoacidosis.html

Happy ?

Taltos

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.

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry - are you actually saying diabetics should be segregated in society ?




http://kiwix.org:4201/A/Diabetic_ketoacidosis.html

Happy ?

Ecstatic

did you consider him to be confused? sluggish? hyperventilating? in the video?

opinion guy

BBDBB wrote: »

Ecstatic

did you consider him to be confused? sluggish? hyperventilating? in the video?

Can't really see all that can we. But sluggish. Yes. His answers are slow and quiet and he doesn't really make any effort not to get thrown off

BBDBB

opinion guy wrote: »

Can't really see all that can we. But sluggish. Yes. His answers are slow and quiet and he doesn't really make any effort not to get thrown off

slow? his answers to the conductor were instant and on topic
quiet? cant say I missed too much of what he said, and having worked in Glasgow I understood the accent too.

lol, apart from the struggle he put up to a fella twice his size in going down the aisle and then spinning around and hurling himself back onto the train once he had been thrown off once of course

Ray Palmer

Quite a few people say he was face planted. There is nothing in the video to show that.

opinion guy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Quite a few people say he was face planted. There is nothing in the video to show that.

There's photos of his face
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073929/Big-Man-Alan-Pollock-threw-fare-dodger-Sam-Main-train-defended-father.html

JJayoo

From the video it is clear to see that the "big man" pretty much carried him outside the train, it was only when the idiot tried to force his way back onto the train that he was thrown with force.

--Kaiser--

opinion guy wrote: »

There's photos of his face
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073929/Big-Man-Alan-Pollock-threw-fare-dodger-Sam-Main-train-defended-father.html

Big ****ing deal, could easily be a pimple on his face. Good enough for the moany little scrote

BBDBB

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Quite a few people say he was face planted. There is nothing in the video to show that.

it looks like he caught his cheek when he tried to get back on the train against the door frame as he tried to squeeze past the conductor and the Big Man blocking the door