BlaserF3 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Yes, he will be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Ok... Last post on this.. If I knew how to set up a poll I would but... If this guy is charged and it goes to court will a court find him guilty of assault.... Yes or no Yes or no answers please He might be legally in the wrong, but morally did he do the right thing? Nial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I think a court will find him guilty. The action was not proportionate to the "threat". There was no threat. The guy who filmed it said that it had been going on for 10 minutes before he started filming, the ticket inspector had stopped the train in the meanwhile, and said loudly that the train would stay where it was until the matter was resolved. In my opinion the situation was inflamed by the inspectors actions, and "Big Man" was acting not because of any sense of public duty but because he didn't want his trip delayed. Any applause from the crowd was because their journey could continue apart from the woman who said "no need for that". People will often trample over fairness if it means a small gain for them, this is just one example. It's why we have courts, so that the ignorant knee-jerk masses don't hang everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Yes, he will be done. and wont the appeasers be glad, talk about a flight over a cuckoo's nest. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Yes he will be found guilty of assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 The lad wont press charges, and we will never hear of it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royboy Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Good on him. More of this needs to be done nowadays. I may sound old but A lot of the youth really **** me off these days. Not all but a lot, They spoil it for the rest of the good lads/girls. Rant over ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 and wont the appeasers be glad, talk about a flight over a cuckoo's nest. KW Yes, he will be done. Kdubya, no one is talking about appeasing. Just that the law is followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) The guy who filmed it said that it had been going on for 10 minutes before he started filming, the ticket inspector had stopped the train in the meanwhile, and said loudly that the train would stay where it was until the matter was resolved. In my opinion the situation was inflamed by the inspectors actions, Inflamed in what way,you have no idea what went on in those tem minutes.The young without a ticket may have been abusive from the very start,where a simple explanation would likely have been accepted without what can be seen in the vid.I know the guard involved and he's a quiet mild mannered guy not a kick in the **** off retirement who has dealt with hundreds of these situations without any of this going on.So who is likely to be at fault here. As for those who said the police should have dealt with it,the civvy police have no interest in fare dodging esp on a friday night when they've got plenty other numpties to deal with.The BTP are too thinly spread and aren't seen out of the major stations.So i'm afraid if he's only going a couple of stops the threat of the polis ain't gonna worry him. Edited December 15, 2011 by mr smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Inflamed in what way,you have no idea what went on in those tem minutes.The young without a ticket may have been abusive from the very start,where a simple explanation would likely have been accepted without what can be seen in the vid.I know the guard involved and he's a quiet mild mannered guy not a kick in the **** off retirement who has dealt with hundreds of these situations without any of this going on.So who is likely to be at fault here. As for those who said the police should have dealt with it,the civvy police have no interest in fare dodging esp on a friday night when they've got plenty other numpties to deal with.The BTP are too thinly spread and aren't seen out of the major stations.So i'm afraid if he's only going a couple of stops the threat of the polis ain't gonna worry him. Inflamed in what way ? How about inflamed in the way that instead of the kid being questioned when he tried to leave the station he was injured by being thrown off the train by a member of the public. How about inflamed as in a potential £10 fine inflamed to a potential assault charge against a passenger trying to get home ? How about inflamed if it had kicked off into a fight and one of those passengers had been injured ? You know as well as I that if you try to play the passengers against one fare-dodger ( if he actually was ) by threatening to delay their travel then they will act in their own interests and fairness will go out the window. It's a dangerous game he shouldn't have played, it might bite him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 I reckon the big bloke would get not guilty. 1. he had authority to eject the fare dodger from the inspector 2. his actions weren't disproportionate and were in prevention of a breach of the peace. Indeed, he was a big bloke and could have lumped the dodger - he didn't and despite all the f-ing and blinding, I thought the big bloke showed enormous restraint - no digs, no slaps, no punches - just dumped off the train, and again when the dodger tried to get back on. The fare dodger was f-ing and blinding like mad - I'm not sure what version of the film everyone has seen, but the one aired on the BBC was edited to cut that out. Indeed, it was also edited to cut out showing all the other passengers giving the bloke a round of applause. Typical left wing BBC. If you look at the full footage, you will see the level of foul language and how close some kids @ 6 or 7 years of age are sitting. Besides, if it did go to Court, then the guy should go trial by Jury - if the contents of that train are a cross section of the community to go by, then he will get not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr W Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 I hope he doesn't get done and I'm sure plenty of people will contribute to his fine and costs if need be. It would have better if 2 people had pickeed him up and carried him off the train and then barred his return not but only 'big man' got involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Mungler - a man in your profession is not a man to argue with, but I can't resist a challenge. The second time he threw him off the train is way over the top. He flung him to the floor, showing none of the enormous "restraint" :lol: you mention. He is bang to rights. You have a point about electing for trial by jury. Acquittal rate ran at about 50% at one time, so he has an even money chance. I honestly believe it would depend on the constitution of the jury. If they were older - they might reflect the feelings shown on this forum - that the youth of today need to be taught some respect. :) If he gets a younger jury, he will struggle - assuming it gets that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Inflamed in what way ? How about inflamed in the way that instead of the kid being questioned when he tried to leave the station he was injured by being thrown off the train by a member of the public. A bit baffled by this,the 19 year kid wasn't leaving anything that was the problem.This situation had gone on for about 5 to 10 mins before the filming even started,so he wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere. How about inflamed as in a potential £10 fine inflamed to a potential assault charge against a passenger trying to get home ? How about inflamed if it had kicked off into a fight and one of those passengers had been injured ? There is no fine on scotrail,it's pay or get aff. You know as well as I that if you try to play the passengers against one fare-dodger ( if he actually was ) by threatening to delay their travel then they will act in their own interests and fairness will go out the window. It's a dangerous game he shouldn't have played, it might bite him. I believe he was trying to shame the 19 year old kid into getting the train,unfortunately it would appear he has no shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 1. he had authority to eject the fare dodger from the inspector The guard has no authority to en-list passengers help in removing anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 The guard has no authority to en-list passengers help in removing anyone. If the chap had no ticket and no permission of the rail operator to be on the train then he is probably a trespasser. If the guard has the authority of the rail company to request trespassers to leave railway property then query whether the guard has the ability or authority to request a third party to assist in the removal - isn't that what happens when the police or bailiffs are called. Interesting, if I was the big chap and being prosecuted, it would be one of the strings to my defence that I was given permission by an authorised representative of the rail company. Excessive force or not is a different question. After being ejected from the train, an attempt to effect re-entry is both daft and maybe construed as an aggressive or provocative act. No punches and no kicks - he was put out of the train, from my view calmly and with restraint. Behind all of this the dodger was of course asked to leave by both the ticket inspector and the chap. Common sense says no chance of a conviction by jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 If the chap had no ticket and no permission of the rail operator to be on the train then he is probably a trespasser. If the guard has the authority of the rail company to request trespassers to leave railway property then query whether the guard has the ability or authority to request a third party to assist in the removal - isn't that what happens when the police or bailiffs are called. Interesting, if I was the big chap and being prosecuted, it would be one of the strings to my defence that I was given permission by an authorised representative of the rail company. Excessive force or not is a different question. After being ejected from the train, an attempt to effect re-entry is both daft and maybe construed as an aggressive or provocative act. No punches and no kicks - he was put out of the train, from my view calmly and with restraint. Behind all of this the dodger was of course asked to leave by both the ticket inspector and the chap. Common sense says no chance of a conviction by jury. Guards are frightened to even nudge people to wake them up for their stop for fear of an assault claim.There is a world of difference of the powers of a simple employee and a copper with full powers of arrest.Though i don't think i need to tell you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrycatcat1 Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Not bothered reading this thread but: 1. Fare dodger was f-ing and blinding and there was a family less than 10' away. In my mind he should have been nicked for that alone, end of but in this new crazy world we don't seem to worry about that sort of behaviour any more 2. Fare dodger didn't have ticket. Again in my book he should have been nicked for that, end of but again in this new crazy world stealing a free ride on a train isn't seen as criminal activity any more 3. Fare dodger ignored a ticket inspector's instruction to leave the train. Again, in this crazy new world no one thinks anyone can be "told" to do anything anymore. Fare dodger got dealt with and I couldn't give a **** if he got hurt. 100% matches my opinion but more eloquently put Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Mungler - I think you are "'avin' a larf about the restraint. :lol: Only time will tell. Personally, I would find to easier to prosecute than defend. That said - the youth is a disgrace - nothing less - and I don't believe his story about the tickets. His early tweets suggest he was fare dodging and boasting about it. Edited December 16, 2011 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 A bit baffled by this,the 19 year kid wasn't leaving anything that was the problem.This situation had gone on for about 5 to 10 mins before the filming even started,so he wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere. I meant that he would be stopped and questioned as he left the station at his destination, not that he was leaving the train. The ticket stated where he had come from. He maintained, possibly falsely but we don't know, that he had been sold two single tickets as a cheaper option and had given up the wrong one. If that was the case, would you leave the train ? Would you get angry with an inspector badgering you for 10 minutes and refusing to let the train move ? He might have been telling a pack of lies, or he might not, it wasn't investigated before another passenger became so infuriated that he decided to help things along himself. Was he infuriated about the swearing in front of children ? Or because his journey was going to be delayed as the inspector argued with the lad ? We don't know that either. I'll wager that if the inspector had started the train and phoned ahead to the destination station the swearing would have stopped and the assault wouldn't have happened. What we do know is that the lad was physically removed from the train by a bystander and injured in the process. At the end of the video you can see another bystander put himself between "big man" and the lad, and you can see the inspector standing on the platform facing "big man" and appearing to appeal to him to stop. He has his back to the lad so obviously doesn't think him the threat. I'd guess it wouldn't look good for the big fella in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagsy Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Eject anyone who doesn't want to be removed and it will always look ugly - there's no way of dressing it up and making it look nice and more often than not people will think the person/s doing the ejecting are the aggressors. It is assault without doubt, the lad was moved against his will, but the question a jury would have to decide if it came to it is whether the assault was legal and proportionate. My money would be on him being found not guilty. The lad had become a trespasser and in my view was lawfully removed using minimal force. But juries are funny things, you just never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 I meant that he would be stopped and questioned as he left the station at his destination, By whom,i've already stated that the civvy police ain't interested esp on a friday night,they've got enough to do.The BTP do not have a presence in every station.Funnily enough the only way to get the civvy police interested is for an alleged assault even then your often expected to carry on several stops till you can get somewhere a police presence. The ticket stated where he had come from. He maintained, possibly falsely but we don't know, that he had been sold two single tickets as a cheaper option and had given up the wrong one. If that was the case, would you leave the train ? Would you get angry with an inspector badgering you for 10 minutes and refusing to let the train move ? he might have been telling a pack of lies, or he might not, it wasn't investigated before another passenger became so infuriated that he decided to help things along himself. If he had been sold two identical tickets why didn't he keep them to show the guard to back up his story which i would be accepted by 99.999999 of guards as there always the odd jobsworth.However i know this guy and have worked with him many times over the years and he isn't one of them. What was this guys attitude for the start,gobby,abusive did he make an attempt to explain?I don't know and neither do you but there must have been some reason for the guard to take the stance he did in this case. Was he infuriated about the swearing in front of children ? Or because his journey was going to be delayed as the inspector argued with the lad ? We don't know that either. Agreed I'll wager that if the inspector had started the train and phoned ahead to the destination station the swearing would have stopped and the assault wouldn't have happened. May well have but the phone would have been wasted and the alleged dodger would have been away free and easy. At the end of the video you can see another bystander put himself between "big man" and the lad That looked like another employee likely on his way home. and you can see the inspector standing on the platform facing "big man" and appearing to appeal to him to stop. He has his back to the lad so obviously doesn't think him the threat. He doesn't see either as a threat to him just trying to regain some order. I'd guess it wouldn't look good for the big fella in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 A bully is someone who picks on an innocent victim. This lad was far from innocent as he hadn't paid for a ticket and wasn't going to get off when spotted. I would call that tough justice - fair play to the guy for doing it. What he did could be the simple answer to so many issues. Personally I feel that it's about time the world grew some balls and stopped fussing about the rights and feelings of people who don't play a useful law abiding role in society! What if he didn't have any money? Well go to a phone box, reverse the charges and call someone who gives a **** because I certainly don't! What he said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) What if he didn't have any money? Well go to a phone box, reverse the charges and call someone who gives a **** because I certainly don't! What he said! I believe he was quoted in the newpapers that he had to spend £20 on a taxi to get home.He also claimed he was never given the option to buy another ticket,i'm sorry but i just don't believe that.The guard has been doing this job for more years than he probably cares to remember and knows the process how to deal with ticketless customer. Edited December 16, 2011 by mr smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 It's the level of swearing. You start f-ing and blinding and you automatically lose whatever argument you are trying to run. Look at the full clip - would you like someone f-ing and blinding in front of your little ones? Like I said, it looks like a restrained use of force. Have some regard to what would have happened if the big fella had actually gone for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.