Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#1
Did anyone see that train item on TV very recently..in the past few days...where the teenager didnt have a ticket and the guard asked him to get off the train.
He wouldnt get off so the guard refused to move the train forward until the teenager got off. The teenager still refused to move and everyone sat there for what seemed like an age.. Eventually a big guy quietly got up, lifted the teenager out of his seat and put him out on the platform...thereby saving everyone a lot of trouble. If this train was held up then so were the trains behind it. Result : Chaos...but all saved by the big guy now known as Big Man. The video of it has gone 'viral' on U-Tube I beleive.
But, although this guy saved a section of the commuter network from chaos, and anyone who used to do commuting in London will know what I mean...this chap has today been charged with assault by the Police for manhandling the teenager off the train.
There you have it...bizarre. They penalise the victims. Nowadays it pays to do nothing at all by the looks of it. Everyone could have sat there for hours etc.
Im not very good at doing the links, if someone can add a link to the U Tube video Im sure the forumites will find it interesting.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
This is it...
[URL][/URL]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#3
I have heard the kerfuffle and taken part in the odd discussion on this topic over the last week or so.
So, I shall have to begin here at the end.
The fault here lies almost entirely with the train operating company. The actions, or more correctly inactions, of their employee brought this sorry incident to where it is now.
The 'Big Man', did enquire of the Guard if he could assist and was granted leave to do so. Mr. Pollock (the big man) is in some small difficulty in that his actions may not be viewed as reasonable in the circumstances, for the young man could have been escorted off the train without being thrown at the platform, or struck. (as may be the case)
The automatically condemned fraudster had been to Edinburgh to sit an exam, he claimed and claims to have bought a return. I have looked into this and found that a day return costs all of £2 or so over and above the cost of a single.
It CANNOT be right that the way to deal with this problem was to abandon all corporate responsibility and throw it open to the other passengers to deal with.
I have heard that the correct way to deal with this situation was for the train to continue on it's way and for the Guard to phone ahead and for the Transport Police to be at the next station.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
#4
Who would have been smiling if the Transport police did not attend at the next station.
May be it will teach the little bugger not to be an A hole in the future.
Why do idiots get treated with kid gloves these days.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#5
Ian,
Point:-
1-So what?
2-The young lad did swear, but he neither pointed his words or his ire or frustration/indignation AT the guard.
3-the idiots here are the train operating company and their agent, the guard. IMO
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
couldn't get much of what was said and the pictures were not clear enough to show the full incident.
1) the guard made things worse with his belligerent attitude.
2) "big man " did ask permission before escorting the fraudster off.
3) i don't think he hit the miscreant just used his strength to oust him from the train.
4) the fellow passengers were apparently happy with things.
5) if i had been one of the passengers i would have thanked the "big man".
6) sledgehammer to crack a peanut in my opinion to arrest "big man"
anyone who had to spend years commuting to and from work would aplaud anyone that makes their journey easier as paul points out in the opening thread.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
We are well on the way to explaining quite how Hitler rose to prominence...he obviously got things done.
Howard:-
3 & 4. There was one lady who said something to the effect, "there is no need for that" just as the lad was ejected.
If only the company had accepted full responsibility for the whole debacle. No doubt the Advocates representing both student and banker will strive to unravel this mess and see justice done.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#8
The big man (fat rather than big) is a thug. Probably picked up his technique on the terraces at some old firm game or two.
All the inept ticket inspector had to do was to contact the transport police ahead and tell them of the situation but this violent vigilante attack is disgraceful. I can imagine him telling his mates that night in the pub how he man-handled a stropy nine stoner but then felt awfully foolish when charged by the police. Serves him right.
Stormtrooper material.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#9
Wasn't there a massive tirade of abuse from the guy before the video started ?
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#10
A catalogue of errors, the young man had the wrong ticket and in trying to explain used a torrent of bad language, the guard failed to establish the young man had in fact made the wrong ticket purchase rather than no ticket, when he took the stance that he had to leave the train he should have asked for BTP to attend to take any necessary action at the scene or at the destination. The Big Man while being public spirited or fed up with being delayed should not have laid hands on the young man culminating in pushing him to the ground causing facial injuries. No winners in the whole sorry affair.
Audere est facere.
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
#11
As I understand it the guard has no power to eject anyone from a train. If there is a question as to the validity of a ticket all he can do is to ask for the name and address of the person. If any altercation occurs then he must call upon BTP. Any member of the public who intervenes do so at their own risk.
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#12
I agree with Howard #6
The lady who said "there was no need for that" spoke after the lad was ejected and when the lad was trying to get back on. That comment could have referred to anything and might have had nothing to do with the incident.
Yes Paul the altercation and abuse had been going on for a while that was why the man started filming.
I hope the passenger gets away with it if it ever reaches court although I guess Tom will disagree with the last sentence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#13
This was on the TV the day after it happened with the (young) guy who took the video on his phone saying the young person without a valid ticket, was very very abusive for quite sometime and was exasperating (an understatement I'm sure) everyone one.
He also said he thought the yob was totally in the wrong.
Why should people have to meekly accept a tirade of abuse because some young ignorant loud-mouthed yob thinks it's O.K to do so? The other passengers had all paid for their tickets; they all wanted to get home, but were stopped from doing so because of this nasty piece of work - until "big-man" steps in and puts him off the train.
It is absurd to arrest the big-man; they should have thrown the book at this loud-mouthed yob; the message the Police are putting out, is that it is O.K not to buy a ticket; that it is O.K. to cause a disturbance - a public nuisance (I thought that used to be an offence ?); that you can do what the hell you like and the people who will get arrested are those trying to stop you from doing these bad things.
Being an AH is O.K.
Great message, no wonder people do as they like - they'll get away with it.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
I'm sure the trivial matter would have been dealt with in a Christian manner by Saint Kentigern.
Pacify rather than use violence!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#15
Some of these yobs can't be pacified Alexander. Turning the other cheek doesn't work nowadays, it just makes them worse.
Zero tolerance is what we should have on this type of yobbish behaviour; foul language, public nuisance, refusing to buy a ticket, holding up a train; how bad does he (and many others who enage in this kind of activitiy) have to behave before anyone/someone says "enough is enough" ?
Roger
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#16
It appears to me that the general gripe, the bigger picture, is the complaint that it is wrong/incorrect/bad form for any individual to set themselves and their desires above those of other people.
In my opinion the colouring of the character of this young man, on the skimpiest of evidence and the twisting of the rights and wrongs of the matter in hand to suit a personal prejudice falls squarely within the parameters of such a wrong as I lay out above.
Therefore, friend Roger. I consider you to be as wrong as this young man may be, indeed either man.
These things point-up the very crux of the social problems we have in the UK at present. All too often the merits of a case are drowned out by and superseded by the volume and timbre of the voice, the appeals to the baser human instincts, the cranking-up of emotion rather than any calm consideration of truth.
Roger, you (though not alone) are very much part of the problem rather than any part of a true solution with what you say here.
So, let's here it for Saint Kentigern. [I will have to look him up]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#17
I don't accepet any of what you say Tom - if you are right then the lunatics are indeed running the asylum and society itself will have no standards whatsoever.
Roger
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#18
This is just to say that I have read all up to this point and I am content, nay happy, in a true sense of amity, to heartily agree to disagree where appropriate.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#19
Roger..
Tom..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#20
My own view is that we should not have to tolerate discourtesy in public - or in private. However, I think Tom makes a valid point that is being skimmed over. we have laws and protocols that are intended to protect the public, and also to protect the people who protect the public. The legal system has to be independent and not governed by public opinion. If we simply join in condemnation of a guy based on hearsay and an abbreviated mobile-phone-movie we short change not only the guys concerned but also ourselves by undermining the very basic tenets of our legal system. It is easy to have opinions, less easy to ensure that the law is independent and does the job for which it is intended.
