'Big Man' tackles fare dodging teenager on train

[muon]

Well the other passenger obviously had no authority to touch the kid. Debate ends there and he is probably screwed.

 

[George Hincapie]

You have absolutely no grounds on which to suggest it was abusive in intent. Absolutely none.

None of the swearing featured in the video is abusive. He only uses the f-word, and it's only used to express dissatisfaction or emphasise his statements, such as "I've showed you my ****ing ticket" and "Aye, I ****ing have [paid]!"

He's not insulting the conductor, he's not calling him names, he's not telling him to "**** off", he's simply lacing entirely reasonable statements with swear words to emphasise them.

Wow.

He was in public. On a train. Possibly with children and families near by. Do you really think swearing in public is OK? There's no need for it. He swore because he was embarrassed at being caught. He should have paid up, but instead he chose to act like a tool.

 

[Robbo]

You have absolutely no grounds on which to suggest it was abusive in intent. Absolutely none.

None of the swearing featured in the video is abusive. He only uses the f-word, and it's only used to express dissatisfaction or emphasise his statements, such as "I've showed you my ****ing ticket" and "Aye, I ****ing have [paid]!"

He's not insulting the conductor, he's not calling him names, he's not telling him to "**** off", he's simply lacing entirely reasonable statements with swear words to emphasise them.

Are you actually being serious here?

 

[muon]

Are you actually being serious here?

Well he has a point. Swearing is just part of communication.

Swearing is independent of being insulting and abusive.

 

[Biohazard]

Agreed.

What if the lad in question had been mentally ill? What if he was disabled? What if he was having a partial complex seizure. There are so many factors unknown that all that i can say for certain about what occured was it was handled totally wrongly by all concerned. The british public should be ashamed

No, he just hadn't paid his way was drunk and abusive. Simples.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

You think he was professional, I don't

I've said he could have done it a bit better but very unprofessional just doesn't relate to the situation he had to deal with.

By inciting the passengers by constantly repeating he was getting paid, the train would stay there and he had got all night.
Hmm, I wonder why big man got involved?

Any reaction from the passangers is a secondary effect from having to perform his duties which he was lawfully allowed to do. Request that he leave to prevent him stealing further service. It's a crime no different to theftv.

No I didn't.
My exact words were -

In fact I never mentioned similar build.

Size, build what's the difference? The exact same implication can be made.

Anyway, off to bed and hopefully the rail people will put new systems in place so lads like the little scrote actually get punished and not let off at a station for nothing.

Is criminalisation the best outcome though, if so why?

 

[Biohazard]

The point is, his explanation is absolutely, completely reasonable. Attempts to characterise the kid as a fare hopper fall flat on their face when you consider that he could produce a single ticket for the journey in the other direction for that very day, and the difference between a single and a return is no more than a couple of quid.

I'm not sure how it works up in Scotland, but surely the single ticket for his outward journey would have been swallowed by the ticket barriers when he got off at Edinburgh Park earlier in the day? If that is the case, the fact he still had a single ticket for that journey further supports his explanation that he was incorrectly sold two singles for the same direction.

Yes, in hindsight the kid could have handled the situation better. He didn't have to resort to swearing to present his case. Then again, his actions were entirely reasonable. If his story was correct, he was being accused of a crime and ordered off a train, causing a great inconvenience to himself, through no fault of his own.

He was not assaulted until he threw himself into the guy.

His explanation is in no way reasonable, even if the ticket was wrong the responsibility is ultimately with him. He had to rectify the error and refused, so it was right and just that he be removed.

He was agitated, sure, and that should be no surprise. According to him, he was desperate to get home. He is diabetic and claims he hadn't eaten all day. He was tired, allegedly half asleep on the train, and obviously not in the right state of mind to be harassed by an unprofessional train conductor and yet still retain his composure.

Absolutely all of that is by the by, however, because someone swearing and acting disorderly does not give you the justification, as a bystander, to violently assault them without any warning.

Are you trying to tell me Scotrail's company policy is to order young customers who have been inconvenienced by a mistake made by the train company off trains late at night, on their own, when the conductor believes they have no money, and then stand by while a member of the public violently assaults that customer?

That's no company I ever want to deal with. As I say, the conductor should be sacked. No questions asked. He patently wasn't doing his job properly and has brought the company into disrepute. Sack.

At what point did he tell the conductor to "**** off" may I ask?

He was drunk and abusive.

Scotrail is a business not a charity. Oh, and watch the vid again.

 

[Biohazard]

Well he has a point. Swearing is just part of communication.

Swearing is independent of being insulting and abusive.

Regardless of what you and Steven Fry think it is still a public order offence irrespective of the views of others.

 

[George Hincapie]

Absolutely all of that is by the by, however, because someone swearing and acting disorderly does not give you the justification, as a bystander, to violently assault them without any warning.

You've lead a sheltered life if you think that amounts to a violent assault.

 

[Biohazard]

Wow.

He was in public. On a train. Possibly with children and families near by. Do you really think swearing in public is OK? There's no need for it. He swore because he was embarrassed at being caught. He should have paid up, but instead he chose to act like a tool.

It clearly isn't acceptable, that is why it is against the law to swear at people like that.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[George Hincapie]

Regardless of what you and Steven Fry think it is still a public order offence irrespective of the views of others.

I can't even believe people are debating this. How stupid are the 'Pro Scrote' GD members? Swearing in public is unacceptable. It's also a Public Order offence.

Stop arguing about it and accept you're wrong.

Jesus.

 

[Biohazard]

You've lead a sheltered life if you think that amounts to a violent assault.

Quite. If anything you could argue a convoluted self defence argument.. ultimately the guard had authority to remove him in person himself. He quite clearly wasn't up to that, the other guy did remove him on his explicit instruction and to that gentleman in that scenario he was justified in his actions even if the guard wasn't. It is nothing but theft regardless of any contention about the validity of his ticket. He was trying to board again when he had no valid reason too, eye witness say they threw his bag as well, and he ran at the big guy to get back on. He had no right too be on that train or charge the legal passanger, so he was decked.

Tough ****.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[StriderX]

Even though i find swear words somewhat annoying to hear, its just my view of it, more often than not, offence is derived purely from the "victim's" ego.

Of course offence can be given from the "verbal attacker", but even then its up to the "victim" to be offended by it.

It might seem difficult to grasp or overly complicated, but its quite simple really, society would be a lot better if people didn't get so offended by things that are frankly their own problem.

 

[Biohazard]

I can't even believe people are debating this. How stupid are the 'Pro Scrote' GD members? Swearing in public is unacceptable. It's also a Public Order offence.

Stop arguing about it and accept you're wrong.

Jesus.

Quite. What more can I say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[Biohazard]

Even though i find swear words somewhat annoying to hear, its just my view of it, more often than not, offence is derived purely from the "victim's" ego.

Of course offence can be given from the "verbal attacker", but even then its up to the "victim" to be offended by it.

Legally, it isn't actually.

Taking your argument as was intended, it still isn't right in public transport like that.

It might seem difficult to grasp or overly complicated, but its quite simple really, society would be a lot better if people didn't get so offended by things that are frankly their own problem.

Possibly, but then it would be a lot worse if people could verbally abuse people without any risk of legal redress so I have to wonder exactly what we would end up with.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..