Forum menu
The ticket inspector would probably be justified in using force to remove the fare dodger. As such, no charge is likely to be forthcoming.
The Big Man....sadly, although he was performing a public service in removing the oik, was, [b]in my opinion[/b], acting outside the law. He had no justication for being involved, nor was he acting to prevent an assault or battery on the ticket inspector. The mitigation would be that he was assisting a public official, and that the injuries to oik's face are caused by his resisting his ejection. As such, they need not have happened. I reckon that Big Man will be questioned, cautioned, no further action taken.
This is my legal opinion as an accountant, so it's as valid as a three-pound note.
"Assault" seems to be claimed nowadays even if you just touch somebody.
You've never needed to touch someone to assault them.
An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.
in your logic every copper removing a protester ar the gypsys site should therefore be up for assault, every copper remiving a demonstrator in london up for assault, the kid was manhandled but not assaulted
Police and court officers have special powers to use force as part of their duties. The general public do not.
[s]the force used must be reasonable commensurate and proportionate.[/s]i'm a nurse and don't really know what i'm talking about, but if i keep repeating myself people will think i'm right is the critical thing
[url=
then what are you doing here? sorry but admitting to a lack of knowledge is simply not good enough. you have your opinions, state them as fact and be done with it. if any questions you, just post some numbers or invent a quote or two.
Sorry.
I'll try again -
The force was reasonable, commensurate and proportionate. FACT
Better? 🙂
Nickf, that's a reasonable enterpretation, but could big mans 'justification for getting involved' be that he clearly asked the conductor if he would like the oil removed, and that the conductor said yes? I would err on the side of yes, personally.
the bouncer dosent have the right to manhandle me and push me out the door as that would be assault as you have stated.
in fact they have the same rights as the big man in the video
and my being drunk and abusive and swearing is not a crime so by your logic we may see a string of assault charges being brought,
or maybe youre wrong on this one and nothing will happen.
Sancho - can you read?
the bouncer has the right to remove you from the premises using minimum force. its not a comparable situation.
there is also a right ( and duty) under common law to use force to prevent a crime. this force must be commensurate with the crime committed, it must be proportionate to the risk of harm if the crime is not stopped and it must be reasonable.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-force-against-someone-committing-a-crime.html
Fair dodging is a cost the train company should choose to absorb, or they should implement better systems to deal with it. Stopping the train and inconveniencing the 99% who HAVE paid their fare is the wrong way to go about it, but of course Scotrail will see it as the right way as it costs them the least money... 🙄
There'd definitely be no legal justification if the guard had touched him. What will happen now in the internal investigation is that the guard will have submitted a written report, the CCTV of the train will be examined, the kid will be contacted and asked for evidence of what tickets he bought for his journey. The ticket(s) can be traced back to where they were sold, if it was a booking office (which it must have been from what the kid says - you can't buy single tickets from elsewhere to Town A from a ticket machine in Town A) then the booking office staff will be asked what they remember.
If the train company decide to press charges he'll end up with a fine of several hundred quid minimum (based on the entertaining accounts of selected prosecuations that appear in our company newsletter) and a criminal record for his fare evasion and abusive language.
'Public servants' rather than public officials if you don't mind...
Oh and stopping the train even for five minutes would have cost Scotrail far more than the alleged fare owed, the amount per minute differs but can range from a few quid per minute to £££. Google 'delay attribution'.
some good simple guidance here
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_50_non_fatal/04_assaults_defence_use_force.htm
Nice link TJ, doesn't reeeally prove that you are right though, eh?
that would be yes then...was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all?
yes again, bearing in mind that;and
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).
Cheers!
which one, verbal abuse? fare dodging? breach of peace?
The first and third questions are the same. Both crimes had already been committed. Could you explain how the fireman was helping to prevent a crime?
because the video clearly shows he was getting off the train of his own free will?
Non sequitur. You'll ned to explain why he needed to be thrown off the train.
joeegg - Member"Assault" seems to be claimed nowadays even if you just touch somebody.
The lad provoked this and could have have walked away when he was ejected from the train.But no ! He wouldn't leave it alone and got pushed over .So what.Happens every Saturday night in town centres.
If you're prepared to be foul mouthed and abusive then someone at some point will shut you up.
Pretty sums up my thinking. Far too much hand wringing about the lads rights and not enough about everybody elses on the train who had to put up with the consequencies of his actions.
I can TJ, but I dont think youre taking in what is being said.
you are sticking to your belief which is fine, but I feel you will be proved wrong that an assault was committed.
Also a bouncer does not have any rights different to the big man.
both civilians no legal difference.
if this is assault then a bouncer removing someone from a club is assault purely because they manhandled them in your logic.
"was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all?"that would be yes then...
Errmmm- why was there a need for force? what would have happened if the big man did not use force?
Personally whislt I don't condone violence I do wholeheartedly support common sense. Frankly from what I've seen and heard ejecting the scrote from the train was common sense, and frankly if a bit more common sense were to be applied a bit more frequently without endless droning afterwards about rights we'd probably all rest a little easier in our beds.
No sancho. its you that is not taking it in.
The situation is different [b]because the bouncer is removing you from private premises.[/b]
Seems to me from accounts so far that the conductor who held up the train in some bizarre form of collective punishment and the (according to my paper)investment banker who threw the university student off the train have both acted way more improperly and disproportionately compared to what it is claimed the kid did.
So its actually a case of burly investment banker (probably used to pushing people around) bullies young kid..I'd be anticipating a successful assault prosecution on this one.
Berm Bandit - MemberPersonally whislt I don't condone violence I do wholeheartedly support common sense. Frankly from what I've seen and heard ejecting the scrote from the train was common sense, and frankly if a bit more common sense were to be applied a bit more frequently without endless droning afterwards about rights we'd probably all rest a little easier in our beds.
Amen
HAHAHA!
retro83 - Memberkaesae - Member
HAHAHA! HEEHEEHEE!! HOHOHO!!!
I'm sure there will be a lot of mixed feelings and opinions on this matter/incident.
However the bigman did not check the ticket for himself or even attempt to understand what was going on, he looked over checked the size of the guy and then intervened.
Had it been necessary to call the police and had the smaller man/youth tried to leave the scene, then intervention would have been acceptable.
However to act like that, without even varifying the information on the ticket or trying to gain a better understanding of the situation before choosing a course of action, is illogical as well as irrisponsible and can only be applauded by fools.
THERE WILL BE NO SHORTAGE OF APPLAUSE!!!
It is necessary that we come to understand situations before we choose our courses of action, if your parents or culture has not taught you to respect that simple obvious fact, then they have failed to teach you something of great value and importance in life!
I would have to at this point wonder, what else they have failed to teach you
Posted 14 seconds ago # Report-PostI think it's a fair assumption by 'big man' that the ticket inspector knows how to do his job, no?
I'm gonig to go with NO, D'OH!
Simply because he just gave authorisation for a complete stranger to have control over the situation 😯
Not only is he responsible for everything the bigman does after that point, he has also escalated the situation and lost all the control that he had.
Genius!!!
Q. Was fair dodger being a prick?
A. Yes
Q. Should he have been thrown off train?
A. Yes.
Only problem I can see is that the train wasn't moving.
Gawn the Big Man!
removing him was fine IMHO the throwing him to the floor twice was the assault bit.
Could you explain how the fireman was helping to prevent a crime?
Can someone explain who "the fireman" is please ?
Is there some new chapter to this that I haven't seen .......
the carriage is arguably a private premise too. not a public space.
yes its a public space but its owned by a private company so a bit grey on that one.
assault in private premises is no different to assault in the street TJ
Sancho - the bouncer has an absolute right to remove you from the premises using the minimum force required, the big man does not have. its not a comparable situation.
Errmmm- why was there a need for force? what would have happened if the big man did not use force?
Well as it has to be based on the facts as believed by big man at the time, we can only surmise, but he could say that it was to prevent an escalation to violence, or that it was to prevent the crime of fare dodging continuing. He could also say he was assisting the agent of the owner of the property in the eviction of an unwanted person from private property, like a bouncer, as trains are owned by someone, you have to pay to get on them, so are not just a public space. In my opinion...
Trains are called public transport. Probably for a reason.
But I still think the little gobshite should have been thrown off sooner.
ski - MemberBerm Bandit - Member
Personally whislt I don't condone violence I do wholeheartedly support common sense. Frankly from what I've seen and heard ejecting the scrote from the train was common sense, and frankly if a bit more common sense were to be applied a bit more frequently without endless droning afterwards about rights we'd probably all rest a little easier in our beds.
Amen
Those who act without due caution or accurate knowledge gained from understanding, should be at all costs detered from taking any action, for they do not posses the capacity to choose the correct course of action to persue!
If the facts are irrelevant, then the issues are ignorance and stupidity!!!
TJ they (bouncers) dont have any rights other than that of you or I.
so again if this is assault then bouncers removing people from a club is assault and thats where I feel your argument falls down.
If I sit down at the end of the night in a club and refuse to move because I didnt pay my ticket to get in and the bouncer manhandles me out the club then that's assault according to you.
Trains are called public transport. Probably for a reason.
Yep, that reason is that they transport the public, is it not?
A black cab is public transport too, does that mean that it's a public place? Or is it private property that you pay to make use of?
Those who act without due caution or accurate knowledge gained from understanding, should be at all costs detered from taking any action, for they do not posses the capacity to choose the correct course of action to persue!If the facts are irrelevant, then the issues are ignorance and stupidity!!!
I think you might want to aim that at the fare dodging scrote....
Trains are called public transport. Probably for a reason.
Yeah... and public schools they're the same...
I thought the term bouncer had been made redundant as it implies that a level of violence goes with the job . Doorman is , I believe the more modern term .
TJ, do you realise that you keep quoting/linking to English legislation while arguing about an incident that occurred in Scotland?
TJ - by your logic everyone on that train had a duty to use reasonable force to prevent him from continuing to commit breach of the peace.
The people who say the conductor completely failed to manage the situation correctly before the bigman got involved, can they clarify what they believe his correct course of action should have been?
If I sit down at the end of the night in a club and refuse to move because I didnt pay my ticket to get in and the bouncer manhandles me out the club then that's assault according to you.
Can you read? How about actually reading what I post
I have told you several times - its a private place the bouncers have the right to remove anyone using the minimum force required. Same s a person has the right to remove somone from their house using the minimum force required.
ScottChegg - Member
Trains are called public transport. Probably for a reason.
Trains and stations are leased and run by private companies from private companies (with notable exceptions).
TJ just to help everyone out here, what legal training have you had? and what personal experience (watching the bill, doesn't count) do you have of the legal process?
As you sorta sound like you are quoting 'TJ's Law' again, and not the UK/real world definition of 'The Law'.
The people who say the conductor completely failed to manage the situation correctly before the bigman got involved, can they clarify what they believe his correct course of action should have been?
I've seen this at first hand (gobby kid refusing to buy ticket. The conductor gave him three options:
1. Buy a ticket and continue with his journey.
2. Get off the train.
3. Have a chat with BTP at the next station.
Who is "the fireman"
Serious question. I'm confused ?
The people who say the conductor completely failed to manage the situation correctly before the bigman got involved, can they clarify what they believe his correct course of action should have been?
There's no 'good' answer for that. If Scotrail had manned ticket gates at each station then it would have been much easier for him just to continue with the journey and let them deal with it, this way all the other (paying) customers on the train aren't held up, or required to physically remove the guy from the train.
Stopping the train, then claiming that 'he could wait, he was getting paid' was entirely the wrong way to do it. Why should all the other customers lose out because Scotrail don't have an efficient mechanism to stop fare dodgers?
Those who act without due caution or accurate knowledge gained from understanding, should be at all costs detered from taking any action, for they do not posses the capacity to choose the correct course of action to persue!If the facts are irrelevant, then the issues are ignorance and stupidity!!!
Not irrelevant, just commen sence 😉
I have done honours degree modules in some aspects of law including assault and similar bits of law. I have worked alongside the police as they used restraint and I have also been trained in legal use of restraint. so yes - I have both some theoretical and some practical knowledge of this bit of law. I understand justifiable use of force and the constraints around the use of force in prevention of a crime.
Its also all freely available on the net to read and its not rocket scinece
🙂