[Closed] just been assaulted

lol

I can't believe this, I fought in two world wars and gave my life. TWICE! For this tripe?
I gave you the right to defend things, but come on! Defend something a bit more important than a 20p freaking ticket!!!
It's nearly Christmas.

[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2138 [/img]

watching this thread (and the locked one) going full-retard goes very well with a cup of tea 🙂

I have nothing useful to add

You make a very good point. As the trains have to go back and forth anyway, all passengers should just be allowed to get on and off for free.

Let's have a little maths question shall we?

If I try to charge you and 3 of your colleagues £150 each to drive you all from Edinburgh to Glasgow, then your colleagues pay but you run away without paying once we arrive, how much has it cost me?

A) £150
b) the cost of my fuel and time for the whole journey
3) the extra cost incurred by having a little extra weight on the journey
iv) some other made up response unrelated to the question

But this isnt about the economics is it. Questions on marginal cost dont apply.

But this isnt about the economics is it.

What isn't? My my maths question or my response to the valuation of cost to the train companies, the original topic of discussion in this particular thread or something else completely?

CharlieMungus - seriously, mate. Stop digging.

CharlieMungus - seriously, mate. Stop digging.

(iv) it is then. I guessed you'd say that. Thanks for playing.

Its still theft Charlie.
One that one journey it probably doesnt cost much at all, but thats not the point is it. If a train cannot run at a profit then it may not run at all. so late night / early morning services could be cut back. In fact if the service as a whole doesnt bring in the cash, the whole service could be cut back, or withdrawn. See Wrexham and Shropshire railway company shutting up shop earlier this year due to lack of use!

Charlie
D) the next load of passengers would be charged more to make up 'lost' revenue.

Its still theft Charlie.
One that one journey it probably doesnt cost much at all, but thats not the point is it. If a train cannot run at a profit then it may not run at all. so late night / early morning services could be cut back. In fact if the service as a whole doesnt bring in the cash, the whole service could be cut back, or withdrawn. See Wrexham and Shropshire railway company shutting up shop earlier this year due to lack of use!

I don't question that. All I'm questioning is the use of inaccurate valuation by the train operators, who are often overcharging already, to make it seem as though train fare bunkers will have a direct impact on the cost of our fares. Such that we think we have anything financial to gain by stopping them.

D) the next load of passengers would be charged more to make up 'lost' revenue.

The revenue is only lost if the chap in question was ever going to pay.
I'm glad you put 'lost' in inverted commas. You too realise that the revenue is not really lost and that the financial cost is largely imaginary.

Does this mean that once a company starts making profit, I can start unloading them of unnecessary profits?

[IMG] [/IMG]

Charlie I suspect it is actually a combination of (A) with directly "lost" revenue from people not paying for the service they are using; + a fair amount of (iv) for the cost of measures to counter fare avoidance (ticket barriers, CCTV, ticket inspectors, legal costs etc).

I'm sure they'd give you a full breakdown if you asked nicely.

I agree with you. The lost revenue isn't actually a cost.

Cheers

Apparently the transport cops are now investigating.

I dunno. Easiest thing to do would have been to let him stay on the train till the next stop whereupon Auld Bill could have dealt with him (as Edukator said happens in France).

Big Man was silly to take it into his own hands - could have escalated into something far more serious had No Pay been up for the fight.

In the Summer of '89, I travelled all over London and only ever paid when I was asked to or IIRC, you could buy a travelcard from a newsagent that would continue to work for around 3 or 4 days afterwards. Mind you, if I'd been asked to leave the train, I'd have just got up and gone, not refused.

If I could find a way of easily dodging fares now, I would. Hopefully, I'd manage it without bumping into any of the STW Hardman brigade.

If I could find a way of easily dodging fares now, I would

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't.

If I could find a way of easily dodging fares now, I would. Hopefully, I'd manage it without bumping into any of the STW Hardman brigade.

*cracks knuckles*

You're on thin borrowed time ice, sunshine.

And your asking us for your fare home ?

Easy for me to say of course given that I hardly ever have to use the train or bus. And thankfully, there are enough people that will happily cough up the inflated fares to cover the massive loss I'm causing the train company.

EDIT: With the caveat that if the railways were re-nationalised, I'd happily pay.

Let's have a little maths question shall we?

If I try to charge you and 3 of your colleagues £150 each to drive you all from Edinburgh to Glasgow, then your colleagues pay but you run away without paying once we arrive, how much has it cost me?

A) £150
b) the cost of my fuel and time for the whole journey
3) the extra cost incurred by having a little extra weight on the journey
iv) some other made up response unrelated to the question

Really does surprise me the number of people in this country that are happy to steal because it's from a faceless organisation. I used to travel on the manchester->liverpool trains daily and could absolutely guarantee to see about 20-30% non-paying because the ticket control was useless - most stations had no ticket guy, the train conductors often didn't even show their face (especially when crowded) and they opened the gates at lime street and just let people walk on by without checking. I started doing the British thing and writing letters to them telling them they need to up their game as I'm sick of paying price hikes while watching 30% of their revenue walk off down the road. Never did get a reply.

Did you put a stamp on it?

Is there a contract?

Only of mutual understanding.

That's beautiful.

Really does surprise me the number of people in this country that are happy to steal because it's from a faceless organisation

Have you heard of torrents?

If I could find a way of easily dodging fares now, I would.

.....they opened the gates at lime street and just let people walk on by without checking

York station has no platform control at all, no gates to be left open.

just walk in.

Anyone can wander in and get on a train with no ticket.

I also share your lack of moral fibre

too much moral fibre gives me moral diarrhoea

too much moral fibre gives me moral diarrhoea

🙂

.....they opened the gates at lime street and just let people walk on by without checking

York station has no platform control at all, no gates to be left open.
just walk in.
Anyone can wander in and get on a train with no ticket.

That London for three weeks time, I could pay around £10. If I turn up at the station, it'll be around £28-30. Same distance, same destination. It's purely supply and demand driven, not the actual intrinsic cost of that journey.

You didn't have a ticket, the guards eyesight was good enough to see all the other tickets on the train were valid. You caused a lot of delay on the one of the busiest lines in scotland. Got of lightly IMO.

sorry j-cru 🙁 i'm a bad example for my fellow teenagers. i've slapped my face with a kitten 3 times to induce an allergic reaction as a punishment

Their is a story in today Sun with youtube footage of a guy getting thrown of a train in Scotland by a big block for not having a ticket is this the same guy

just watched the video of this on AOLs homepage..

I think the sarcastic guy might have been allowed to stay on the train if he hadn't kept shouting

****in Swinley then ya **** aye

Their is a story in today Sun with youtube footage of a guy getting thrown of a train in Scotland by a big block for not having a ticket is this the same guy

No, it was just that phil was
[img] [/img]

about that story.

[i] guy getting thrown of a train in Scotland by a big block for not having a ticket is this the same guy[/i]

Nah, this one was thrown off by a man.

Didn't see anything particularly wrong with what the big man did in the video. Seemed to me that the ned was being abusive to the old guy who was doing his job. The force used wasn't unreasonable. Can't tell for sure but I doubt there were any injuries.

I saw someone getting kicked out of a pub in pretty much the same way last weekend. Some guy was being abusive to the barmaid (who was the only member of staff there) so a couple of the punters got him out of the pub in pretty much the same way as you see in the video.

in the USA you could have blown his brains out quite legally!! GO USA!!!

i would have just knifed the **** my self!!

Phil, forgot to say, Nice Hat!

Ticket or not, anyone wearing one of those needs to be assaulted immediately. With prejudice...

Do you have to buy a ticket before you board a train now? Or do you still purchase one from the conductor.

In Scotland you can buy one from the conductor

In Scotland you can buy one from the conductor

Im confused now. Its at least 20 years since I caught a train.
I read the first post in the thread
So the guy has not got a return ticket how is this bad? He can buy a return ticket can he not?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fare-dodger-train-tussle-internet-hit-043334186.html

compositepro - Member
Im confused now. Its at least 20 years since I caught a train.
I read the first post in the thread
So the guy has not got a return ticket how is this bad? He can buy a return ticket can he not?

Is Scotland the only place with unmanned stations?

What we don't know is the conversation that went on before the video started. I think we have to assume that he was refusing to buy one, hence repeatedly using the excuse he already had a valid ticket.

He says in the video that he doesn't have any money.

here's a new angle.

because of the media furore about this, big man gets charged with assault and wee man gets a fine. all because a 3rd party put the vid on the internet without big man or wee mans consent.

in future, who is less likely to act as they did?

I once saw a bloke getting a good ticking off and fine for not buying a ticket on the platform In all honesty I never knew you had to buy a ticket on certain platforms before alighting a train.

Either way the guy who's face is now all over t'internet might be facing an assault charge eh? wonder if it had been such a video hit if the yoof had towelled the bloke all over the inside of the carriage.

Big man didnt assault anyone

There's a well founded clause in the law that anyone can use reasonable force in the prevention of crime - laddo was breaking the law by travelling without a fare, big man stopped him, job jobbed.

The big guy wont be getting charged with assault.

Hopefully he'll get a mention in the Queen's New Year Honours.

A wee dick, with no fear of anyone, is inconveniencing everyone else and acting the big man to an old guy.

Then the proper big man steps in. A refreshing sight when most people would avoid getting involved at all costs or wouldn't touch him because it's "assault" (genuine LOL at those that think that btw)

The wee roaster got all he deserved. In fact he probably deserved a slap but that would have been a step too far.

btw there's no such thing as fare dodging up here, at least on Scotrail. You can travel without a pre-purchased ticket. You just have to buy it on the train and you won't get a discounted price. There's no penalty or fine. Buy a ticket or get off.

Oh, and for anyone that said the better option would be for someone to buy the little scroate a ticket to sort everything out, can you Paypal me a fiver each please?

Watched that a couple of times now and it seemed quite reasonable to remove the little shit, who was being highly offensive and aggressive, in the manner it was accomplished.

The other passengers, who unlike us watching the video were actually there and had witnessed the lead-up, all seemed happy with the outcome, which for me is more important than some of the righteous bleaters on here. Maybe they would have rather it was left to the ageing ticket inspector who had to put up with the abuse? Would they still be complaining in that situation if it had been their wives and children who had to listen to it?

Wee guy had already committed the crime by the time big man got involved - he stopped nothing bar it all being properly dealt with (presuming Rozzers were up the road/track)

I'm not convinced it's really assault - there may be (English 😉 ) case-law to support it but would the Police investigate/Fiscal prosecute? - that's a more meaningful test IMO. (IIRC swearing is a Breach of the Peace)

I'd have decked them both of course 😎

I'd have decked them both of course

I'd have done all three of them

Blimey you've made it on to the Jeremy Vine show.

And just been on ITV News too !

Of course its an assualt.

yes you can use reasonable force to prevent a crime - it must be commensurate, proportionate and reasonable - and a non voilent crime means that manhandling him is not reasonable.

Teh crime of not having a ticket and refusing to move is of less gravity thaqt the assult therefore it fails the test.

am i wearing my sexy hat?

[img] [/img]

Reasonable force TJ. The little guy actually had a clenched fist so he would have been justified in giving him a dig but to his credit merely restrained and ejected him..

Its not reasoanble. Where was the threat that meant he had to be manhandled?

Your opinion only. We'll see if there are any proceedings brought against the big guy.

Are you just defending the little turd to show how 'right-on' you are, or do you really believe that ejecting him was wrong?

I would far rather that it was brought to a speedy end in the way that it was than inconvenience the other passengers.

TJ: would you not agree that [i]"whit ye gonnae dae abit it?"[/i] is a pretty standard lead up to a fight and is at least threatening behaviour?

personally i think ejecting him was right, but not the way in which he was ejected. if it was that big of a deal then the police or some kinda scottish transport authority could have met him at the next stop and dealt with the situation using the policies and procedures that had been written after (hopefully) carefully considered risk assessments.

thats pretty much the only sensible thing i want to say on this thread.

[img] [/img]

In his statement on the radio it sounds like the little guy does not intend to press charges.

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

I very much doubt the will be prosecuted for the assault. I do find it interesting how many people think this is justified tho

To lay hands on someone is a big step and to do so in this situation is clearly an assault. It cannot be otherwise. if the big man had not intervened what would have happened? Nothing. Therefore the assault is not justified. You can only commit a crime to prevent a more serious one.

I am quite happy to see him ejected and applaud public spirited citizens - and I have actually done similar including laying on of hands myself - however be under no illusions its an assault to do this. teh police had been called, no one was in any danger. No need to commit the assult

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

Throwing stuff at someone is also assault.

Would that be a justifiable response to someone littering?

TJ: would you not agree that "whit ye gonnae dae abit it?" is a pretty standard lead up to a fight and is at least threatening behaviour?

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

and I have actually done similar including laying on of hands myself - however be under no illusions its an assault to do this

Can't be arsed..................

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

Yes it is. You don't have to wait for someone else to throw the first punch.

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

🙄

Yep. Play the emotive card if you like but if any one of them is travelling without a ticket, is caught but refuses to leave the train or buy a ticket and then starts shouting, swearing and getting aggressive with the conductor then yes, they should be put off the train or the police called.

That actually sounds like posturing and is more of a lead up to no fight,

Well YMMV but in Glasgow that's the point where you start looking for either the door or something heavy.

Teh police had already been called. There was no need to assault the guy - what would have happened if the big guy had not put him off? Nothing.; therefore no justification

Graham - you have to have a genuine fear of assault to lay on hands- and yo still commit an assault if you do so

Guys - dress it up anyway you want but its a clear assault with no defense as no crime was prevented by the assult

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

Great, can you tell that to every bouncer in the country please.

TJ thinks everyone on the train should have been delayed whilst the BTP attended (plus potentially train company would have been fined for causing delays on the line by Network Rail). Others are quite happy little scum was ejected, small minority feel that scum was assaulted and big man should be charged.

Well YMMV but in Glasgow that's the point where you start looking for either the door or something heavy.

TJ -

druidh - Member
Throwing stuff at someone is also assault.

Would that be a justifiable response to someone littering?

bigyinn - Member

TJ thinks everyone on the train should have been delayed whilst the BTP attended

I said that where?

Its an assult - there is no doubt. An assault occurs when you put your hands on someone without their consent.

You can claim a defence that it was justified by the need to prevent a crime. I cannot see that washing in this case as the crime prevented is lessor than the assault.

You cannot go around manhandling people simply because you have been inconvenienced

Teh police had already been called

How do you know? That isn't mentioned in the video.

If that was the case then surely the big man was doing the wee scrote a favour? Better to have a bit of a walk home than a criminal record.

Graham - you have to have a genuine fear of assault to lay on hands- and yo still commit an assault if you do so

It may be [i]technically[/i] "assault" (as is any form of unwanted touching I believe), but it would never be prosecuted and I seriously doubt the CPS would be remotely interested in it. (Although they might be forced to now its made the BBC News).

Druidh - pretty marginal I would say. Was it handed back to them or thrown at them or thrown into the car?

Don't know is the answer. Handed back - no assault, thrown at them - probable assult, thrown into eh car - no assault

Not that its relevant.