Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

12357…14

Comments

  • #122
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    Biggins wrote: »
    As with hospitals and other public areas, even bars etc, if you eventually become a public nuisance (by continuous aggressiveness, possibly indicating at times, worse is to come) and are further deemed to be troublesome, something that might lead to a breach of the peace and/or risk to people/property, you can be asked to leave ANY property under the law that a business or organisation has an equal "Legal Duty Of Care" towards others that are in the area at the time.

    The original problem here is one of an incorrect ticket. Someone is entitled to argue their point in relation to what they believe is the correct position that they are standing in. There is nothing illegal in having a point of view and standing by it, in fact it's to be commended. Before there was any "public order" incident here, the kid was ordered off the train. I don't believe that this is company policy, and the reason I don't believe that it is company policy, is because I don't believe it is company policy in a modern democracy in the developed world, to throw any person off a public transport vehicle over a ticket issue, and this as I have already pointed out, could involve a vunerable elderly pensioner being kicked off the train and left stranded somewhere miles from their home. Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.

    So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.

    That didn't happen here because the rail official departed from the policy and instead tried to bully the kid off the train, contrary to what I would believe is company policy. He was properly confronted by the kid who probably dispaired at being kicked off the train miles from home with possibly not even the money to call his family for help.

    You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.

    The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.


  • #123
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    The original problem here is one of an incorrect ticket. Someone is entitled to argue their point in relation to what they believe is the correct position that they are standing in. There is nothing illegal in having a point of view and standing by it, in fact it's to be commended. Before there was any "public order" incident here, the kid was ordered off the train. I don't believe that this is company policy, and the reason I don't believe that it is company policy, is because I don't believe it is company policy in a modern democracy in the developed world, to throw any person off a public transport vehicle over a ticket issue, and this as I have already pointed out, could involve a vunerable elderly pensioner being kicked off the train and left stranded somewhere miles from their home. Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.

    So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.

    That didn't happen here because the rail official departed from the policy and instead tried to bully the kid off the train, contrary to what I would believe is company policy. He was properly confronted by the kid who probably dispaired at being kicked off the train miles from home with possibly not even the money to call his family for help.

    You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.

    The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.

    The actual travel rules of the company would have to be looked at as to if a person could be ejected if or not alone, they had no ticket or a wrong one.
    As I (myself) assume, the ticket collector has training and considerable experience of such company rules, I suspect he was acting on them and acting in accordance to them.
    Till we hear otherwise, we only only assume this might/should be the case.
    Under EU law, a company is not allowed to discriminate in how it deals with a 19 year old kid with no ticket, and a 90 year old with no ticket.
    Very true.
    So on that basis, I imagine that the company policy is that if you don't have the proper ticket, you get a fine and you'll have your opportunity to oppose the fine being attached to you if you believe you are in the right.
    Again possibly true - BUT - we don't know what the actual policy is but can guess the trained and experienced ticket collector was acting in accordance with it?
    We don't know he went against company rules.
    It would be not in his own jobs-worth not to?
    You mentioned duty of care earlier, it is down to a duty of care owed to passengers, whether they have the correct ticket or not, that you'll find that company policy is not to kick someone off the train, possibly someone who is vunerable, such as someone with no money or an elderly person, but to instead issue a fine and that lets the matter be dealt pursuant to due process.
    A fine at times is an appropriate and sensible response - however the growing aggressiveness of the youth made that direction path it seems, harder to take and the ticket collector for the sake of others there, took the possible route of possible further aggressiveness and even assault/fighting taking place.
    For the sake of safety, he erred on the side of caution.
    Its easy to criticise in hindsight and knowledge - not in real-time and in not knowing whats possibly coming next but fearing the worse and acting accordingly as a pre-caution to others - if not just himself.
    The rail offical in this situation, instead of following company policy, decided to embark upon his own policy which was to bully a kid off the train, which I doubt he would have tried to apply to someone in the same ticket circumstances, but who was more his own age. I genuinely hope he loses his job for this.

    I SERIOUSLY doubt he acted just on his own violation and without reason.
    Again WE don't now what company policy was/is - but we can assume the ticket collector does!

    Good debating by the way. You make some valid points to be possibly addressed.


  • #124
    amacca
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,297 ✭✭✭amacca


    Batsy wrote: »
    Oh, well he would be of course. He must be positively evil. He probably microwaves kittens, too.

    oven baking takes too long and can be inconvenient tbh

    a nice hot kitty in minutes with a microwave...you just have to make sure to puncture them in a couple of places with a fork to let the steam out, it tends get messy otherwise.


  • #125
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Maximiliano Low Hawk wrote: »
    I must be seeing a different video to everyone else. I see a conductor with an attitude and a bully who should have minded his own business. Sure, the teenager was rude, but throwing him off the train was totally uncalled for. He didn't deserve to be physically assaulted.
    Here we go.....:rolleyes:


  • #126
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    As I said, delay's happen, traffic jams happen, ticket disagreements happen, the problem is that nobody has any patience these days and the world is full of people like this c*nt who start throwing the head when there is the slightest delay to their precious daily itinary.

    Do you use public transport on a regular basis? To commute? If you are in the cinema and someone is making noise/disrupting the film do you call people "c*nts" if they object? Sure they should just have some patience..
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Unfortunately these days, people will walk over other people to get to where they are going, all part of the sheer selfishness that is an overhang of our Celtic Tiger years.

    You mean like people who don't pay the correct fare/puchase the right ticket and still think they have a god-given right to be abusive? ...and inconvenience everyone else?
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Only a few years back there was a priest who had a heart attack on a train in Bray I think it was, and because he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, people thought he was homeless or drunk or something and literally walked over him and around him as he was breathing his last breath.

    But your advice was that people should mind their own f*cking business....
    Latchy wrote: »
    I would have been sick and horrified if I had read the next day that the girl had been murdered in public and as far as I could see I ... the only witness ...had done nothing.

    How would you feel if by the time the gardaí arrived she was already dead?
    Latchy wrote: »
    My point is that people will do the right thing if the feel it needs to be done and where a persons life is at stake .

    Why only if someone's life is at stake? What if you saw a 15 year old bullying a 9 year old and stealing his phone/money/whatever. Would you say .. well no-ones life is at stake....keep walking..
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Also, the inspector has no power to order someone off the train for non or incorrect payment of a fare, at least not in this jurisdiction, to the best of my knowledge and I can't imagine that it is much different in the UK..

    Dublin Bus drivers and inspectors certainly have that right and are allowed to use "reasonable force" as is necessary to remove someone from the vehicle. Can't open the PDF of Irish Rail at the moment but I'd imagine as part of CIE they'd have similar provisions in their bye-laws.
    (a) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an authorised person of contravening or of attempting to contravene these Bye-Laws may be removed from the vehicle by an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána acting on the request of such authorised person.
    (b) In the exercise of the power conferred on him under paragraph (a) of this Bye-Law an authorised person or member of the Garda Síochána may use such reasonable force as is necessary.

    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Leaving out the age of the person in this incident, are you going to tell me that if the person without the correct ticket is an 80 year old pensioner, that the current procedure is to throw them off the train?!?

    Are you going to tell me that if the inspector wasn't an elderly man the young lad would have been as abusive and arrogant?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    omega666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 615 ✭✭✭omega666


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Rubbish, it's not open to you or me to make a that call, there is a process there for having these things dealt with and investigated. Allowing some fat c*nt to jump out of his chair and intervene and throw someone off public transport is aspiring to live in a banana republic.


    If i was sitting on that train along with a couple of hundred other people
    id want his ass kicked off it as well and let me on my merry way.
    waiting for the police to arrive could take an hour or more possibly.

    What we saw on the video was only a snippet, from the reaction of the other people in the carrige they seem to be happy enough with the result.

    He chanced his arm and was caught, he should have got off the train when he was asked to and none of this would have happened.


  • #128
    Feisar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,940 ✭✭✭Feisar


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...And personally I'm disgusted that some youths (Not ALL - some here clearly are wiser beyond their years) here are standing up for the young abusive thug!

    Instead of standing up for a young teenage abusive thug that CLEARLY has no respect for the elderly, never mind a younger worker – how about you equally stand up for fellow passengers that have to live daily with abusive pups that often make their ugly presence known on similar journeys via train or bus etc!

    No - that would be too much to ask for, from some here clearly!

    Biggins, he hardly looked like a thug. Apart from the cursing which was not directed at the ticket inspector. He said he had a f**king ticket. Didn't actually tell the inspector to f**k off.
    I'm not saying it's OK, only highlighting the difference.

    Also that have a go hero asked the inspector if he wanted him the remove the chap and the inspector said yes. This was totally wrong, allowing another passenger to become involved. It also escalated the situation to a physical one. The student was not physically aggressive from what I saw.

    I know what the lad was trying with the ticket, had got a single and was chancing his arm but the inspector and other passenger were wrong in my point of view.

    Respect for the elderly doesn't come into it. The gentleman was acting as a ticket inspector not as an OAP.
    I'm 27 btw and while I always give up my seat to elderly people I don't give them any extra respect due to the fact they've clocked up more miles than me.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • #129
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    prinz wrote: »

    How would you feel if by the time the gardaí arrived she was already dead?
    How do you know I would not have intervened before the bobbys arrived ? ( the incident happened in England btw )The police response was pretty quick because most neighbourhoods, including the one I live in have several mobile patrols who are never far away .


    Why only if someone's life is at stake? What if you saw a 15 year old bullying a 9 year old and stealing his phone/money/whatever. Would you say .. well no-ones life is at stake....keep walking..
    Now ya see I'm old enough to know that in a situation like this you would rightly chase the older kid away ,if only for fear the younger kid could come to some serious damage (phones and money can be replaced ...life can't )

    Like the man on the train and in similar situation ,you size up and see what it is you could or should do but if you are saying that man would have tackled several more agressive people on his own instead of just one weak individual , then I'm telling you he most he likely wouldn't or if he did would have expected others to come to his aid... but what if they didn't ? He loses his life because of a fare dodger ?

    Most people have self preservation on their mind but in all walks of life people will and do stand up to bullys .


  • #130
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    prinz wrote: »

    Dublin Bus drivers and inspectors certainly have that right and are allowed to use "reasonable force" as is necessary to remove someone from the vehicle. Can't open the PDF of Irish Rail at the moment but I'd imagine as part of CIE they'd have similar provisions in their bye-laws.

    I'm not replying to the rediculous multi quotes you are using. This kid could have been completely innocent here, he could have asked for the correct ticket from a teller at the station, been charged the correct amount by the teller, yet handed the wrong ticket by the teller. The fault might not even have been his own, this could have been a simple mix up when the ticket was purchased (and he did have a ticket but for the wrong direction), yet the remedy is to be told to be immediately ordered off the train by the ticket inspector, without any recourse to fair procedure, and then when he remonstrates with that person, he gets f*cked off the train and injured by some thug of a stranger?!?

    This is why a fine is used and not immediate ejection from the service in question, because it brings fair procedure and due process around the situation, because you can subsequently challenge it, you can attempt to explain yourself in a more elabolate way in writing after you have the opportunity to put the chain of events together as you understand them.

    This guy will probably be fired from his job for this incident and rightly so. He's one of these old school intrasigent and belligerent arséholes that you will find doing security work in any government building in Ireland, in a union, so can't be touched, and at the same time, to old, bitter and stupid to be able to be trained to do things in accordance with the fair and reasonable standards that are demanded in the 21st century in relation to the delivery of proper public services.


  • #131
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    I'm not replying to the rediculous multi quotes you are using. This kid could have been completely innocent here, he could have asked for the correct ticket from a teller at the station, been charged the correct amount by the teller, yet handed the wrong ticket by the teller. The fault might not even have been his own, this could have been a simple mix up when the ticket was purchased (and he did have a ticket but for the wrong direction), yet the remedy is to be told to be immediately ordered off the train by the ticket inspector, without any recourse to fair procedure, and then when he remonstrates with that person, he gets f*cked off the train and injured by some thug of a stranger?!?

    Have you ignored the fact that the conversation was going on long before the video started recording it? Seems so.
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    This is why a fine is used and not immediate ejection from the service in question...

    Ignoring of course the bye-laws I quoted. Must be that "rediculous" multi-quote problem.
    HellFireClub wrote: »
    This guy will probably be fired from his job for this incident and rightly so. He's one of these old school intrasigent and beliggerant arséholes that you will find doing security work in any government building in Ireland, in a union, so can't be touched, and at the same time, to old, bitter and stupid to be able to be trained to do things in accordance with the standards that are demanded in the 21st century in relation to the delivery of proper public services.

    A picture is starting to form here. You keep on grinding that axe!


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    Biggins wrote: »
    Again WE don't now what company policy was/is - but we can assume the ticket collector does!

    I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth!


  • #133
    JJayoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,887 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth

    The guy is 19. He's a grown man


  • #134
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    I think its safe to assume that the company policy does NOT involve authorizing a member of the public to physically assault a youth!

    I think its also safe to assume that that the company policy does allow the staff to take steps to ensure the safety of other passengers and themselves when its assessed and deemed necessary, that abusive travellers vacate the transport they are on if they cannot abide by the rules the rest of the other passengers are following, quietly in peace!


  • #135
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    Biggins wrote: »
    that abusive travellers vacate the transport they are on if they cannot abide by the rules the rest of the other passengers are following, quietly in peace!

    Seriously, watch the video again- tell me which passenger seems more abusive- the youth,sorry 19 year old :rolleyes: who is sitting and verbally arguing his point, or the huge lad who picks him up and body-slams him onto the platform??


  • #136
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    Seriously, watch the video again- tell me which passenger seems more abusive- the youth,sorry 19 year old :rolleyes: who is sitting and verbally arguing his point, or the huge lad who picks him up and body-slams him onto the platform??

    If "verbally arguing" includes abuse that he gave the man just going about doing his job, once again I say he reaped what he sowed.

    The outcome CLEARLY could have been different if he behaved himself and explained his possible situation in a decent manner - he didn't - thus his outcome!

    I still have no sympathy for him whatsoever.


  • #137
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I used to wonder about the mindset behind the people who think it's appropriate to verbally argue their point be loud, abusive and obnoxious to people like bouncers, barmen, airport security, check-in staff at the airport, gardaí, etc etc whenever they don't get their own way. I'm getting an insight.


  • #138
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    Biggins wrote: »
    If "verbally arguing" includes abuse that he gave the man just going about doing his job

    he wasn't just going about doing his job! his job isn't to authorize members of the public to assault others, simple as. if a system worked whereby every person that protests a fine was to be assaulted in turn, im sure that system would be used on all forms of public transport worldwide.. but its not!
    Biggins wrote: »
    The outcome CLEARLY could have been different if he behaved himself and explained his possible situation in a decent manner

    I think its pointless arguing this because we don't know what was said in before the clip starts.. he may or may not have tried to explain himself already.

    I just dont understand how you can justify a man picking up someone half his size and slamming him off a train- looks like he really could have injured him and instead of getting in trouble, he gets treated like a hero


  • #139
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    prinz wrote: »
    I used to wonder about the mindset behind the people who think it's appropriate to verbally argue their point be loud, abusive and obnoxious to people like bouncers, barmen, airport security, check-in staff at the airport, gardaí, etc etc whenever they don't get their own way. I'm getting an insight.

    you'll find that it can be provoked by people on power trips/ people who are clueless as to handle certain situations a lot of the time, which can lead to frustration


  • #140
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    you'll find that it can be provoked by people on power trips/ people who are clueless as to handle certain situations a lot of the time, which can lead to frustration

    It can be, but it generally isn't. Far more often it's caused by ignorant twats who think they can shout and bully their way into getting what they want.


  • #141
    The Scientician
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,724 ✭✭✭The Scientician


    Regardless of the 19 year old's claim to have bought a ticket or not, the Scotrail employee shouldn't have allowed another member of the public to get involved. It'd be different if the kid had actually taken a swing at the conductor, but he didn't. The kid was being a bollocks but I'm not sure that gives carte blanche to a member of the public to lay a hand on him. To be clear, if a burly Scotrail employee had come down to see what the fuss was I'm not sure I'd have any problem whatsoever.

    Plus, does anyone know, has the big man left himself open to a charge of assault?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Johro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    Maximiliano Low Hawk wrote: »
    It wasn't the big guy's business. He had no right no throw him off. Definitely no right to throw him off and cause him to cut his face open.
    Yeah I agree. The conductor should've let the transport cops deal with him at the next stop. That's how it usually works. The big guy in the vid would've minded his own business too if the conductor hadn't had a bee in his bonnet and kept on at the teenager. It's not on really, it sets a dangerous precedent, you can't just start man-handling people coz you feel justified. The teen could've been mentally ill. Or just a wanker. Point is, it's not up to anyone else to put him off the train. Could've ended up a lot worse too.


  • #143
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    @prinz
    yes but in this case- the inspector initiates the shouting and seems to be quite clueless about dealing with the public.


  • #144
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    yes but in this case- the inspector initiates the shouting and seems to be quite clueless about dealing with the public.

    Er, no he doesn't. He explained why the ticket wasn't valid. Repeatedly asked him to get off, and then repeatedly asked him to stop swearing... (first shouting comes from young lad 1m 18s into clip)


  • #145
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    prinz wrote: »
    Er, no he doesn't. He explained why the ticket wasn't valid. Repeatedly asked him to get off, and then repeatedly asked him to stop swearing...

    He just shout "OFF" at him, thats no way to get someone to cooperate! and only then he becomes riled up and starts swearing.. watch the video!


  • #146
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    he has his voice raised for the whole conversation so that the public can hear him, reminds the public that they should be angry, and because of this they applaud a man for throwing a teenager face-down onto the platform


  • #147
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    he has his voice raised for the whole conversation so that the public can hear him, reminds the public that they should be angry, and because of this they applaud a man for throwing a teenager face-down onto the platform

    His voice is strong and clear and authoritative. Exactly as it should be. It's the scrote who starts getting hysterical and cursing. The inspector was consistent throughout.


  • #148
    Jackmcg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Jackmcg


    nah ill say it once more before i go to bed, watch the video!
    at the very beginning they're having a conversation at normal levels, then the inspector sees he isn't getting his way so he raises his voice and orders him to get off. he doesn't deal with him well and causes the lad to become frustrated- exactly like i explained about 10 posts up^^


  • #149
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Jackmcg wrote: »
    at the very beginning they're having a conversation at normal levels, then the inspector sees he isn't getting his way so he raises his voice and orders him to get off. he doesn't deal with him well and causes the lad to become frustrated- exactly like i explained about 10 posts up^^

    Even if that was the case, which it isn't, what right does the lad have to get "frustrated" and start cursing and shouting exactly? He's the one without a valid ticket. Jesus wept, you want someone to hold his hand?

    I notice that there are a few posters who have called the inspector, and the 'big man' all sorts of names and insults, but haven't once said a word against the the fella thrown off. Says it all really.

    From the Railway Byelaws 2005 which apply to all rail operators in the UK (Including Scotrail)
    (2) Removal of persons
    (i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
    (ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

    So much for the claims that you aren't allowed kick someone off a train :rolleyes: let's see what bye-laws he might have broken shall we..
    6. Unacceptable behaviour
    (1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.
    (2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.
    (8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

    http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/2005RailwayByelaws.shtml

    That's before you get to not having a valid ticket. The only question left is if the inspector has the power to delegate the authority given to him. I would say yes.


  • #150
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    My my this has been an eye-opening thread.

    For one thing I've learned being late is a perfectly acceptable reason for bodyslamming the person holding you up face first onto concrete. Oh this will make life interesting. Next time someone is double parked in my way I can get out and bodyslam them, next time some idiot cuts me up whilst talking on the phone I'll just ram them off the road, next time someone litters in the street right in front of me I'll just clothes line them, next time I'm stuck in a queue because the customer at the counter is having a dispute with the employee I'll just walk up non-chalantly, face smash them off the counter, get my business done and head off with a whistle.

    /sarcasm

    The attitudes in this thread are appalling. Biggins I'm particularly surprised at you - you are normally a rock of sense, but you are shocking me here, but you seem to be of the attitude because the guy is a teenager who says **** (wow how original), because the conductor has white hair and because the fat bloke didn't want to be late, then its perfectly acceptable for FatMan to face slam a dude half his size onto concrete.

    The Scientician wrote: »
    Plus, does anyone know, has the big man left himself open to a charge of assault?

    Absolutely. No debate there. The ejectees uncle is on record as saying the kid just wants to get on with his exams. I think that can be interpreted as he has decided not to press charges and just wants it all to go away.

    HellFireClub made interesting comparisons to Europe
    There was outrage in Germany a few years back after some teenage girl was put off a train in the middle of nowhere with no money for not having paid the correct fare and like almost dying or something. I tried to google the link but can't find it.s


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    LisaLee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 389 ✭✭LisaLee


    This really isn't as simple as right or wrong, however according to the National Rail conditions, the conductor was probably in the right.

    Same info as Prinz here.
    58. Unacceptable conduct
    Any person who a Train Company believes is likely to act in a riotous, disorderly or
    offensive manner may be refused access to, or may be required to leave trains, platforms
    or stations.
    59. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
    A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these
    Conditions.
    It had gone beyond a simple ticket error, the young lad had been drinking, got the wrong ticket and didn't get it rectified before getting on the train. Instead he became verbally abusive and forfeited his rights as a customer in this instance.

    http://www.scotrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/documents/NRCOC.pdf


Advertisement