[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I'll wait to see if the Big Man is charged with assault -if you and others feel it was, let's see what (if) the Police actually charge him with anything.

I don't believe he did assault anyone. It's a word people on here are throwing around to give weight to them backing this gobby guy up.

People should not be expected to have to put up verbally abuse in their workplace.

As for your final comments, that is ludicrous and has not one thing to do with this story.

Laddo has to make a complaint, somehow I dont think he will, he seemed a bit reluctant to do so in the comments in the various newspaper stories about the incident. He probably was fare dodging.

Problem with the story is public perception will think its ok to do what fat man done and in another incident the "have a go hero" will either get slapped down or prosecuted.

There is an old saying that is very apt for this story. Two wrongs dont make a right.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Who's to say he was drunk? Even if he was does that justify assault in your eyes? I'm sure he knows his own condition and his limits better then you do.



Same as I said to Omah, You're making assumptions on his conditions without knowing the specifics of his case. Just like you made the assumption that it'd be okay for the fat man to assault on the off chance he might be a police officer despite the fact that if he was he would be trained to not agitate the siutation like that.

As for the Daily Mail comment, most of the comments on that page that state how wrong it was for the fat chav to assault have been downvoted while any stupid remark by the armchair warriors demanding capital punishment because teenagers are a blight on Britain and our future would be brighter if they didn't exist have been upvoted a lot.

It says a lot about the Daily Mail readership.

You speak about others making assumptions here - you seem to be jumping to many yourself. You don't know what kicked off before the video began to be taken - you don't know what other abuse the conductor had to take before it got to this stage.

I didn't assume anything re police officer etc: all that discussion last night was nothing more than 'what if' situations.

I'll wait to see if the police charge the 'big man' - if it was in fact assault which I don't believe it was.

Love your comments about DM readership - seeing as you were the one who clearly had read the comments to the point that you made mention of arrows for the types of comments - you brought that matter up yourself. Therefore you are also one of the Daily Mail readership that you attempt to mock in your post above.

[arista]

The video continues with the student protesting his innocence and claiming that he showed the ScotRail employee his ‘*********g ticket’ while a group of stunned young children sit close by with their furious mother.
But the conductor adds: 'No you have not. Stop swearing.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1gW4llHDy




The Rude Punk had this Coming

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Laddo has to make a complaint, somehow I dont think he will, he seemed a bit reluctant to do so in the comments in the various newspaper stories about the incident. He probably was fare dodging.

Problem with the story is public perception will think its ok to do what fat man done and in another incident the "have a go hero" will either get slapped down or prosecuted.

There is an old saying that is very apt for this story. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Could it have been handled better? Of course it could and hindsight is a wonderful thing - but we are commenting on what did actually take place - not what 'should have'.

I believe he was fare dodging and I look forward to ScotRail investigating this - given his claim that he was sold 2 one way tickets for the same journey. That is think is nothing more than a cock and bull story - as is his claim that he wasn't allowed to get his bag - that was very clearly lifted from where he was sitting and put off the train right behind him.

I'm sure the boyo knows he's lying through his teeth.......and now that it's reached this level, he realised what a complete fool he has made of himself.

As for the publicity this has been given: I'm glad it has received it - because it seems too often that people (regardless of age) think they can say what they like to someone else, think it's fine to do what they like without consequence.

[Niamh.]

I'm sure whatever rights Scotrail had to prosecute him for not having a ticket, have now been invalidated by the way the conductor handled the situation.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I will be honest here: if it was anyone giving the conductor verbals the way this guy did: I don't care what age or sex the person is - I still would not have found fault.

He was asked to remove himself and get off the train several times. He refused. Could it have been handled better? Of course: but the one person who started it all off and continued it, was the yob. All the big man did was put an end to it.

He couldn't produce his ticket

He tone, attitude and behaviour overall was unacceptable.

He refused to remove when he was asked - several times.

Thereafter the lies appeared about him not being allowed to get his bag - when the bag is clearly thrown off the train.

See in my eyes, the only yob in that video was the bloke chucking his weight around.

The other was just rude. Swearing does not make someone a yob...to me anyway.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Who's to say he was drunk?

Who's to say he wasn't

He'd been out "celebrating"

Even if he was does that justify assault in your eyes?

What assault ?

I'm sure he knows his own condition and his limits better then you do.

And I'll bet he doesn't care

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

No body is saying that the conductor should have to put up with verbal abuse in his work place, and I don't think anyone here is defending the boy either in his treatment of the conductor, the point is, the conductor should have followed proper procedure and called either the rails security or the police to deal with the boy, not give some random passenger the ok to physically throw him off the train.

This.

I dont think the lad was in the right for the way he spoke to the conductor...but then again I do not think the conductor behaved professionally either...it was almost like he was inviting the other pasengers to come have a go. If this had been delat with the right way, we wouldnt be having this argument now. In the daily mail article it even says the rail staff are trained in dealing with conflict...IMO that conductor needs to re-do his training.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Snowball

You speak about others making assumptions here - you seem to be jumping to many yourself. You don't know what kicked off before the video began to be taken - you don't know what other abuse the conductor had to take before it got to this stage.

Absolutely right - the video-taker said there was FIVE MINUTES of foul-mouthed invective from the drunken lout BEFORE he decided to record the tirade ..... :eek

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

As for the publicity this has been given: I'm glad it has received it - because it seems too often that people (regardless of age) think they can say what they like to someone else, think it's fine to do what they like without consequence.

Yeah, and now, we will have people who think its fine to chuck their weight around just because they disagree with a situation instead.

Cue more cases of people using violence/force just to appear 'hard' to an audience. Fantastic

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

No body is saying that the conductor should have to put up with verbal abuse in his work place, and I don't think anyone here is defending the boy either in his treatment of the conductor, the point is, the conductor should have followed proper procedure and called either the rails security or the police to deal with the boy, not give some random passenger the ok to physically throw him off the train.

I'm sure this will be raised with the Conductor & ScotRail - however since we do not know what the full ins and outs are .... perhaps there was some very good reason for the conductor not doing so - or perhaps not being able to do so.

Unmanned stations are not unheard of these days, perhaps there would have been no one around.

Perhaps he did not have the means with which to contact Scotrail security?

By the sound of the other passengers becoming rather impatient: this stand off may have gone on for far longer than the short clip we all saw - there are so many other factors that may have given rise to the situation as we have viewed it.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, and now, we will have people who think its fine to chuck their weight around just because they disagree with a situation instead.

Cue more cases of people using violence/force just to appear 'hard' to an audience. Fantastic

OTOH, maybe drunken foul-mouthed young louts will think twice before breaking the law and abusing a public servant on ScotRail when there's a "Big Man" about .....

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Omah

OTOH, maybe drunken foul-mouthed young louts will think twice before breaking the law and abusing a public servant on ScotRail when there's a "Big Man" about .....

Yeah...great. lets all live in fear of a big yob assaulting us if we happen to say a bad word.

Infact, who needs police or security? Lets just give all 'big' people the right to sort out problems by violence or force

[Vicky.]

I hope to god this guy tries to do the same thing in the future...with someone his OWN size...and gets knocked the **** out.

Then again, I doubt he would even have got involved if the person in question wasnt a weedy little teenager tbh

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

You speak about others making assumptions here - you seem to be jumping to many yourself. You don't know what kicked off before the video began to be taken - you don't know what other abuse the conductor had to take before it got to this stage.

I didn't assume anything re police officer etc: all that discussion last night was nothing more than 'what if' situations.

I'll wait to see if the police charge the 'big man' - if it was in fact assault which I don't believe it was.

Love your comments about DM readership - seeing as you were the one who clearly had read the comments to the point that you made mention of arrows for the types of comments - you brought that matter up yourself. Therefore you are also one of the Daily Mail readership that you attempt to mock in your post above.

What assumptions have I made? Go on tell me. I said that it was wrong to manhandle the lad which is true since there are procedures in place for dealing with fare dodgers. Granted none of us saw what happened in full but the Conducter shouldn't have stirred the situation by threatening to stop the train and he shouldn't have OK'd the lout to assault him. He should have called ahead to the next station to prepare security or the police. I did say that he had Diabetes and medication in his bag which was written in the article and would be easy to disprove he was lying. It was you two that made assumptions on his illness and alcohol levels while I just stated the fact that he had Diabetes.

It seems to me you're relying more on 'What If' scenarios rather then utilising what we already know. I'm not defending the lad, him being in the wrong is pretty much obvious, like Niamh said it's the fat man's actions that are up for debate here.

As for the Daily Mail bit, my sight isn't great but it's not awful and when it comes to the comments it isn't exactly hard to see what great big red and green numbers mean when similar systems tend to be present in comment sections on a lot of different sites. It's less to do with being a fan of the Daily Mail and more to do with common sense.

You're reaching by making out me out to be some hypocrite when I was just reading the article so that I'm at least a bit clued up on things. Reading an article that was posted and relevant to the topic does not instantly make me part of the regular Daily Mail readership, it just means that unlike you I like to try to base my arguments on facts rather then blind assumptions.

It's quite funny how you think that reading one article makes you a regular fan of something. It's a bit of a silly argument Pyramid. Keep reaching and stay classy.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, and now, we will have people who think its fine to chuck their weight around just because they disagree with a situation instead.

Cue more cases of people using violence/force just to appear 'hard' to an audience. Fantastic

Who said anything about wanting to 'appear hard' for an audience. Others applauded him afterwards because they agreed with his actions - not because he wanted an audience.

If you listen to the voices in the vid in the background - the big man is not the only one sick of waiting around whilst this petulant (probably too worse for wear, diabetes or not) yob refused to get off when he is asked.

The laddo showed absolutely no respect to anyone - not to the conductor, the other passengers who were being held up, no respect for the young kids listening to his verbal abuse, no respect for the request that was being made to him to get off the train. I really don't see it being the issue some on here think it is.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I'm sure this will be raised with the Conductor & ScotRail - however since we do not know what the full ins and outs are .... perhaps there was some very good reason for the conductor not doing so - or perhaps not being able to do so.

Unmanned stations are not unheard of these days, perhaps there would have been no one around.

Perhaps he did not have the means with which to contact Scotrail security?

By the sound of the other passengers becoming rather impatient: this stand off may have gone on for far longer than the short clip we all saw - there are so many other factors that may have given rise to the situation as we have viewed it.

I find it very hard to believe that he had absolutely no way of contacting either the rail security or the police, if he had no radio or phone to do so, I'm 100% certain, one of the other oh so helpful passengers would have let him borrow their mobile phone

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Who said anything about wanting to 'appear hard' for an audience. Others applauded him afterwards because they agreed with his actions - not because he wanted an audience.

If you listen to the voices in the vid in the background - the big man is not the only one sick of waiting around whilst this petulant (probably too worse for wear, diabetes or not) yob refused to get off when he is asked.

The laddo showed absolutely no respect to anyone - not to the conductor, the other passengers who were being held up, no respect for the young kids listening to his verbal abuse, no respect for the request that was being made to him to get off the train. I really don't see it being the issue some on here think it is.

I think he just wanted to play the big man...if its fine for others to make assumptions then its fine for me to do the same thing

Just because others are voicing their displeasure...this makes it right? Lets say I was in a shop on my lunch hour, and someone was taking absolutely forever to pay for their goods...people behind me are tutting and moaning...Im unhappy as I have to be back at work soon, the person serving looks sick to the back teeth of it...would it be fine for me to just grab the slowcoach and manhandle them out of the door? Of course it bloody wouldnt. Just because others are pissed off too, doesnt make it right

I am not going to argue against the last bit, because I agree. The kid was in the wrong. Its the actions of the conductor...and more so the bloke who chucked him off...that I find to be wrong too.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

I find it very hard to believe that he had absolutely no way of contacting either the rail security or the police, if he had no radio or phone to do so, I'm 100% certain, one of the other oh so helpful passengers would have let him borrow their mobile phone

Yeah that is reaching a little bit tbh

If, for example, the radios were down. I doubt they would allow the inspectors onto the trains until the matter was sorted. As the inspector would be massively at risk if there was no way to contact anyone...if for example, someone belted him one or something.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

What assumptions have I made? Go on tell me.

OK :

Granted none of us saw what happened in full but the Conducter shouldn't have stirred the situation by threatening to stop the train and he shouldn't have OK'd the lout to assault him. He should have called ahead to the next station to prepare security or the police.

I like to try to base my arguments on facts rather then blind assumptions.

The video-taker said that the drunken lout abused the Conductor for 5 MINUTES previous to the video starting .....

I ASSUME that there are relevant FACTS withing those 5 MINUTES, of which you know nothing .....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

See in my eyes, the only yob in that video was the bloke chucking his weight around.

The other was just rude. Swearing does not make someone a yob...to me anyway.

I agree it doesn't, it makes them uncouth and feel like hard men when they use curse words - due to a lack of their own vocabularly and inability to express themselves in an acceptable manner.

What does make a yob is someone who cannot prove they have a ticket, who resorts to swearing at someone who is asking him to do so or leave, who refuses to leave and then lies about not being allowed to get his bag (and most probably lied about his elongated story of having being sold 2 single tickets, realised this earlier on, claims he meant to do somethign about it, didn't but somehow still managed to argue like hell with the conductor saying he gave him the *******ing ticket;....yet he claimed in the news article that he knew he had a wrong ticket and had done nothing to sort it out....as he'd 'intended' on doing').

He didn't give a damn that he was holding up the train, didn't give a damn about the inconvenience HE was causing.

Add all that up, and to me, that is a yob.


Here: according to what he told his father: - now that's a whole different version from what we've all seen on the vid: he was adamant that he HAD to correct ticket:- yet this indicates he knew fine well he didn't.

He said Sam went to the railway station at Polmont at 8am to buy a return ticket, but was told two singles would be cheaper as he planned to return off peak.

He said: 'He was sitting on the train when he noticed both tickets were for Polmont to Edinburgh Park, but he decided to concentrate on his exam and explain the mix-up to the inspector on the train home.

'After his exam he went out for a few drinks. He got on the train and everyone's seen the video, but he's no fare dodger, he was just sold the wrong ticket and the inspector's decided he's off at Linlithgow.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

OK :



The video-taker said that the drunken lout abused the Conductor for 5 MINUTES previous to the video starting .....

How was that an assumption on my part? I said none of us saw what happened in full which is true unless you're the person that recorded the video in question. I made a statement, not an assumption.

Like I said before I'm not discussing if the lad was in the wrong because that's obvious to anyone, even if there was verbal abuse involved that doesn't give the fat man the right to assault him. It was down to the Conductor to handle the situation properly and he failed to do so. The fat man was in the wrong for getting involved and getting violent.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I agree it doesn't, it makes them uncouth and feel like hard men when they use curse words - due to a lack of their own vocabularly and inability to express themselves in an acceptable manner.

Agreed...though I swear a lot myself...not At people, but in general

Originally Posted by Snowball

What does make a yob is someone who cannot prove they have a ticket, who resorts to swearing at someone who is asking him to do so or leave, who refuses to leave and then lies about not being allowed to get his bag (and most probably lied about his elongated story of having being sold 2 single tickets, realised this earlier on, claims he meant to do somethign about it, didn't but somehow still managed to argue like hell with the conductor saying he gave him the *******ing ticket;....yet he claimed in the news article that he knew he had a wrong ticket and had done nothing to sort it out....as he'd 'intended' on doing').

Speculation. he may have had another bag. That part of the news story is a bit odd though,, but even so...he still did not deserve to be manhandled by a randomer.

Originally Posted by Snowball

He didn't give a damn that he was holding up the train, didn't give a damn about the inconvenience HE was causing.

He wouldnt have held up the train if the conductor had actually done his job properly instead of making a big scene and inviting others to have a go. Great 'conflict management' training that train line gives its staff, yeah?

Originally Posted by Snowball

Add all that up, and to me, that is a yob.

Fair enough. To me a yob is someone who uses unnecessary violence, purposely causes trouble, uses intimidation to get what they want etc etc. But each to their own

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

See in my eyes, the only yob in that video was the bloke chucking his weight around.

The other was just rude. Swearing does not make someone a yob...to me anyway.

Typical From a Pub Worker




Life In The City.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by arista

Typical From a Pub Worker




Life In The City.

Thats very true

I hear swearing all day every day, maybe it just doesnt affect me as much as it affects others