[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The conductor should have been professional enough to end the situation without having the passengers attack each other. He gave his consent to violence which is hardly professional.

It hardly matters who creates the situation what's more important is how it's resolved and for a fully trained professional he did a piss poor job.

Oh I said piss, does that mean a fat tub of lard should come to my house and beat my head in now?

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

It mattered - ie the situation - when in your earlier post you were keen to assign blame to only the conductor.

At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly,

Now you are changing stance? It's only important when it's how it was handled, but not WHO created it in the first instance?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Basically what we have learned from this thread...is that contrary to popular belief... two (or three) wrongs DO make a right. And that swearing or dodging train fares means you should be assaulted/the person who assaults you is the one in the right.

Blimey

Originally Posted by Snowball

Only if you hold that view: which I and others on here...don't.

Is that some sort of joke? Because everything you've posted on this subject for the last 24 hours has hinted heavily that that's you believe.

Originally Posted by Snowball

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

The 'big man' says 'do you want me to remove him?' or something along those lines, the conductor quite clearly says 'yes', and thus he is giving permission to another passenger to commit an assault, permission of which he doesn't have the power to give and had he be doing his job properly, he wouldn't have given any.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Is that some sort of joke? Because everything you've posted on this subject for the last 24 hours has hinted heavily that that's you believe.


The 'big man' says 'do you want me to remove him?' or something along those lines, the conductor quite clearly says 'yes', and thus he is giving permission to another passenger to commit an assault, permission of which he doesn't have the power to give and had he be doing his job properly, he wouldn't have given any.

What have I hinted heavily at as being a joke in my posts?

Is what a joke: what precisely Jack? That I hold a different view from you - no, that's no joke.

The Big Man says, " Do you want me to get him off for you". The conductor replies Yes. He didn't ask or invite or request or incite any violent act. The T&Cs of rail travel are clear: he was abusive, and he was removed. Not perhaps by the best means - but that is what happened.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The T&Cs of rail travel are clear: he was abusive, and he was removed. Not perhaps by the best means - but that is what happened.

Pretty sure the T&Cs dont mention 'if you fail to provide a ticket a random other passenger will be allowed to intervene and throw you off the train with much more force than necessary'. I would imagine they might say something about the police being called/transport police though

[Pyramid*]

'Why I filmed train ticket row'14 December 2011 Last updated at 10:00 Help ScotRail have said they are investigating after an alleged fare-dodger was removed from a train by a member of the public. Click to see interview of guy who filmed..... the yobs abuse had been going on for some time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16173835



Vicky:what you have asked was coverd by Shasown some time back, the wording states 'Generally'.

[Livia]

I saw the "lad" on the news being all reasonable. A very different attitude to the one he had on the train. He didn't try to explain, he effed and blinded at the conductor who was there doing a job. Nice. Whatever they're paying the ticket chap it isn't enough to have some twat-in-a-hat talk to him like he's a piece of crap. Maybe if his attitude had been like the attitude he suddenly seems to have adopted for the TV cameras, the matter would have been cleared up in seconds.

It amazes me that people think his attitude demanded some kind of special treatment and respect from a person doing a job when it was clear there was not one iota of respect coming from the "lad". Next time he might consider a) buying a ticket or b) explaining himself without being abusive and obnoxious.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I saw the "lad" on the news being all reasonable. A very different attitude to the one he had on the train. He didn't try to explain, he effed and blinded at the conductor who was there doing a job. Nice. Whatever they're paying the ticket chap it isn't enough to have some twat-in-a-hat talk to him like he's a piece of crap. Maybe if his attitude had been like the attitude he suddenly seems to have adopted for the TV cameras, the matter would have been cleared up in seconds.

It amazes me that people think his attitude demanded some kind of special treatment and respect from a person doing a job when it was clear there was not one iota of respect coming from the "lad". Next time he might consider a) buying a ticket or b) explaining himself without being abusive and obnoxious.

Pretty sure I have read every post in this thread and I dont think I have seen even one saying he should get special treatment

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

He gave his consent to violence. Really..... That's not what I saw or heard, at all. In fact, nothing remotely close to it.

It mattered - ie the situation - when in your earlier post you were keen to assign blame to only the conductor.



Now you are changing stance? It's only important when it's how it was handled, but not WHO created it in the first instance?

He did consent, you said it yourself Pyramid.

Originally Posted by Snowball

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

As for me 'changing stance' I've been blaming the conductor for ages, do keep up Pyramid. Maybe if you read people's posts in full instead of ignoring points you can't win against you wouldn't slip up so much.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

He did consent, you said it yourself Pyramid.



In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

As for me 'changing stance' I've been blaming the conductor for ages, do keep up Pyramid. Maybe if you read people's posts in full instead of ignoring points you can't win against you wouldn't slip up so much.

Please show me where I have said that anyone gave anyone consent to assault. Show me those exact words that I have used in any of my posts......

How about you taking some of your own advice: and read what people actually type: and not what you somehow manage to twist that to meaning. If you are unable to correctly read what is written, it may be best you do not quote posts at all, because as it is, you are making thing up as you go along.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Please show me where I have said that anyone gave anyone consent to assault. Show me those exact words that I have used in any of my posts......

How about you taking some of your own advice: and read what people actually type: and not what you somehow manage to twist that to meaning. If you are unable to correctly read what is written, it may be best you do not quote posts at all, because as it is, you are making thing up as you go along.

You said yourself the the conductor gave him the OK, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. I've quoted you saying this, it doesn't matter if it's not the exact wording as 'consented to the assault' since the meaning is still the same. Even at your most pedantic you can't argue with that.

You see I actually read your posts and more often then not you are your own worst enemy since you are constantly contradicting yourself. I could actually use half of your own posts to argue against you.

Also I can't twist anyone's words if it's original meaning is there for everyone to see. Twisting what people say is a classic Pyramid move my dear and no amount of painfully obvious deflection will make anyone see different.

You now have my permission to start backpedalling as fast as you can.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You said yourself the the conductor gave him the OK, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. I've quoted you saying this, it doesn't matter if it's not the exact wording as 'consented to the assault' since the meaning is still the same. Even at your most pedantic you can't argue with that.

You see I actually read your posts and more often then not you are your own worst enemy since you are constantly contradicting yourself. I could actually use half of your own posts to argue against you.

Also I can't twist anyone's words if it's original meaning is there for everyone to see. Twisting what people say is a classic Pyramid move my dear and no amount of painfully obvious deflection will make anyone see different.

You now have my permission to start backpedalling as fast as you can.

Your comment was

In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

I'll ask again, very simply.

Show me where I SAID IN MY VERY OWN WORDS..... and not your version of them - that the conductor consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

I think you may be in danger here of making yourself look more than a little foolish here Dezzy. Unless of course: you can actually provide me with a direct quote of mine, one which has not been amended and filled in with your own version.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Your comment was



I'll ask again, very simply.

Show me where I SAID IN MY VERY OWN WORDS..... and not your version of them - that the conductor consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

I think you may be in danger here of making yourself look more than a little foolish here Dezzy. Unless of course: you can actually provide me with a direct quote of mine, one which has not been amended and filled in with your own version.

I've not ammended anything and to prove it I've got a screenshot right here of what you said so you can't sneakily edit it later.



In your own words you said that the conductor said yes when the lout asked him for help, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. How is that not consenting an assault? They're both the same thing and it's ridiculous that you're trying to worm your way out of it by saying that my point is invalid since I paraphrased what you said.

The original meaning of your words still stands no matter how hard you try to say otherwise, say that I've ammended your posts all you like but they're there for everyone to see. You'll also see that the only person to have edited the post in question is you...

I'm in no danger of looking foolish Pyramid, You've got that area covered.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

ewww dezzy that theme

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've not ammended anything and to prove it I've got a screenshot right here of what you said so you can't sneakily edit it later.



In your own words you said that the conductor said yes when the lout asked him for help, the fat man then proceeded to assault the teenager. How is that not consenting an assault? They're both the same thing and it's ridiculous that you're trying to worm your way out of it by saying that my point is invalid since I paraphrased what you said.

The original meaning of your words still stands no matter how hard you try to say otherwise, say that I've ammended your posts all you like but they're there for everyone to see. You'll also see that the only person to have edited the post in question is you...

I'm in no danger of looking foolish Pyramid, You've got that area covered.

I have no idea what you are havvering on about in regards to ''in case you sneakily edit it'' - given that I have not done so and neither is it a habit of mine in making very late amendments to posts to completely alter them.

Therefore for you to place a sreenshot seems utterly bizarre in the extreme. I'll make it easier for you - here is exactly - quoted directly and exactly - no need for screenshots, quoted in the usual manner that the forum allow - precisely what I said: word for word - no edits but quoted directly as was and as still remains:-

Originally Posted by Snowball

The Big Man asked the conductor if he wanted the yob removed. The conductor replied Yes. How is that undermining the conductor exactly?

I think any chance of it being resolved respectfully flew out the door when the yob began cursing at the Conductor.

How on earth you can somehow translate that into what you claim it says
is laughable- which was:-

Originally Posted by Dezzy

In your own words you said that he consented to the fat yob assaulting the teenager.

I think it's fair to say that you appear to have reached a point whereby you are unable to debate this with me in a reasonable manner - and have to resort to changing entirely what I have written, adding in what you feel 'should' be there - rather than what actually is there.

Deary me.