[Shaun]

Surely that'd technically get classed as assault?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Surely that'd technically get classed as assault?

Nope.

He was asked to leave, he was unable to provide proof of payment for his journey. He was unable to.

He became verbally abusive to an employee of the rail company. He also failed to follow the request of an employee who is there to enforce the conditions of passenger carriage for the rail company. It is therefore fine that he was removed from said train, with force if he refused to leave. That is ALL that happened.

No assault on the yobbo.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Nope.

He was asked to leave, he was unable to provide proof of payment for his journey. He was unable to.

He became verbally abusive to an employee of the rail company. He also failed to follow the request of an employee who is there to enforce the conditions of passenger carriage for the rail company. It is therefore fine that he was removed from said train, with force if he refused to leave. That is ALL that happened.

No assault on the yobbo.

Not by the other passenger who threw him off, he wasn't. He was basically acting as a vigilante, and whilst I understand the frustrations of the other passengers with the kid for holding up their journey, they have no right whatsoever to use any kind of physical force on him, let alone that much. In fact he literally jumps at the chance: "Do you want me to get him off the train?" he doesn't even ask the kid to move, just grabs him.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Nope.

He was asked to leave, he was unable to provide proof of payment for his journey. He was unable to.

He became verbally abusive to an employee of the rail company. He also failed to follow the request of an employee who is there to enforce the conditions of passenger carriage for the rail company. It is therefore fine that he was removed from said train, with force if he refused to leave. That is ALL that happened.

No assault on the yobbo.

Its not the place of some random guy thinking hes hard to do that though. So IMO it WOULD be classed as assault.

It would not be assault if the relevant authorities had done that, but some randomer...its a little different

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

Because it's not very civil is it...

you prefer social etiquette over wasteful use of public fundings then - that's fine, but I disagree.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its not the place of some random guy thinking hes hard to do that though. So IMO it WOULD be classed as assault.

It would not be assault if the relevant authorities had done that, but some randomer...its a little different

The guy was unable to produce his ticket. He was asked repeatedly - and could not do so. He then proceeded to verbally abuse the conductor.

He was asked, repeatedly to remove himself and get off the train. He refused. His own actions led to him being removed. He created the situation.

I don't see the issue. The guy will no doubt have learned his lesson,

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The guy was unable to produce his ticket. He was asked repeatedly - and could not do so. He then proceeded to verbally abuse the conductor.

He was asked, repeatedly to remove himself and get off the train. He refused. His own actions led to him being removed. He created the situation.

I don't see the issue. The guy will no doubt have learned his lesson,

And this has WHAT to do with the big guy?

Ah yeah, nothing. Just a chance to show off. Bravo you thug, bravo.

I dont disagree that he should have been removed (though he DID have a valid ticket, but could not produce...and there was no need for the swearing). It was just handled completely wrong.