[Ramsay]

Originally Posted by Snowball

A 19 year old is regarded as an adult. Not a kid.

He gives the conductor an invalid ticket: therefore when he states (abusively) that "''IVE GIVEN YOU THE ****ING TICKET'' - yobbo was WRONG. The only guilty one is the yobbo who was unable to produce something he was asked for as proof of payment.

Simple.

I know he's an adult its just easier to call him 'kid' instead of 'the 19 year old'
Are you not listening to what im saying?
If what the kid is saying is true , at the time he thought he gave him the right ticket but the conducter wasent having any of it..anyone in his position would get pissed off especially if he was woken up because of it
Yes he was wrong butnI think its just a honest mistake and thats that

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Karl

I know he's an adult its just easier to call him 'kid' instead of 'the 19 year old'
Are you not listening to what im saying?
If what the kid is saying is true , at the time he thought he gave him the right ticket but the conducter wasent having any of it..anyone in his position would get pissed off especially if he was woken up because of it
Yes he was wrong butnI think its just a honest mistake and thats that

No, it makes it 'sound' better to call him a kid..... because it gives a very false impression.

The conductor is paid to do a job. He was doing it.

The yobbo boyo couldn't do something more simple: show the ticket.

His fault. End of.

[Ramsay]

Innocent until proven guilty. End of.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Karl

Innocent until proven guilty. End of.

You are required to produce a valid ticket on demand. If you can't, you are the one that's breaking the rules. As you so eloquently put it... end of.