[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

If the guy wasnt hell bent on fare dodging and pretending he had the correct ticket - and stopped arguing and cursing away: then the situation would never have arisen.

Difference is, the lad doesnt have to be professional and follow procedure to travel on a train. Someone at work, and trained to deal with situations like this, should know better

Im pretty damn sure this guy wasnt the first to dodge the fair and refuse to leave the train. But I would think he is probably the first where the conductor gave free reign to other passengers to assault him. At least I would hope the second scenario wasnt common.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well I dont particularly want to be stabbed either. Nor do I assume that just because someone is young and rude, that they are carrying a knife and going to use it on me

No Your a Good Lady
I am sure you are fine.


But that Ticket Old Boy may have had weapons pointed at him
more than younger you

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

If the guy wasnt hell bent on fare dodging and pretending he had the correct ticket - and stopped arguing and cursing away: then the situation would never have arisen.

You may think it's amusing for people to be verbally abused in their place of work - I don't - and I don't care if that is a train conductor, a nurse in A&E - people have a right to carry out their employ and not be verbally abused for it.

At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly, that's a fact. Instead of opting to do any of the procedures he opened the floor to violence. I don't care what kind of verbal abuse was flying around swearing doesn't condone violence and I'm surprised and flabbergasted that you think that Pyramid.

Does that mean if I hear someone say **** while i'm out and about I can throw them in front of a car or beat them down?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by arista

No Your a Good Lady
I am sure you are fine.


But that Ticket Old Boy may have had weapons pointed at him
more than younger you

Still, this does not mean that every youngster is carrying a knife. And it would be ridiculous of the conductor to assume that. if he is seriously that paranoid, he shouldnt be at work anyway, he must be a nervous wreck if he thinks every teen is going to stab him.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Difference is, the lad doesnt have to be professional and follow procedure to travel on a train. Someone at work, and trained to deal with situations like this, should know better

Actually, you will find that he (the passenger) does have to follow rules. The terms and conditions of using public tranport - and are often posted around in respect of fare dodging: makes procedures very clear as to what is required when you use such mode of transport, what is expected when ticket inspector come on board, and of the consequences.

If he uses a mode of transport - he should be aware of the T&Cs of carriager prior to embarking.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Actually, you will find that he does. The terms and conditions of using public tranport - and are often posted around in respect of fare dodging: makes procedures very clear as to what is required when you use such mode of transport, what is expected when ticket inspector come on board, and of the consequences.

If he uses a mode of transport - he should be aware of the T&Cs of carriager prior to embarking.

Oh ffs...you knew what I meant.

One would assume that someone in a position of power/a work, would follow procedure and do things the right way...no?

[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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Still, this does not mean that every youngster is carrying a knife. And it would be ridiculous of the conductor to assume that. if he is seriously that paranoid, he shouldnt be at work anyway, he must be a nervous wreck if he thinks every teen is going to stab him.

No it does not
but the Punk Scammer was Swearing a great deal
in front of children
so thats on the way to a attack - From Rail Staff

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

At the end of the day the conductor handled the situation poorly, that's a fact. Instead of opting to do any of the procedures he opened the floor to violence. I don't care what kind of verbal abuse was flying around swearing doesn't condone violence and I'm surprised and flabbergasted that you think that Pyramid.

Does that mean if I hear someone say **** while i'm out and about I can throw them in front of a car or beat them down?

At the end of the day: there would have been no situation for the conductor to handle at all - if the boyo would have simply bought his ticket -or - accepted that he didn't and got off when he was told.

He created the situation.

I'm not perturbed in the slightest if you are surprised or flabbergasted at my views - or not - they are my views regardless. If that has some impact on your thoughts on my views - it has no bearing on me whatsover.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Snowball

At the end of the day: there would have been no situation for the conductor to handle at all - if the boyo would have simply bought his ticket -or - accepted that he didn't and got off when he was told.

He created the situation.

I'm not perturbed in the slightest if you are surprised or flabbergasted at my views - or not - they are my views regardless. If that has some impact on your thoughts on my views - it has no bearing on me whatsover.

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?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh ffs...you knew what I meant.

One would assume that someone in a position of power/a work, would follow procedure and do things the right way...no?

Oh I knew what you meant, it's important though that people do realise that they don't travel on public transport without accepting the T&Cs of carriage.

I've stated several times over that the conductor could have handled the matter differently: I also gave reasons for considation as to why he did not do so.

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

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

[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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

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

Oh I think the very vast majority(pretty much everyone except one or two) would agree that it IS assault. Some of those may think it was deserved...thats their choice...and a different argument really. But theres really no denying that by law, the lad was assaulted.

Therefor those saying the big guy was in the right, think its fine to assault someone who is swearing and being rude

[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 Vicky.

Oh I think the vast majority would agree that it IS assault. Some may think it was deserved...thats their choice. But theres really no denying that by law, the lad was assaulted.

Therefor those saying the big guy was in the right, think its fine to assault someone who is swearing and being rude

What people 'think' is assault and what actually 'is' assault will no doubt be clarified - seeing that a complaint has been made to the Police.

If they feel assault has taken place, I'd expect them to charge Mr Pollock with said crime, and see what the outcome is thereafter. Until then, I'm maintaining my stance. *digs heels in*

Verbal abuse is not the same as verbal assault.

[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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

What people 'think' is assault and what actually 'is' assault will no doubt be clarified - seeing that a complaint has been made to the Police.

If they feel assault has taken place, I'd expect them to charge Mr Pollock with said crime, and see what the outcome is thereafter. Until then, I'm maintaining my stance. *digs heels in*

Verbal abuse is not the same as verbal assault.

As for the rest...if the complaint is not withdrawn...and the guy IS charged with assault...will you accept then that it was assault? Or will you be saying the police are wrong so that you can continue with this argument?

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by Jingle Bellend

Big Man

[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'.

[InOne]

My god. 16 pages of you lot rewording your same points over and over again

[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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Scrooge

My god. 16 pages of you lot rewording your same points over and over again

[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