[InOne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really looking at this one again and discussing it with some of my friends,as with the poll on here opinion is near equally divided as to the right or wrong actions of the guy who put the teenager off the train.
However, the first wrong was the teenager who should have 'made sure' he had a valid ticket to travel on the train.
The second wrong was for same teenager not to have that ticket ready for inspection at all times.
The third wrong was that when unable to show a valid ticket for his journey that the teenager refused to leave the train when told to by an official of the rail company and then went on to hurl abuse at him.
The other passenger who intervened really did little wrong, the final wrong was the conducter who when the other passenger asked if he wanted him to get the teenager off the train, invited him to do so and thereby gave his consent to him to do so.

If this does go down any legal route then I still stand by my view and if I was already a practising lawyer I would be arguing this point,that the teenager had no right to be on the train in the first place,unlike everyone else who was.

He would not leave when told to and thereby caused obstruction and inconvenience to all the other passengers and also the rail company whose duty it is to ensure trains run to time therefore in light of all that although he was unfortunately manhandled,in this case totally the end did fully justify the means.
He could have completely avoided being manhandled off the train simply by obeying the rail company official and leaving the train of his own accord and own speed,he, the teenager chose not to do so and preferred to become abusive.

So basically wrong + wrong + wrong = wrong. Which doesn't make it right