So we're being encouraged to take the law into our own hands then ? Just because BTP arent taking action dosent mean the young lad cant. He should too.
Any word on the faredodger? I don't know if muppetry is a criminal offense, but that freeloader needs some type of sanction. If for no other reason than his general attitude.
Any word on the faredodger? I don't know if muppetry is a criminal offense, but that freeloader needs some type of sanction. If for no other reason than his general attitude.
Neither to be prosecuted Rafer. Knock for Knock as far as the PF is concerned.
Personally I think there is a public interest in the law being upheld - in both the case of the fare dodger and the man who threw him off. They ought both to have been prosecuted.
I'm not sure either of them should be able to escape prosecution because a crown office lawyer has a particular view about the public interest. Parliament and the courts should be taken to have considered the public interest when they created criminal laws in the first place.
Nevertheless, I don't suppose I really care all that much. The case was always rather piffling, I could never understand the media attention.
Personally I think there is a public interest in the law being upheld - in both the case of the fare dodger and the man who threw him off. They ought both to have been prosecuted .
If they had done they may have had to prosecute the Conductor for incitement.
That wouldn't look good for ScotRail since it was the negligence (albeit accidental) on the part of one of their own staff, who mis-sold the tickets in the first place, which likely caused it.
They can hardly be seen to prosecute those who assault their staff whilst members of their own staff encourage the use of violence against passengers.
If they had done they may have had to prosecute the Conductor for incitement.
That wouldn't look good for ScotRail since it was the negligence (albeit accidental) on the part of one of their own staff, who mis-sold the tickets in the first place, which likely caused it.
They can hardly be seen to prosecute those who assault their staff whilst members of their own staff encourage the use of violence against passengers.
There was never any question of ScotRail prosecuting anyone. Like almost all criminal matters this one was dealt with by the police and then the decision not to prosecute was made by the Scottish equivalent of the CPS.
I never said ScotRail were prosecuting anyone, just "they", whomever "they" may be.
If any action had been taken against the Conductor it still may have been embarrassing for ScotRail.
ETA: Oh, I see what you mean. I meant that ScotRail "seek" the prosecution of people who assault their staff rather than do the prosecuting themselves.
Good! Good on him.He did exactly what i would (and have done)! Albeit mine was a bus.No doubt someone will be along soon enough to tell me I am scum and that the person who tried smashing a bottle on a random guys head, is in fact an angel and me stopping him was in the wrong...carry on cos i dont care.
I never said ScotRail were prosecuting anyone, just "they", whomever "they" may be.
If any action had been taken against the Conductor it still may have been embarrassing for ScotRail.
ETA: Oh, I see what you mean. I meant that ScotRail "seek" the prosecution of people who assault their staff rather than do the prosecuting themselves.
I think in this case that the investigation was started at the request of someone else though - I assume the fare dodger or his father. I'm not sure, in any event, what the conductor could be prosecuted for. He didn't really incite what happened.
Good! Good on him.He did exactly what i would (and have done)! Albeit mine was a bus.No doubt someone will be along soon enough to tell me I am scum and that the person who tried smashing a bottle on a random guys head, is in fact an angel and me stopping him was in the wrong...carry on cos i dont care.
As has been said, removing someone from a bus to prevent them samshing a bottle on some one is clearly a lawful use of force.
So we're being encouraged to take the law into our own hands then ? Just because BTP arent taking action dosent mean the young lad cant. He should too.
Under Scots Law it isn't upto BTP to take action. If a complaint is made and there is evidence to support the complaint the BTP must report it to the Fiscal.
Clearly as I predicted sometime ago the Fiscal has taken out his big red pen and done the needful.
Any word on the faredodger? I don't know if muppetry is a criminal offense, but that freeloader needs some type of sanction. If for no other reason than his general attitude.
The "fare dodger" it seems wasn't. He was put into a precarious predicament by incompetent rail staff. This was then further compounded by the conductor, who assumed "the yob" was a liar and told him to get off.
The youth then, having the moral high ground (he knew he had paid the correct fare) quite rightly refused, (He may well also have had insufficient money to continue his journey by alternative means).
The conductor then compounded his own incompetence by parroting "i've got all night". All he had to do was tell the lad that he would now contact BTP and they would be waiting and would deal with him appropriately.
Instead his action ultimately lead to the train bully getting involved and to my utter disgust was applauded by his fellow passengers.
I suppose in mitigation he / they were not to know that the lad had paid his fare.
Nevertheless, the ejector was a bully, guilty of assault, is clearly identifiable and should be prosecuted.
The "fare dodger" it seems wasn't. He was put into a precarious predicament by incompetent rail staff. This was then further compounded by the conductor, who assumed "the yob" was a liar and told him to get off.
The youth then, having the moral high ground (he knew he had paid the correct fare) quite rightly refused, (He may well also have had insufficient money to continue his journey by alternative means).
The conductor then compounded his own incompetence by parroting "i've got all night". All he had to do was tell the lad that he would now contact BTP and they would be waiting and would deal with him appropriately.
Instead his action ultimately lead to the train bully getting involved and to my utter disgust was applauded by his fellow passengers.
I suppose in mitigation he / they were not to know that the lad had paid his fare.
Nevertheless, the ejector was a bully, guilty of assault, is clearly identifiable and should be prosecuted.
No win - no fee my son, go for it!
(BTW - how did this end up in Politics?)
You missed out the bit where the fare dodger started swearing like navvy and generally acting like a spoilt child, unless of course that's what you meant by "having the moral high ground".
The "fare dodger" it seems wasn't. He was put into a precarious predicament by incompetent rail staff. This was then further compounded by the conductor, who assumed "the yob" was a liar and told him to get off.
The youth then, having the moral high ground (he knew he had paid the correct fare) quite rightly refused, (He may well also have had insufficient money to continue his journey by alternative means).
The conductor then compounded his own incompetence by parroting "i've got all night". All he had to do was tell the lad that he would now contact BTP and they would be waiting and would deal with him appropriately.
Instead his action ultimately lead to the train bully getting involved and to my utter disgust was applauded by his fellow passengers.
I suppose in mitigation he / they were not to know that the lad had paid his fare.
Nevertheless, the ejector was a bully, guilty of assault, is clearly identifiable and should be prosecuted.
No win - no fee my son, go for it!
(BTW - how did this end up in Politics?)
Funny how many people defend the little runt's use of aggressive and offensive language towards the conductor isn't it?
He lost any moral high ground he may have started with when he began his obnoxious tirade. I'm still glad he got thrown off that train. He deserved it.
The "fare dodger" it seems wasn't. He was put into a precarious predicament by incompetent rail staff. This was then further compounded by the conductor, who assumed "the yob" was a liar and told him to get off.
Not yet seen or heard anything official from Scotrail confirming that he was indeed sold the incorrect ticket. The onus is upon him to produce the correct ticket when required or pay the full fare for the journey
The youth then, having the moral high ground (he knew he had paid the correct fare) quite rightly refused, (He may well also have had insufficient money to continue his journey by alternative means).
Quite wrongly refused. You either pay the full fare or leave the train. No moral high ground. That's the Railway Bye-Laws
The conductor then compounded his own incompetence by parroting "i've got all night". All he had to do was tell the lad that he would now contact BTP and they would be waiting and would deal with him appropriately.
The conductor had no POSSIBLE way of verifying the story given by Main. Main refused to pay the full fare.
Instead his action ultimately lead to the train bully getting involved and to my utter disgust was applauded by his fellow passengers.
Main compounded the situation by committing a Breach of the Peace and refusing to exit the train when required by the conductor
I suppose in mitigation he / they were not to know that the lad had paid his fare.
Exactly! Just one of the thousands of bullshit stories conductors hear every day
Nevertheless, the ejector was a bully, guilty of assault, is clearly identifiable and should be prosecuted.
Wrong! He's NOT guilty of an assault, he's not been tried and convicted. To say othewise is libellous
We only have his word for that and doesn't he check his tickets before he leaves the ticket office?
ah so a case of "caveat emptor" I suppose?
Must confess that when I have the misfortune to have to use the railways in this Kingdom I pays me money and put the tickets in my pocket until required. I have a reasonable assumption that I have been sold the correct items.
I suppose on reflection I should know better than trust railway staff to get it right.
Funny how many people defend the little runt's use of aggressive and offensive language towards the conductor isn't it?
He lost any moral high ground he may have started with when he began his obnoxious tirade. I'm still glad he got thrown off that train. He deserved it.
To be honest the only voices I could clearly hear were the conductor and the bully. I heard the occasional incoherent mutter from the lad but no bad language.
If I knew i'd paid the fare and was being wrongly ejected I suspect my temper may well have lead me to "lose it" aswell.
I however am not a 7 stone when soaking wet youth, so bully boy would no doubt have stayed in his seat.
duckymallard
Posts: 13,936
Comments
Neither to be prosecuted Rafer. Knock for Knock as far as the PF is concerned.
Probably the right outcome. It depends if he uses it as a learning experience or not.
I'm not sure either of them should be able to escape prosecution because a crown office lawyer has a particular view about the public interest. Parliament and the courts should be taken to have considered the public interest when they created criminal laws in the first place.
Nevertheless, I don't suppose I really care all that much. The case was always rather piffling, I could never understand the media attention.
If they had done they may have had to prosecute the Conductor for incitement.
That wouldn't look good for ScotRail since it was the negligence (albeit accidental) on the part of one of their own staff, who mis-sold the tickets in the first place, which likely caused it.
They can hardly be seen to prosecute those who assault their staff whilst members of their own staff encourage the use of violence against passengers.
There was never any question of ScotRail prosecuting anyone. Like almost all criminal matters this one was dealt with by the police and then the decision not to prosecute was made by the Scottish equivalent of the CPS.
If any action had been taken against the Conductor it still may have been embarrassing for ScotRail.
ETA: Oh, I see what you mean. I meant that ScotRail "seek" the prosecution of people who assault their staff rather than do the prosecuting themselves.
I think in this case that the investigation was started at the request of someone else though - I assume the fare dodger or his father. I'm not sure, in any event, what the conductor could be prosecuted for. He didn't really incite what happened.
As has been said, removing someone from a bus to prevent them samshing a bottle on some one is clearly a lawful use of force.
Under Scots Law it isn't upto BTP to take action. If a complaint is made and there is evidence to support the complaint the BTP must report it to the Fiscal.
Clearly as I predicted sometime ago the Fiscal has taken out his big red pen and done the needful.
The "fare dodger" it seems wasn't. He was put into a precarious predicament by incompetent rail staff. This was then further compounded by the conductor, who assumed "the yob" was a liar and told him to get off.
The youth then, having the moral high ground (he knew he had paid the correct fare) quite rightly refused, (He may well also have had insufficient money to continue his journey by alternative means).
The conductor then compounded his own incompetence by parroting "i've got all night". All he had to do was tell the lad that he would now contact BTP and they would be waiting and would deal with him appropriately.
Instead his action ultimately lead to the train bully getting involved and to my utter disgust was applauded by his fellow passengers.
I suppose in mitigation he / they were not to know that the lad had paid his fare.
Nevertheless, the ejector was a bully, guilty of assault, is clearly identifiable and should be prosecuted.
No win - no fee my son, go for it!
(BTW - how did this end up in Politics?)
You missed out the bit where the fare dodger started swearing like navvy and generally acting like a spoilt child, unless of course that's what you meant by "having the moral high ground".
He lost any moral high ground he may have started with when he began his obnoxious tirade. I'm still glad he got thrown off that train. He deserved it.
If not, I'm more than happ...... no better not, had I?
We only have his word for that and doesn't he check his tickets before he leaves the ticket office?
Answered in your post
ah so a case of "caveat emptor" I suppose?
Must confess that when I have the misfortune to have to use the railways in this Kingdom I pays me money and put the tickets in my pocket until required. I have a reasonable assumption that I have been sold the correct items.
I suppose on reflection I should know better than trust railway staff to get it right.
To be honest the only voices I could clearly hear were the conductor and the bully. I heard the occasional incoherent mutter from the lad but no bad language.
If I knew i'd paid the fare and was being wrongly ejected I suspect my temper may well have lead me to "lose it" aswell.
I however am not a 7 stone when soaking wet youth, so bully boy would no doubt have stayed in his seat.