FORUMula1.com

[scotty]

This vid has gone pretty viral in the UK this week, and seems to be causing a fair bit of debate...

My view? If you're going to try and break the law, then be a loudmouth turd when you get found out AND risk pissing off a load of honest paying people, all bets are off and you deserve what you get. I found this video brilliantly hilarious.

[racechick]

Im with you Scotty, The guy hadnt paid and had no right to be on the train (Though he may have been mistaken about the ticket he had). What do you think about the guy who threw him off? Right or wrong? And now he's getting prosecuted. Right or wrong?

[scotty]

That's what all the arguments are about. Hmm... i can see why it's such a huge debate cause there is an debate for it being wrong in technical law terms, but at the same time if you're going to try and pull a fast one, morally you get what you deserve - and the police would have done the exact same thing (ie removed him by force if necessary). Say, if you see someone grab an old lady's handbag and leg it on the street, if you tackle the guy to stop him should you be prosecuted for doing that? It's the same concept...

One thing though i definitely don't believe the kid's crap story about buying two singles by mistake. I mean we're seriously supposed to buy that?

[andrew]

As far as the law is concerned, the other passanger should have not got involved but I can't blame him and applaud him for stepping in.

The kid was on the news and he was a right little arrognat arsey punk. He was sporting a facial injury on his left cheek though I don't think the bloke on the train thumped him did he? He was trying to claim he had accidently been given 2 singles for his morning journey. Surely you'd check what you'd been given once you'd paid your money? Either way, he was trying to come it and he got what he deserved.

The other bloke has committed common assault but looking at the bigger picture, the kid got what he deserved. It was either an angry passanger or the police would have been called. Which does the kid prefer now?

[smokin]

Ride the train here without a ticket and you risk life and limb - literally. After a night out on the town a reveller thought it would be a good idea to hitch a free ride a couple of dozen blocks home on a freight train. Once the train picked up speed, though, he couldn't get off. In danger of freezing to death he dialled 911. The police identified the train and stopped it in time. The hitchhiker spent two days in hospital being treated for frostbite for his pains.

[acosmichippo]

In my view, the catalyst for this whole situation was the ineffective train staff. You're going to make your paying customers "sit there all night" and "moan" to get the little prick off the train? That's your job. You're not "getting paid to sit there all night" - you get paid to make the train run as efficiently and safely as possible. To pass the buck to the general public is wrong from a business standpoint as well as a general safety standpoint. Luckily, that scenario was relatively harmless, but what if the kid was as big as the guy that threw him off? What if he had a weapon?

I understand the train staffer was an older guy, but call in some backup or something. Surely there was some sort of security detail nearby that should have been notified. "We apologize for the delay, but we have security/police on the way to resolve the situation. Please remain calm, and we will get the train moving as quickly as possible. We thank you for your patience." Not that difficult.

So if that were my train, my staff would be getting one helluva refresher course on how to handle unruly customers, general customer service, and safety.

[andrew]

He didn't pass the buck. The bloke offered to eject the objectionable little turd from the train and the conductor didn't stand in his way.

[acosmichippo]

Yes he did. 20 seconds in, when he said, "I'll sit here all night, I'm getting paid for this. They'll start moaning," he basically said that if the passengers want to get the train moving, they'll have to move the kid off on their own. If he took control of the situation from the beginning (like saying what I suggested in my earlier post), no one would have felt obliged to take matters into their own hands.

That is the very definition of passing the buck. Let someone else deal with it.

[LewEngBridewell]

Well done to the man who through him off. Legend. That kid was a cheeky w***er who refused to be cooperative and abide by the rules.

I heard much of the debate on BBC Radio 2. Of course, the situation is a difficult one. The man was fortunately very large and very tough. Unlike this guy, I admit I would have been thoroughly ineffective if I tried to do what he did, because I'm not a big person, and I don't look physically intimidating

My concern would also encompass what the kid could potentially have been armed with, like what acosmichippo mentioned. It's always risky to start a confrontation with someone who is quite comfortable with being unreasonable, because something in the pocket of their coat could be providing them with that comfort.

On the other hand, the kid was being rude and behaving wholly inappropriately. If I was in his situation, I would have been much calmer... explained to the conductor the mistake I'd made and tried to find a way around it. However, this jerk just seemed intent on making the whole process as difficult and as nasty as possible.

I hope the man who chucked him off doesn't get penalised by the law. He did a good thing IMO.

[acosmichippo]

(emphasis added)

I hope the man who chucked him off doesn't get penalised by the law. He did a good thing IMO.

Easy to say that after the fact. That scenario could have played out many different ways, though - some of which include physical danger to the other passengers. Not his (or the staff's) call to make, in my opinion. There's a reason we have law-enforcement trained for stuff like this.

[LewEngBridewell]

(emphasis added)

I hope the man who chucked him off doesn't get penalised by the law. He did a good thing IMO.

Easy to say that after the fact. That scenario could have played out many different ways, though - some of which include physical danger to the other passengers. Not his (or the staff's) call to make, in my opinion. There's a reason we have professionally-trained law-enforcement.

Absolutely. Yes, it's a very difficult and tricky situation that could have held a whole host of varying outcomes. This time, it worked out OK. But as you say, and as I acknowledged earlier, the are better ways of dealing with such an occurrence too.

[zurich_allan]

(emphasis added)

I hope the man who chucked him off doesn't get penalised by the law. He did a good thing IMO.

Easy to say that after the fact. That scenario could have played out many different ways, though - some of which include physical danger to the other passengers. Not his (or the staff's) call to make, in my opinion. There's a reason we have professionally-trained law-enforcement.

Absolutely. Yes, it's a very difficult and tricky situation that could have held a whole host of varying outcomes. This time, it worked out OK. But as you say, and as I acknowledged earlier, the are better ways of dealing with such an occurrence too.

Yes to all of this. Initially when I watched this before it went viral, my immediate thoughts were 'cheeky little git deserved all he got'. But then I thought about it a bit more with my sensible hat on after reflecting for a bit and the more I think about it, the more I don't like it.

The guy that threw him off had no business doing that. The correct procedure for Scotrail staff is that they call transport police to come to the next stop, keep the train going then when they reach said stop, transport police come on and eject the trouble maker safely. It's a pretty simple procedure to follow so I really don't understand why the ticket inspector did what he did - effectively inciting other train go-ers to get involved.

Exactly as above says, this time it worked out ok. However I know of some stations where there it literally a near 2 foot gap between train and platform, what if when ejecting the youth, or when the youth tries to get back on he falls between the platform and the train? Or what if it is particularly icy (as is the condition in that area as I type) and he slips and breaks his arm / leg / neck? Or what if another passenger tries to get on the train unaware that an 8 stone pleb is about to be propelled bahooky first into their oncoming path causing injury to them too?

More seriously as others have said, what if this type of person were carrying some type of blade or other weapon?

The combined actions of the conductor and the 'good samaritan' caused what was potentially a dangerous and explosive situation that simply didn't need to happen if the VERY simple correct procedure was followed.

That said, I'd still have liked to smack the wee s**t in the mouth...

[andrew]

Yes he did. 20 seconds in, when he said, "I'll sit here all night, I'm getting paid for this. They'll start moaning," he basically said that if the passengers want to get the train moving, they'll have to move the kid off on their own. If he took control of the situation from the beginning (like saying what I suggested in my earlier post), no one would have felt obliged to take matters into their own hands.

That is the very definition of passing the buck. Let someone else deal with it.

I still don't see that as passing the buck, but more trying to reason with the punk. The conductor is pointing out to the objectional little poo that he's the one holding everyone else up by trying to get a free ride. The kid was caught out but refused to deal with it. We've all been on public transport when this has happened (and I'm sure a few of us have been away to do what the bloke did and throw the twat off) and the driver or conductor always tries to reason with the passanger by point out that everyone else has paid their fare or that the passanger is holding everyone up. There's not really a whole lot else that can be done apart from reason with the passanger. Calling for the police is the last resort and a waste of tax payers money.

[What's Burning?]

I'm glad for subtitles.

[acosmichippo]

Yes he did. 20 seconds in, when he said, "I'll sit here all night, I'm getting paid for this. They'll start moaning," he basically said that if the passengers want to get the train moving, they'll have to move the kid off on their own. If he took control of the situation from the beginning (like saying what I suggested in my earlier post), no one would have felt obliged to take matters into their own hands.

That is the very definition of passing the buck. Let someone else deal with it.

I still don't see that as passing the buck, but more trying to reason with the punk. The conductor is pointing out to the objectional little poo that he's the one holding everyone else up by trying to get a free ride. The kid was caught out but refused to deal with it. We've all been on public transport when this has happened (and I'm sure a few of us have been away to do what the bloke did and throw the twat off) and the driver or conductor always tries to reason with the passanger by point out that everyone else has paid their fare or that the passanger is holding everyone up. There's not really a whole lot else that can be done apart from reason with the passanger. Calling for the police is the last resort and a waste of tax payers money.

If you call that reasoning, it is the very worst kind possible. Think of it from the perspective of an average passenger. It's just not acceptable for an employee involved in customer service to start "reasoning" by repeatedly saying, "I can sit here all day," in the presence of customers, and on top of that suggest that the only backlash the delinquent will experience is from the other passengers. It's the employee's job to deal with s*** like that so customers don't have to - for convenience and safety. I sure wouldn't want to ride on that train after seeing how they handle themselves.

So in my opinion, everyone in that video acted poorly. The kid first and foremost, obviously, but also the employee and the "big man".

I'm honestly surprised the train company isn't being sued for essentially encouraging the passengers to gang up on the kid.

Oh, and I agree that calling the police for that would be a waste of their time, though still preferable to what happened here. The train company should have the capacity to handle situations like this on their own.

The guy that threw him off had no business doing that. The correct procedure for Scotrail staff is that they call transport police to come to the next stop, keep the train going then when they reach said stop, transport police come on and eject the trouble maker safely. It's a pretty simple procedure to follow so I really don't understand why the ticket inspector did what he did - effectively inciting other train go-ers to get involved.

Yes, exactly.