Man arrested for using plug socket on Overground train

[Wolfie]

Take the PCSO out of this for a moment and replace with a member of train crew. Would you still be suggesting the man would be in the right then. My guess is he would have been just as mouthy. Got everything he deserved IMO. Not so much about using the socket more about his attitude

Having an "attitude" is not an arrestable offence and if it turns out that was indeed why the guy was arrested BTP better start writing a cheque now...

 

[Clip]

Having an "attitude" is not an arrestable offence and if it turns out that was indeed why the guy was arrested BTP better start writing a cheque now...

Have you not read the story yet or are you being purposely obtuse?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ill let you in on a little secret - theres a reason why the railway tells people not to do things

Yeah- so they don't get sued if you do it and it goes wrong.

Four proper policemen and a plastic one to deal with a man using a plug socket. I dread to think how many they'll need to arrest a tissue seller. Maybe that's why they don't bother.

 

[221129]

Yeah- so they don't get sued if you do it and it goes wrong.

Four proper policemen and a plastic one to deal with a man using a plug socket. I dread to think how many they'll need to arrest a tissue seller. Maybe that's why they don't bother.

Again, missing the point.

 

[meridian2]

Deary me. In one other thread on here, we have people defending the police over someone criticising their lack of accountability and now we have this, which just adds fuel to the fire.

Having read the paper, I feel there's another side to this story as there are no grounds here for an arrest let alone pressing for prosecution. The reasons for it are prosaic and glib and any judge/magistrate worth their salt would just throw this out laughing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure what the point is? That plastic bobbies should be allowed to throw their weight around because you don't say "yes madam, no madam, three bags full madam" to them?

Since when has the "attitude test" been an arrestable offence? As for "abstracting electricity", I'll send TfL the 17p electricity cost myself. They can add it to the £4500 Travelcard.

 

[221129]

Shortly after 3.30pm, a 45-year-old man from Islington was arrested on suspicion of abstracting electricity, for which he was de-arrested shortly after.

“He was further arrested for unacceptable behaviour and has been reported for this offence.

 

[Darandio]

As for "abstracting electricity", I'll send TfL the 17p electricity cost myself. They can add it to the £4500 Travelcard.

And that is the crux of it right there. Aghast at the price of travel, people believe they can take whatever else they want.

 

[Tetchytyke]

“He was further arrested for unacceptable behaviour and has been reported for this offence.

Which sounds suspiciously like copper-speak for not kissing feet.

Interestingly, the only reference I can find to "unacceptable behaviour" in the CPS guidance relates to religious extremism. I'm surprised the PCSO didn't just go straight for terrorism legislation tbh, like they do when someone's taking photos in a bus station.

 

[221129]

Which sounds suspiciously like copper-speak for not kissing feet.

Or could be related to this?

Mr Lee says he tried to push past the officers but was handcuffed on the platform

 

[meridian2]

So caution him, or warn him, it's not grounds to take it further up the food chain.

Sounds to me as if the media are being deliberately obtuse in their reporting. 'Pushed past' could mean anything.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yeah- so they don't get sued if you do it and it goes wrong.

Four proper policemen and a plastic one to deal with a man using a plug socket. I dread to think how many they'll need to arrest a tissue seller. Maybe that's why they don't bother.

God!! How many more times do is need to be said? He has been arrested due to his behaviour with the PCSO and BTP.

The second word of your forum name is SO true!!

 

[transmanche]

Interestingly, the only reference I can find to "unacceptable behaviour" in the CPS guidance relates to religious extremism.

It's a TfL Byelaw offence:

6. Unacceptable behaviour:

• No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.
• No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.
• No person shall write, draw, paint or fix anything on the railway.
• No person shall soil any part of the railway.
• No person shall damage or detach any part of the railway.
• No person shall spit on the railway.
• No person shall leave litter or waste on the railway except in receptacles specifically provided by the Operator for those purposes.
• No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

 

[bnm]

Interestingly, the only reference I can find to "unacceptable behaviour" in the CPS guidance relates to religious extremism. I'm surprised the PCSO didn't just go straight for terrorism legislation tbh, like they do when someone's taking photos in a bus station.

You could try reading the Railway Byelaws. :roll:

EDIT: Beaten to it by transmanche.

 

[meridian2]

OK so he breached the byelaws, but it still sounds as if the PCSO interpreted the byelaws incorrectly in the first offence concerning electricity.
As for what followed, it could be argued that the breach of the byelaws concerning aggressive behaviour were because of an impractical and implausible arrestible offence and that he felt that such a rule was too implausible to be pressed for prosecution.
It could also be argued as to what set of charges the police were referring from; the railway byelaws, the law, or both. In my view and opinion, if the BTP become involved, the railway byelaws become secondary to common law.

 

[EM2]

OK so he breached the byelaws, but it still sounds as if the PCSO interpreted the byelaws incorrectly in the first offence concerning electricity.

Can't see how it has been interpreted incorrectly:

11. General safety
(1) No person shall move, operate, obstruct, stop or in any other way interfere with any part of a train or other equipment on the railway except:
(i) in an emergency, by means of any equipment on or near which is a notice
indicating that is intended to be used in an emergency; or
(ii) any equipment intended for the use of passengers in that way in normal
operating circumstances.

 

[AM9]

Can't see how it has been interpreted incorrectly:

11. General safety....
....(i) in an emergency, by means of any equipment on or near which is a notice
indicating that is intended to be used in an emergency....

But he was in danger of not being able to tweet, so it was a life and death emergency!

 

[HH]

I believe the baby in "Meet The Fockers" summed up this guy succinctly

 

[EM2]

But he was in danger of not being able to tweet, so it was a life and death emergency!

Au contraire, mon ami, because there is not a

notice indicating that is intended to be used in an emergency....

on the plug socket, so he's still bang to rights

 

[450.emu]

Au contraire, mon ami, because there is not a on the plug socket, so he's still bang to rights

The police felt quite powerful when they eventually charged the 'artist' (gets coat) :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

Listening to the R2 segment earlier, was the blokes main aim achieved? He did after all firmly establish his name, that he was an artist, and that he had an exhibition coming up.

Free national advertising provided by BBC Radio 2. Never mind the socket problem, he was just after a plug...

 

[6Gman]

Listening to the R2 segment earlier, was the blokes main aim achieved? He did after all firmly establish his name, that he was an artist, and that he had an exhibition coming up.

Free national advertising provided by BBC Radio 2. Never mind the socket problem, he was just after a plug...

Where's the 'like' button?


Seriously, this thread seems to have attracted people who have a negative view of the police in general and PCSOs in particular. They are perfectly entitled to those views, but they may not be relevant to this incident.

None of us were present, so none of us knows exactly what happened, but let me offer a plausible scenario.

PCSO walks through train (offering the much vaunted "reassuring presence" which many members of the public seem to value) and sees a passenger doing something he shouldn't. In this case it was using a "not for public use" socket but it could have been feet on seats, smoking, playing a musical instrument to the annoyance of other passengers, or some other bye-law misdemeanour. Does the PCSO walk past? Or say something?

The PCSO says something (tactfully or otherwise). Personally I'd be disappointed if they didn't.

Passenger's response is something other than "I'm sorry, I'll unplug it now". Situation escalates.

The PCSO's fault?

 

[jon0844]

Where's the exhibition? I need to charge my phone.

 

[6Gman]

Where's the exhibition? I need to charge my phone.

I need that 'like' button again!

 

[Metrailway]

OK so he breached the byelaws, but it still sounds as if the PCSO interpreted the byelaws incorrectly in the first offence concerning electricity.
As for what followed, it could be argued that the breach of the byelaws concerning aggressive behaviour were because of an impractical and implausible arrestible offence and that he felt that such a rule was too implausible to be pressed for prosecution.
It could also be argued as to what set of charges the police were referring from; the railway byelaws, the law, or both. In my view and opinion, if the BTP become involved, the railway byelaws become secondary to common law.

Abstracting electricity is an offence under the Theft Act 1968:

A person who dishonestly uses without due authority, or dishonestly causes to be wasted or diverted, any electricity shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

 

[Carlisle]

Where's the exhibition? I need to charge my phone.

Plenty of Wetherspoons pubs these days like the one at Liverpool Street station also have lots of sockets specifically for charging phones etc without getting nicked , wonder if they're going to start arresting those folk I've seen slyley charging their phones at various sockets around St Pancras too

 

[EM2]

He's just been on BBC London News and said there was nothing to say he couldn't do it and he'd do it again. I hope his phone gets fried next time.
Oh, and his art is rubbish.

 

[Darandio]

He's just been on BBC London News and said there was nothing to say he couldn't do it and he'd do it again. I hope his phone gets fried next time.
Oh, and his art is rubbish.

So that is where we are as a society now? As long as there is nothing to say you cannot do something, you're automatically allowed to do it?

Is there anything that says I cannot defacate on his exhibition? If not, what can he do about it?

 

[EM2]

So that is where we are as a society now? As long as there is nothing to say you cannot do something, you're automatically allowed to do it?

Is there anything that says I cannot defacate on his exhibition? If not, what can he do about it?

It seems so. The reporter said 'But there was nothing to say that you could?' and he still thought he was right.

 

[AM9]

I've just watched an article about the event on BBC London News. They interviewed the culprit who said that: 'it doesn't say that you can use it or that you can't'. So him being an artist who can't see a notice as big as the socket and can't read a clear message indicating that he shouldn't use it seems a bit far fetched. He then went on to say that he would do it again. I won't dwell on his tone in saying that but as a guess, he doesn't seem to have learn't from the experience.
Heigh ho, maybe his attitude (as seen by any official trying to deal with the situation) will be a little more conciliatory, unless he wants to be seen as a serial offender and possibly then ending up in a magistrates court.