Pensioner against feet on seats

[Polarbear]

This is unworkable because:

1) You can't physically eject people from trains - why bother getting physical?

2) You can't turf kids off before their destination. Hopefully the reason why is obvious.

I appreciate what you are saying, but the problem with the current set up (and legislation) is that people know this & act accordingly - knowing they cannot be thrown off a train or a bus invites poor behavioural standards from a minority of idiots.

The problem is of course, not one of the transport operator's making, but one of today's society - which seems to have to passively tolerate the anti-social behaviour of a minority of idiots who don't respect others in society.

As for turfing kids off before their destination, I acknowledge that you can't maroon them, but why not set them off at staffed stations. What would happen if a child was attempting to travel without paying? Would they be left to complete their journey just because they are regarded as being a minor?

I've noticed in the last couple of years that McDonalds have started to take a tougher line with unruly groups of kids in their establishments. No physical ejecting of people is involved, but some firm words from the staff, backed up by management (with the threat of police intervention used occasionally as a last resort) normally does the trick. If they can do this without seemingly much reputational damage, I can't see why others cannot adopt a similar approach?

 

[HH]

Bring Back Birching!

(j/k before someone starts foaming at the mouth)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think GatwickDepress is the one being melodramatic here. That kid looks 11 at the oldest and is probably under 10, i.e. below the age of criminal responsibility. Good to know that so many are only too willing to write the boy off- as if they never acted up when they were young... :roll:

 

[Waldgrun]

As one who used to work on the Railways I lost count of the number of times that Kids (Brats) told me that I could not tell them what to do or not do because of their (h)uman rights, or if I took any action they would have the law on me, because they knew their rights (but not responsibilities), made me wish I could have used a real human right on them. I didn't I have to say!
The only time I can recall getting one over some of the little devils sorry darling, I left my office with a handful of cleaning items and went to the bench where they were sitting on top of the backrest with their mucky feet on the seat base, I looked at the bench and then thanked them for saving me a job, a grunted replied of "wot ya mean?" I then told them that they had cleaned the grease of the top of back rest! With that they all jumped down (think Cats on a hot tin roof), twisting round trying to look at their backsides! I then walked away saying if they didn't like the thought of their clothes being mucked up, other people don't like their clothes messed up!
So I can understand why the older fellow did what he did, was he right or wrong, I don't know, and if you think about the matter the article in the paper only gives one side of the story.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bring Back Birching!

(j/k before someone starts foaming at the mouth)

Didn't he cut alot of railway services!







Sorry cheap pound shop reading glasses!

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Bring Back Birching!

What! And close even more railways?

(Should have gone to Specsavers )

EDIT:Waldgrun beat me to it!

 

[Antman]

We can never, ever remove unaccompanied minors from the train. The guard has duty of care to some degree and if he/she turfed them off at whatever location and something happened, questions would be asked (and have been).

I would, however, be inviting this 'gentleman' to leave the train at the first available opportunity with BTP assistance. Assaulting anyone, particularly a minor, is entirely unacceptable, whatever supposed 'wrong' is being righted.

As an aside, I'm just as likely to find people of that generation with feet on the seats as younger people, and I've been verbally and physically abused more by 'respectable older gentlemen' than young people.

And there lays the problem, as a child I can remember being turfed off a slammer with my mates because our behavior was unacceptable and rightly so, of course in those days the guard was a figure of authority who you wouldn't dare argue with. Half an hour on a cold platform waiting for the next train taught us a lesson.

I don't know the full details of the incident that started this thread but I think you'll find that public opinion would be very much in favour of the gentleman in question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think GatwickDepress is the one being melodramatic here. That kid looks 11 at the oldest and is probably under 10, i.e. below the age of criminal responsibility. Good to know that so many are only too willing to write the boy off- as if they never acted up when they were young... :roll:

Who said anything about not acting up when they were young?:roll:

See post above:roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

As for turfing kids off before their destination, I acknowledge that you can't maroon them, but why not set them off at staffed stations. What would happen if a child was attempting to travel without paying? Would they be left to complete their journey just because they are regarded as being a minor?

If you chuck them off at a staffed station, this means:

1) They become someone else's problem,
2) How do they get home? Who organises this? What if they have no money?

I've noticed in the last couple of years that McDonalds have started to take a tougher line with unruly groups of kids in their establishments. No physical ejecting of people is involved, but some firm words from the staff, backed up by management (with the threat of police intervention used occasionally as a last resort) normally does the trick. If they can do this without seemingly much reputational damage, I can't see why others cannot adopt a similar approach?

Because ejecting kids into the High Street isn't at all like ejecting them ten miles from home.

You just can't turf off 8-11 year old kids mid-journey.

 

[Harbornite]

Not entirely sure that's even remotely true, but each to their own I guess.

This calls for a poll...

 

[ATW Alex 101]

Quite right, these urchins needed to be taught a lesson and hopefully the 'victim' will think twice next time he disrespects his elders. I'd give the gent a pat on the back. Maybe he should have given him the clip round the ear first before the armlock. Anyway, they are clearly vermin. What parents let children that age run riot?

Get a grip. Clearly you were such an angel as a child no doubt.

The first thing that came to mind is a member on this site who posted a first hand account of doing something similar to a young person who put their feet on the seats, and I honest to God thought it was the same member.

Not that I agree with feet on seats, but a grown man doing that to a boy aged 11 at most? What a vile old fart.

 

[Polarbear]

If you chuck them off at a staffed station, this means:

1) They become someone else's problem,
2) How do they get home? Who organises this? What if they have no money?



Because ejecting kids into the High Street isn't at all like ejecting them ten miles from home.

You just can't turf off 8-11 year old kids mid-journey.

If they are aged 8 - 11, they are the parents' responsibility. If the parents know where they are, they can come & pick them up - at their expense. No, I'm not a parent, but if I were, I doubt I would let my child travel on a train without a responsible adult at the 8-11 age group.

I understand where you're coming from, as if anything happened to the kids, the individual employee, (as the TOC would want to distance itself quite quickly) would be held to account, disciplined & possibly jailed if anything happened to the children after being removed from a train.

For me, this should not be the case where children are mis-behaving on what is private property, and in contravention of the T&C's of the operator. Mis-behaviour = breaking the T&C's and should equal appropriate sanction.

 

[yorkie]

... or if I took any action they would have the law on me, because they knew their rights (but not responsibilities), made me wish I could have used a real human right on them. I didn't I have to say!....

There is a growing problem in this country (and others too, I'm sure) whereby more and more people are aware of their rights but are either unware of, or uninterested in, the concept of having responsibilities.

That said, I suspect if enough people asked them to take their feet of the seats, and asked them in the right way, they probably would do.

And if they still don't, resorting to violence is obviously unacceptable and far more serious offence than the original offence. The older man possibly mistakenly thinks we're still in an era where such violence is considered acceptable. It clearly isn't.

I'd start by asking them nicely, if they still refused, you could explain the reasons for asking, and if they continued to refuse you could tell them authoritively that they should take their feet off the seats and that it is a byelaw offence etc. If you manage to get the tone right, they probably would do it at that stage, if it got that far.

However if someone just says "get your feet off the seats" or similar without saying it in the right way, the kids may just see it as a challenge to refuse to comply with the instruction because you can't do anything to make them.

Some forum members may recall one of our Greater Manchester forum trips, we were walking through the underpass at Warrington Central and some teenagers were scooting/cycling, I asked them not to in just the right way and - almost to my surprise - they complied without fuss. Admittedly, if they hadn't, there wasn't really anything anyone could do about it anyway.

 

[Harbornite]

Get a grip. Clearly you were such an angel as a child no doubt.

The first thing that came to mind is a member on this site who posted a first hand account of doing something similar to a young person who put their feet on the seats, and I honest to God thought it was the same member.

Not that I agree with feet on seats, but a grown man doing that to a boy aged 11 at most? What a vile old fart.

I remember that post, but I haven't been able to find the thread since.

 

[6Gman]

I suggest you read the comments left by the readers of the Daily Mail, a paper I have never bought incidentally as I loathe and detest Tory propaganda. However, most of the comments left are actually PRAISING the man for his actions. If you read the story you'll see there was of course a bleeding heart busybody female who thought he went too far. These odious creatures will no doubt turn to a life of crime before long, never leaving their dreadful council estate.

Er, I was brought up on a council estate.

Somehow I avoided a life of crime.

 

[CarlSilva]

So I can understand why the older fellow did what he did, was he right or wrong, I don't know, and if you think about the matter the article in the paper only gives one side of the story.

Fair comment. I'd be interested to hear the other fellas side of things if he ever gets his collar felt or puts his side of the story.

 

[Harbornite]

Er, I was brought up on a council estate.

Somehow I avoided a life of crime.

How dare you go against the narrative?

 

[Flamingo]

We can never, ever remove unaccompanied minors from the train. The guard has duty of care to some degree and if he/she turfed them off at whatever location and something happened, questions would be asked (and have been).

I would, however, be inviting this 'gentleman' to leave the train at the first available opportunity with BTP assistance. Assaulting anyone, particularly a minor, is entirely unacceptable, whatever supposed 'wrong' is being righted.

As an aside, I'm just as likely to find people of that generation with feet on the seats as younger people, and I've been verbally and physically abused more by 'respectable older gentlemen' than young people.

Passengers can not be ejected at unmanned stations.

Other than that, once the station staff are made aware that the person is being ejected, why, and any vulnerabilities the guard thinks they may have (drunk, ill, young), my understanding is that anybody who is breaking railway bylaws or causing a disturbance to other passengers can be made leave a train at a manned station (and I have done so on several occasions - usually into the care of BTP).

If there are issues around young people at a station, the station staff can contact their parents or guardian to come and collect them. The railway is not "In loco parentis" (no pun intended), and if parents think their children are responsible enough to travel on their own, then they have to take the other responsibilities that come with it.

Having said that, the man was wrong to assault the young male, and should have got the guard (assuming it was not DOO). If it was DOO then this is another example of why a guard is needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Who said anything about not acting up when they were young?:roll:

See post above:roll:

Certainly a few of the posts on this thread seem to suggest that those posters were absolute angels when they were young. As for seeing the post above, as that was posted after my post which you quoted I'm not sure what you expect of me. If I could see into the future I wouldn't be wasting my time on a Railway forum!

 

[Class377]

Let's get things straight.

The kids were clearly in the wrong to start with - it's not good behaviour to put your feet up on the seats. But it's not exactly a massive deal is it? I know people will have to sit on those seats, and there's dirt and all that, but the immediate consequence is taking up an extra seat. Given that the old man came up to them more than once to ask them to put their feet down, they weren't depriving him - or, I assume, anyone else - of a seat.

I've been on trains where the guard has come through and just requested people take their feet down. That's probably all that was needed. If you're a passenger, then it's relatively easy to keep yourself to yourself rather than be a busybody like this guy was. If it really offends you move coach, or just report it to staff/text BTP. Going up to kids and putting them in an arm lock is never the answer, and I hope this man gets taught that lesson (given that he was so keen to teach those kids "a lesson" with something so clearly disproportionate, I suggest he also receives a disproportionate punishment).

Most older people are absolutely fine when travelling - indeed, some of the nicest people - but a small group of them, which this man belongs to - seems to think that everyone else is a big problem and he's the only one that was brought up properly. When it seems that everyone else is the problem, it's usually the case that you're the problem.

most of the comments left are actually PRAISING the man for his actions. If you read the story you'll see there was of course a bleeding heart busybody female who thought he went too far. These odious creatures will no doubt turn to a life of crime before long, never leaving their dreadful council estate.

A "bleeding heart busybody" because she thought it too far to put a young child in an arm lock? No, I'd say she's a sensible human being. You may advocate physical harm to children, but I think most civilised people would not.

You seem awfully biased against council estates as well. Not everybody can have an aristocratic upbringing you know! I'm curious why you felt it necessary to bring in the point that it was a female that said he went too far too.

Quite right, these urchins needed to be taught a lesson and hopefully the 'victim' will think twice next time he disrespects his elders. I'd give the gent a pat on the back. Maybe he should have given him the clip round the ear first before the armlock. Anyway, they are clearly vermin. What parents let children that age run riot?

"Clearly vermin"....because the number one indicator of how a kid will turn out is whether or not they put their feet up on a seat. Clearly the most heinous of crimes.

You may be a grumpy old man that abhors any crime against your beloved railway, but take a look at the bigger picture for once maybe? They put their feet up - OK it's against the rules and hardly pleasant, but nowhere near the crime of the century - that's why only one TOC actually enforces the bylaw, and even then with a small penalty.

Do you advocate physical assault against other people making mistakes as a means of teaching them a lesson?

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

I think all trains should be fitted with a naughty step

 

[Segedunum]

As someone who is 17 and not too much older than some of those involved here, I must say that some of these attitudes are shocking. Assaulting a child doesn't do anything apart from boost this bloke's ego.

As much as I'd love to see kids like the one concerned grow up and learn how to behave in public (Heck, I had 3 of them going on like morons on the Metrolink last week) assaulting them doesn't achieve anything. I honestly don't know what it would do apart from make the OAP feel like some kind of public hero and leave the kid even angrier and more likely to do something worse out of sheer spite. A stern talking to by someone in authority would have been far more effective, but some stranger fancying themselves as a big man who can bully kids into submission is certainly not the way to do it.

Of course, that's all easier said that done. I'd say turf the kid off if he was really that bad, but as has been said, you can't exactly leave a minor miles from home. You'd need staff and resources to see to them that may simply not be there.

 

[jon0844]

It was assault and needs to be punished, but it may not be a bad thing if some kids who think they are untouchable will perhaps wonder if their actions could result in something similar happening to them.

After all, some kids (emphasise the word some) like to act in such a way as to intimidate others and leave them wondering what they might do next.

So at least this balances things out. They might now find themselves assaulted instead of the other way around.

Naturally I'd hope BTP will be as quick y respond as any other anti social behaviour incident...

 

[northwichcat]

never leaving their dreadful council estate.

I thought the Conservatives had a solution to that - privatise the council estates so they are actually housing association estates now.

 

[Antman]

Certainly a few of the posts on this thread seem to suggest that those posters were absolute angels when they were young. As for seeing the post above, as that was posted after my post which you quoted I'm not sure what you expect of me. If I could see into the future I wouldn't be wasting my time on a Railway forum!

The point I was making is that you cannot assume people were angels when they were younger, I certainly wasn't, but you either behaved on public transport or you were off and a long walk home was normally a suitable deterant.

 

[ExRes]

Er, I was brought up on a council estate.

Somehow I avoided a life of crime.

Thanks for that, I was worrying that I was the only one on here who was brought up on a council estate and hadn't become an evil, despicable and hardened criminal

 

[chris89]

The Reaction from the adult to me is disgusting, at least someone went and told them to remove there feet though (To many seem to ignore issues) The children as well are in the wrong. Due to having feet on seats etc.

For the man to take that action, i got a feeling the Mail article is leaving information out what caused it and so on.

The parents should be responsible for teaching respect etc so are schools, Sadly from my experience from working at my local well known supermarket chain. Many don't have any form of respect and have told numerous children not to use Scooters/ Heely things in the shop and just get ignored. Hell told two off for using a Basket Trolly as a toy and got asked why im 4 i can do anything.

For that though, raised the issue about it and got told just to leave them to it. (Incase angry a parent and get assualted, Re the things i mentioned above, thinking of emailing upper bosses etc)

Maners etc are another thing ALL people suffer a lack off, sadly though it mostly seems to be children between 8 - 16 age (Although adults are just as bad)

 

[Antman]

Let's get things straight.

The kids were clearly in the wrong to start with - it's not good behaviour to put your feet up on the seats. But it's not exactly a massive deal is it? I know people will have to sit on those seats, and there's dirt and all that, but the immediate consequence is taking up an extra seat. Given that the old man came up to them more than once to ask them to put their feet down, they weren't depriving him - or, I assume, anyone else - of a seat.

I've been on trains where the guard has come through and just requested people take their feet down. That's probably all that was needed. If you're a passenger, then it's relatively easy to keep yourself to yourself rather than be a busybody like this guy was. If it really offends you move coach, or just report it to staff/text BTP. Going up to kids and putting them in an arm lock is never the answer, and I hope this man gets taught that lesson (given that he was so keen to teach those kids "a lesson" with something so clearly disproportionate, I suggest he also receives a disproportionate punishment).

Most older people are absolutely fine when travelling - indeed, some of the nicest people - but a small group of them, which this man belongs to - seems to think that everyone else is a big problem and he's the only one that was brought up properly. When it seems that everyone else is the problem, it's usually the case that you're the problem.






A "bleeding heart busybody" because she thought it too far to put a young child in an arm lock? No, I'd say she's a sensible human being. You may advocate physical harm to children, but I think most civilised people would not.

You seem awfully biased against council estates as well. Not everybody can have an aristocratic upbringing you know! I'm curious why you felt it necessary to bring in the point that it was a female that said he went too far too.



"Clearly vermin"....because the number one indicator of how a kid will turn out is whether or not they put their feet up on a seat. Clearly the most heinous of crimes.

You may be a grumpy old man that abhors any crime against your beloved railway, but take a look at the bigger picture for once maybe? They put their feet up - OK it's against the rules and hardly pleasant, but nowhere near the crime of the century - that's why only one TOC actually enforces the bylaw, and even then with a small penalty.

Do you advocate physical assault against other people making mistakes as a means of teaching them a lesson?



(Given your comments on a few threads in this sub-forum recently, however, I'm leaning closer to thinking that you're a troll/parody account rather than genuinely holding these views)

So he should have moved to another coach or text BTP?

For all you've said on the subject you can offer no alternative solution?:roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

So he should have moved to another coach or text BTP?

For all you've said on the subject you can offer no alternative solution?:roll:

Yes, if someone is bothering you on a train, move carriage and text BTP if you feel you need to.

Don't be a hero.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Some really worrying views on this incident.

"Urchins that need to be taught a lesson"

"Clearly vermin"

"Should have given them a clip round the ear before the armlock"

My personal favourite:

"They're the type of children who will grow up to be chavs who won't find get anywhere in life or be successful"

At the end of the day, the old guy over reacted, totally. It isn't 1954 anymore, where strangers can give rude children a 'clip round the ear'. Neither is it acceptable to put a child in an armlock (which from the photographic evidence presented on the DM website, appears to show pain compliance in action with the wrist being forced backwards against it's normal axis of movement).

The kids may have had their feet on the seats, they may even have been rude to the guy who challenged them, but he went beyond what is considered reasonable. He'll now face the consequences if (when) he's identified and tracked down. He may end up with a caution at best, a conviction at worst. And for what? A misguided sense of what is right and wrong and his responsibility to enforce the rules.

When the kids refused to take their feet off the seats, it should have ended there and then. Fetch the guard, report it to station staff or even BTP if they are available, but for gods sake, don't start taking matters into your own hands. What if the parents (or adult friends) had been present, elsewhere on the train? The old guy would have probably finished his journey by Ambulance.

It just isn't acceptable to start using force on children for minor 'offences' (in inverted commas because actually, it wasn't an offence). Had the kids been attacking other passengers, committing criminal damage or the like, then maybe his actions would have been justified, but for feet on seats and being 'cocky'? I struggle to see how anyone can attempt to justify this guy's actions. He went way, way over the top.

 

[Harbornite]

I recently read through the old thread on this forum about corporal punishment in schools, and it's basically the same sides offering the same arguments. If you have to resort to physical force to achieve something then you haven't done well and you should not do so. It doesn't matter if the kid is a little turd or not, it's the principle that counts.

 

[Class377]

Thanks for that, I was worrying that I was the only one on here who was brought up on a council estate and hadn't become an evil, despicable and hardened criminal

Steady on, according to Haig paxton you're probably already evil and despicable for a) daring to grow up on a council estate and b) ever being a child!