Pensioner against feet on seats

[Antman]

in the situation where a child is being for all arguments attacked, then yes, but as I said it wouldn't be a first resort, and if its got to the stage where someone much larger is physically exerting themselves on someone much smaller than themselves, then the chances are that they would only respond to the same!

Attacked? Presumably his feet were being forcibly removed from the seat as asking him nicely didn't have the desired effect? If I'd done that as a kid my feet wouldn't have just been removed from the seat but from the train and probably the station as well and they would have been very sore after a long walk home. Do you think I'd have done it again?

 

[Jamesb1974]

So you're criticising somebody else for using force but then casually add that you would have used force had you been there

And in the unlikely event of a bobby at the next station it might well have been you getting nicked!

I doubt it very much in the circumstances that Sciisfun is outlining. He'd be able to use the defence of using reasonable force to come to the defence of another (the kid in the armlock).

Whether the old guy could similarly argue he was using reasonable force to defend property (the train seat), prevent a crime taking place (damage to the train seat) or act in self defence, is questionable.

But...

We aren't in possession of the full facts of what exactly lead this man to act like Hulk Hogan and throw the child into a half nelson..

 

[sciisfun]

Attacked? Presumably his feet were being forcibly removed from the seat as asking him nicely didn't have the desired effect? If I'd done that as a kid my feet wouldn't have just been removed from the seat but from the train and probably the station as well and they would have been very sore after a long walk home. Do you think I'd have done it again?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What you mean forcibly removing his feet from the seat? You're alternative idea is what exactly?

from Dictonary.Com

verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with.

the act was forceful and aggressive, I Think that's safe to say, putting him in an arm lock and then applying additional force and twisting is beyond what acceptable!

also...

If I'd done that as a kid my feet wouldn't have just been removed from the seat but from the train and probably the station as well and they would have been very sore after a long walk home. Do you think I'd have done it again?

times have changed, what's your opinion on the other part of my post? you seem to gloss over if it was the other way around!

 

[Harbornite]

What you mean forcibly removing his feet from the seat? You're alternative idea is what exactly?

Using non physical means, such as getting onboard staff (if there are any) involved. If I couldn't, I'd rise above the situation and move elsewhere.

 

[Class377]

Attacked?

Yes, attacked. I'm not quite sure what else you could call it when you're forced into an arm lock?

So you don't think that putting a child in an arm lock, then twisting the arm backwards specifically to cause pain, isn't physical violence? :roll:

The alternative idea is simply to let it go. If you get so worked up about someone having their feet up I have to question what on Earth you're doing on public transport. It may shock you to learn that some people aren't impeccably behaved, and that's something you have to expect when you interact with other people. I'm sure if the old man hadn't allegedly assaulted these kids, the world wouldn't have ended, people wouldn't have died and everyone would have gone about their day. Isn't that by far a better resolution?

 

[Jamesb1974]

The alternative idea is simply to let it go. If you get so worked up about someone having their feet up I have to question what on Earth you're doing on public transport. It may shock you to learn that some people aren't impeccably behaved, and that's something you have to expect when you interact with other people. I'm sure if the old man hadn't allegedly assaulted these kids, the world wouldn't have ended, people wouldn't have died and everyone would have gone about their day. Isn't that by far a better resolution?

The most sensible thing I've read on here since the thread was started.

 

[Flamingo]

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

Me too. And the rest of my family. And my school friends...

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I wonder if the same action would have been taken if the person with their feet on the seats was of large build with scary tattoos and numerous fight scars accompanied by a snarling pitbull ?

 

[Jamesb1974]

I wonder if the same action would have been taken if the person with their feet on the seats was of large build with scary tattoos and numerous fight scars accompanied by a snarling pitbull ?

I think we all know the answer to that one!

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder if the same action would have been taken if the person with their feet on the seats was of large build with scary tattoos and numerous fight scars accompanied by a snarling pitbull ?

And if same gentleman holding pitbull had told same children to get their feet off the seats, I wonder quite how much attitude they would have had...

 

[ATW Alex 101]

It's just amazing that people think they can justify physically harming children. Really well and truly amazing.

 

[Antman]

It's just amazing that people think they can justify physically harming children. Really well and truly amazing.

Who said anything about harming children?:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, attacked. I'm not quite sure what else you could call it when you're forced into an arm lock?



So you don't think that putting a child in an arm lock, then twisting the arm backwards specifically to cause pain, isn't physical violence? :roll:

The alternative idea is simply to let it go. If you get so worked up about someone having their feet up I have to question what on Earth you're doing on public transport. It may shock you to learn that some people aren't impeccably behaved, and that's something you have to expect when you interact with other people. I'm sure if the old man hadn't allegedly assaulted these kids, the world wouldn't have ended, people wouldn't have died and everyone would have gone about their day. Isn't that by far a better resolution?

Do nothing in other words? Well clearly this gentleman has got a bit more backbone!

 

[Class377]

Who said anything about harming children?:roll:

You did, when you advocated the old man putting the kids in an arm lock. By definition, that's harming them. You don't even have to consider the second part, where the arm was twisted backwards specifically to cause harm.

Do nothing in other words? Well clearly this gentleman has got a bit more backbone!

Do you chase after speeders on the roads and assault them to dish out vigilante justice? Or run after people that drop litter and attack them?

Or is it just minor crimes against your beloved railway - where the perpetrator is a vulnerable child - where you advocate attacking them?

 

[Mag_seven]

Would any of the posters on here who would be prepared to assault a child would also be prepared to assault an adult who was doing the same thing?

Well clearly this gentleman has got a bit more backbone!

Backbone by assaulting a child?

 

[All Line Rover]

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?

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

It would be of definite consequence if something happened to them.

It's called having a duty of care.

[Passengers causing inconvenience and harassing others] doesn't avoid your duty of care towards all your passengers. Even those which are drunk, loud, abusive, little turd kids, I'm afraid.

It is little wonder that the majority of the public have a dim view of negligence law and "compensation culture" when views such as these are promoted by, not even lawyers, but non-lawyers.

If children are unaccompanied and have no entitlement to travel on a train (either for not holding a valid ticket or for any other byelaw offence), their ejection at a staffed intermediate station places them at no greater risk than had they been refused boarding at their origin station.

I would expect station staff at the intermediate station to contact the children's parents to request that they be collected, but it is not as black and white as suggesting that as soon as a minor manages to board a train the train operator is legally obliged to carry that minor to their intended destination. Likewise, a train operator does not suddenly become liable to ticketless unaccompanied children or vulnerable women by refusing to allow them to board the last train of the day. Liability is far more nuanced than this.

 

[Antman]

You did, when you advocated the old man putting the kids in an arm lock. By definition, that's harming them. You don't even have to consider the second part, where the arm was twisted backwards specifically to cause harm.



Do you chase after speeders on the roads and assault them to dish out vigilante justice? Or run after people that drop litter and attack them?

Or is it just minor crimes against your beloved railway - where the perpetrator is a vulnerable child - where you advocate attacking them?

For pitys sake how melodramatic rubbish is going to be posted on here?

It would appear that having refused to remove feet from seat they were removed forcibly, just like a police officer would have done.

But that's the trouble in todays society, the first form of proper authority most kids encounter is a police officer and by then it's often too late.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would any of the posters on here who would be prepared to assault a child would also be prepared to assault an adult who was doing the same thing?



Backbone by assaulting a child?

Doh......a police officer would have done the same thing!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You did, when you advocated the old man putting the kids in an arm lock. By definition, that's harming them. You don't even have to consider the second part, where the arm was twisted backwards specifically to cause harm.



Do you chase after speeders on the roads and assault them to dish out vigilante justice? Or run after people that drop litter and attack them?

Or is it just minor crimes against your beloved railway - where the perpetrator is a vulnerable child - where you advocate attacking them?

Calm down!!

I wasn't even there!

 

[All Line Rover]

It was not sensible for the man to touch the child when, as I understand it, he was not sitting near them. But where children continue to misbehave after being spoken to by a guard, I would support their removal from the train providing the appropriate safeguards are taken (and a travel ban imposed if this occurs a second time).

All the more reason why (visible) guards are a necessity. Not so that they can physically intervene, but so that they can identify problem passengers. It's hardly as if unruly children are the greatest risk facing passengers.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is little wonder that the majority of the public have a dim view of negligence law and "compensation culture" when views such as these are promoted by, not even lawyers, but non-lawyers.

If children are unaccompanied and have no entitlement to travel on a train (either for not holding a valid ticket or for any other byelaw offence), their ejection at a staffed intermediate station places them at no greater risk than had they been refused boarding at their origin station.

I would expect station staff at the intermediate station to contact the children's parents to request that they be collected, but it is not as black and white as suggesting that as soon as a minor manages to board a train the train operator is legally obliged to carry that minor to their intended destination. Likewise, a train operator does not suddenly become liable to ticketless unaccompanied children or vulnerable women by refusing to allow them to board the last train of the day. Liability is far more nuanced than this.

Have a good read: https://www.langleys.com/news-archive/2015/liability-for-drunken-rail-passengers.aspx

Just because people are trespassers, breaking the law, or grossly negligent to their own safety doesn't mean there isn't a duty of care.

If I were a guard I would never turf off a minor, even at a staffed station, unless I were absolutely sure there was a member of staff who was able to act in loco parentis until the police or their parents arrived. That would mean two members of staff in some circumstances.

People are welcome to interpret duty of care in different ways but the attitude of "chuck them off, they're breaking the law" is very poor.

The appropriate course of action when confronted with unaccompanied kids with no money or no recourse to getting home at the origin station by the way, is to inform the police and take reasonable steps to ensure their safety while they're on your premises.

 

[me123]

Doh......a police officer would have done the same thing!

No, no they wouldn't have. A police officer may physically restrain a child if it was felt necessary for the protection of the child and/or others in the vicinity, but no police officer would assault a child who has their feet on the seat on a train.

And any police officer who did would most likely be suspended pending a full investigation of their actions.

 

[Harbornite]

Yeah, of course a police officer is going to put an 11 year old into an arm lock :roll:

Just face it Ant, you still advocated the use of physical force against an 11 year old. Quite unusual really, and cowardly.

 

[Geezertronic]

For pitys sake how melodramatic rubbish is going to be posted on here?

I've only read a few pages and I agree that you are talking melodramatic rubbish

It would appear that having refused to remove feet from seat they were removed forcibly, just like a police officer would have done.

Incorrect, a Police Officer would not have forcibly removed a childs feet from the seat. If you think a Police Officer would have done that, you are mistaken

But that's the trouble in todays society, the first form of proper authority most kids encounter is a police officer and by then it's often too late.

I think we can agree that a minority of children think it is tough to play up in front of their friends. That doesn't justify this scenario though

Doh......a police officer would have done the same thing!

No a Police Officer would not have done the same thing. Plus Police Officers are trained in restraint methods. It is to be determined whether the hard ass man in this instance was or whether he was just a bully out for some justice because some snot-nosed kid insulted him

 

[Class377]

For pitys sake how melodramatic rubbish is going to be posted on here?

It would appear that having refused to remove feet from seat they were removed forcibly, just like a police officer would have done.

But that's the trouble in todays society, the first form of proper authority most kids encounter is a police officer and by then it's often too late.

Two problems with that;

If you were to forcibly move someone's feet, would it not be a good idea to start with...their feet? Not by forcing their arms behind them and TWISTING IT TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE PAIN.

A police officer is trained specifically to use appropriate force, and is legally permitted to do so. This grumpy old man wasn't. Can you not see why it's a VERY bad idea for a member of the public to allegedly assault someone? Leave policing to the police.

 

[Harbornite]

I've only read a few pages and I agree that you are talking melodramatic rubbish



Incorrect, a Police Officer would not have forcibly removed a childs feet from the seat. If you think a Police Officer would have done that, you are mistaken




I think we can agree that a minority of children think it is tough to play up in front of their friends. That doesn't justify this scenario though




No a Police Officer would not have done the same thing. Plus Police Officers are trained in restraint methods. It is to be determined whether the hard ass man in this instance was or whether he was just a bully out for some justice because some snot-nosed kid insulted him

Two problems with that;

If you were to forcibly move someone's feet, would it not be a good idea to start with...their feet? Not by forcing their arms behind them and TWISTING IT TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE PAIN.

A police officer is trained specifically to use appropriate force, and is legally permitted to do so. This grumpy old man wasn't. Can you not see why it's a VERY bad idea for a member of the public to allegedly assault someone? Leave policing to the police.

I fully agree with both of these posts. It's hard to justify this old guy's actions.

 

[Antman]

No, no they wouldn't have. A police officer may physically restrain a child if it was felt necessary for the protection of the child and/or others in the vicinity, but no police officer would assault a child who has their feet on the seat on a train.

And any police officer who did would most likely be suspended pending a full investigation of their actions.

If a child, or adult for that matter, refused to comply then force would have been used, unfortunately asking people nicely doesn't always work.

 

[Antman]

Two problems with that;

If you were to forcibly move someone's feet, would it not be a good idea to start with...their feet? Not by forcing their arms behind them and TWISTING IT TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE PAIN.

A police officer is trained specifically to use appropriate force, and is legally permitted to do so. This grumpy old man wasn't. Can you not see why it's a VERY bad idea for a member of the public to allegedly assault someone? Leave policing to the police.

Were you actually there or are you just making this up as you go along?

 

[randyrippley]

irrespective of what the kids did, if I'd been in that coach when the OAP started bending the boys arm, I'd have intervened and done the same to the OAP, and quite probably with a lot more force.

 

[All Line Rover]

Have a good read: https://www.langleys.com/news-archive/2015/liability-for-drunken-rail-passengers.aspx

Just because people are trespassers, breaking the law, or grossly negligent to their own safety doesn't mean there isn't a duty of care.

If I were a guard I would never turf off a minor, even at a staffed station, unless I were absolutely sure there was a member of staff who was able to act in loco parentis until the police or their parents arrived. That would mean two members of staff in some circumstances.

People are welcome to interpret duty of care in different ways but the attitude of "chuck them off, they're breaking the law" is very poor.

The appropriate course of action when confronted with unaccompanied kids with no money or no recourse to getting home at the origin station by the way, is to inform the police and take reasonable steps to ensure their safety while they're on your premises.

In respect of the page you refer to, it can be categorised into:

1. Occupiers' liability to trespassers. This bears little relevance once a person, of any age, has been safely ejected from railway premises and property.

2. Jebson v MoD. The case centred on the failure of a camp commander to arrange appropriate supervision for soldiers on a "night out" to Portsmouth (repeat: Portsmouth). An important case, but very different factual circumstances from the ejection of passengers from railway premises who have no right to be on railway premises and, in any case, note the 75% reduction in damages for contributory negligence upheld by the Court of Appeal (not that this affects the existence of liability in any way, but an interesting reflection of the attitude of the courts to reckless claimants).

3. Collins-Williamson v Silverlink. I am not familiar with this case, but the summary on the page you refer to demonstrates that the case is concerned with injury inflicted by the railway. Again, very different factual circumstances from the ejection of passengers from railway premises who have no right to be on railway premises.

I sincerely hope that people are not reading more into these cases than is reasonable. It is often the case that fear of negligence liability (particularly on the part of public authorities) is based on what might be the case on a far-fetched interpretation of the law.

 

[Harbornite]

Were you actually there or are you just making this up as you go along?

So you are denying that the best way to move someone's feet is by grabbing their feet, and that this old man was not a police officer? You didn't have to be present to understand these two concepts.

 

[Flamingo]

Have a good read: https://www.langleys.com/news-archive/2015/liability-for-drunken-rail-passengers.aspx

Just because people are trespassers, breaking the law, or grossly negligent to their own safety doesn't mean there isn't a duty of care.

If I were a guard I would never turf off a minor, even at a staffed station, unless I were absolutely sure there was a member of staff who was able to act in loco parentis until the police or their parents arrived. That would mean two members of staff in some circumstances.

People are welcome to interpret duty of care in different ways but the attitude of "chuck them off, they're breaking the law" is very poor.

The appropriate course of action when confronted with unaccompanied kids with no money or no recourse to getting home at the origin station by the way, is to inform the police and take reasonable steps to ensure their safety while they're on your premises.

TOC's do not act in loco parentis.

 

[AlterEgo]

In respect of the page you refer to, it can be categorised into:

1. Occupiers' liability to trespassers. This bears little relevance once a person, of any age, has been safely ejected from railway premises and property.

2. Jebson v MoD. The case centred on the failure of a camp commander to arrange appropriate supervision for soldiers on a "night out" to Portsmouth (repeat: Portsmouth). An important case, but very different factual circumstances from the ejection of passengers from railway premises who have no right to be on railway premises and, in any case, note the 75% reduction in damages for contributory negligence upheld by the Court of Appeal (not that this affects the existence of liability in any way, but an interesting reflection of the attitude of the courts to reckless claimants).

3. Collins-Williamson v Silverlink. I am not familiar with this case, but the summary on the page you refer to demonstrates that the case is concerned with injury inflicted by the railway. Again, very different factual circumstances from the ejection of passengers from railway premises who have no right to be on railway premises.

I sincerely hope that people are not reading more into these cases than is reasonable. It is often the case that fear of negligence liability (particularly on the part of public authorities) is based on what might be the case on a far-fetched interpretation of the law.

You might not like it, but railway staff are trained to have a duty of care towards minors.

You cannot just remove them and hope for the best.

I sincerely hope you're never in a position where you have to make a decision about this. The care of vulnerable people is paramount, even where they are making your life hell.

Sadly I no longer have access to the ejection policies of any TOCs but regardless of any amateur reading of law either of us might be doing, you should not just chuck off kids whom you know to have no money or other means of getting home. If that means conveying them until the police turn up, then so be it.

If nothing else you'd be opening yourself up to potentially months of crap from your employer.