Schoolboy, 15, dragged off train by conductor

[yorkie]

Not disputing that. However I am always mindful that when we see a video of the latter stages of an incident we have no idea at all what may have come before.

I refer you to what I said above; nothing that (what appears to be entirely hypothetically) came before what we see in the video could justify this action from someone in a position of trust/responsibility.

 

[Tallguy]

If that was my son being assaulted by the Northern thug then I would be taking a private prosecution for assault against the thug/Northern and making sure the BTP prosecute for assault and battery. This thug needs to lose his job pronto. The solution would have been to get the child to buy a new ticket which they could have then claimed a refund on or issue a PF if appropriate. Not chuck him off and rip the sleeve off his coat in the process. Let’s hope it’s not one of those expensive Canada Goose coats that cost £500.

thank heavens this video exists.

 

[Russel]

Why did I know this would be a Northern service before I even opened the thread?

After seeing first hand the conduct of some Northern staff, I can't help but feel something is going wrong at Northern.

 

[spotify95]

Schoolboy, 15, dragged off train by conductor who 'asked him politely'

I couldn't see any other mention of this on here.

Schoolboy dragged off train by conductor who 'asked him politely'

Mum said her daughter rang her in tears after her son was hurled off the train

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Simple solution. Report RPI to police, reason assault on a minor. That will do the trick. Totally unnecessary.

 

[Anonymous10]

Jeez, what on earth possessed him to do that. Hard to see any alternative than a sacking.

Kid does look like a right idiot mind. While the grab and ejection from the conductor could definitely be construed as assault, I'd suggest the aggressive push from the kid (teenager) at the end could also be construed as assault.

The push back after being ejected in such a Manor could also however be deemed reasonable force for self defence if he felt threatened. After all his coat was damaged by such time.

 

[AlterEgo]

I refer you to what I said above; nothing that (what appears to be entirely hypothetically) came before what we see in the video could justify this action from someone in a position of trust/responsibility.

Agreed. That’s a child being assaulted. The conductor was not in danger and the child was sat down. What happened before cannot excuse the conductor’s actions and the only reason for any curiosity is in sniffing around for a victim blaming angle.

 

[robbeech]

As others have said, absolutely zero justification for the guard’s actions here. However, there is almost certainly more to this. The video clip shows very little context. What’s more, there must have been an ongoing incident for it to have been filmed. I know some people randomly film stuff but as a rule if an interaction is being filmed then the bit before the filming starts is often crucial evidence for that is what prompted filming to start.

I will add that it’s a good job it was filmed. The article suggests that initially neither Northern nor the BTP seemed too interested in this and I’m sad to say that had it not been filmed it’s very likely to have been brushed under the carpet.

On board and station cctv is for the benefit of the railway and is “broken” quite frequently when the requirement of footage is out of favour of the railway in incidents like this. There will be a lot of people wanting to see any bodycam footage from the guard and on board / station cctv. It’ll be interesting to see if it was working on that day.

 

[Bluejays]

The push back after being ejected in such a Manor could also however be deemed reasonable force for self defence if he felt threatened. After all his coat was damaged by such time.

Something about the way the kid went back to him then aggressively pushed made me wonder what had gone on before. If the kid was aggressive/violent to start then hopefully the train CCTV/bodycam have picked it up.

 

[12C]

I’m not condoning what the guard has done here in any way, but having witnessed increasing levels of anti social behaviour, fare evasion and a general lack of respect from passengers in recent years I suspect anyone having to deal with this abuse on a daily basis will often have moments when they reach breaking point, and I can’t imagine it would take too much to suffer a Michael Douglas style breakdown.

We don’t know what events have led up to this altercation but I am suspicious with the “mummy’s little angel was just trying to load his ticket” story in the article. Sadly it has probably been the straw that broke the camel’s back for this guard and will likely be career ending.

 

[island]

I haven't read the report but while your assertion is not in question as an opinion it is the case that a court may reach a different decision.

If you are suggesting that the guard’s actions were reasonable, proportionate, or lawful, you appear to be in a minority of one.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Nonetheless, as always with these things I would like to see the *whole* incident, not just the latter part of it, before coming to any kind of judgement. We are only seeing part of the incident here.

What do you think happened before that could justify this? There's no justification for it, what happened before, whilst maybe interesting, isn't of any relevance

 

[Haywain]

If you are suggesting that the guard’s actions were reasonable, proportionate, or lawful, you appear to be in a minority of one.

I am suggesting that courts decide on the evidence presented to them and sometimes reach verdicts that are unexpected.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I am suggesting that courts decide on the evidence presented to them and sometimes reach verdicts that are unexpected.

I'm always amazed at the lengths solicitors will go to avoid going to court, simply because you never know!
Which is why often (but not always) when a solicitor gets involved in a fare-dodging case the TOC will suddenly switch to an out of court settlement as, even though it may be clear cut, you just never know with a court! Obviously the TOCs feel more confident for those without a solicitor

 

[thejuggler]

Regardless of what went before, if it lead to the member of staff making the decision that assaulting a child was the way to achieve a satisfactory resolution he is probably not suited to a public facing role.

 

[yorkie]

Something about the way the kid went back to him then aggressively pushed made me wonder what had gone on before.

I don't agree; many people would have reacted at least in that manner when manhandled in this way and indeed some would react far worse. I refer you to what I said above; the guard was lucky the passenger did not fight back (and indeed other passengers could have got involved).

If the kid was aggressive/violent to start then hopefully the train CCTV/bodycam have picked it up.

There is no evidence of this, but in any hypothetical scenario it wouldn't make any difference to the expected outcome; it wouldn't matter what had happened before, if someone was sat down calmly, and I manhandled them in this way, in any of the public-facing roles I have done, I would expect the sack, and no amount of 'but earlier he was aggressive' would change that.

I’m not condoning what the guard has done here in any way, but having witnessed increasing levels of anti social behaviour, fare evasion and a general lack of respect from passengers in recent years I suspect anyone having to deal with this abuse on a daily basis will often have moments when they reach breaking point, and I can’t imagine it would take too much to suffer a Michael Douglas style breakdown.

Not everyone is suited to roles that face challenging circumstances; I have worked with many people who quit their roles because they were unable to cope with challenging behaviour. I've encountered all sorts of bad behaviour over the years, and I've broken up fights (including on one occasion being accused of not acting correctly, which was disproven by video evidence showing I did act correctly) and yes, it can be challenging at times, but someone with the right temperament can cope with such situations.

We don’t know what events have led up to this altercation but I am suspicious with the “mummy’s little angel was just trying to load his ticket” story in the article.

I don't see how that is suspicious, given such incidents can and do occur. But if you want to get into hypotheticals, let's say a child was deliberately avoiding payment of the fare, and let's say they had sworn at the Guard, the outcome is not going to change, it's still an assault.

Sadly it has probably been the straw that broke the camel’s back for this guard and will likely be career ending.

Such behaviour is completely incompatible with any public-facing role, and especially one where the employee is in a trusted position / has a duty of care.

I can only hope that those who are downplaying the seriousness of this do not have experience of working in a job role where you are in a position of trust / have a duty of care, and where the job involves dealing with challenging situations. If you have not worked in such a position, then it's understandable not to be aware of the responsibilities. I just ask that you listen to those of us who have...

 

[Bletchleyite]

As others have said, absolutely zero justification for the guard’s actions here. However, there is almost certainly more to this. The video clip shows very little context. What’s more, there must have been an ongoing incident for it to have been filmed. I know some people randomly film stuff but as a rule if an interaction is being filmed then the bit before the filming starts is often crucial evidence for that is what prompted filming to start.

Given that teenage lads tend to be gobby, it is probably quite likely that something like* "I ain't gettin' off bruv, I've paid" was said, or possibly even some goading to throw him off. However that's not an excuse to resort to that kind of violence. Even a bouncer removing someone from a club tends to do so in a far more controlled way, this looked like he lost his temper, and part of the role is that even in rather extreme situations that must not occur.

* In Scouse though - yes, I know it's Lancashire, but the prevailing accent round there is a soft Scouse...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2023 ==

I don't see how that is suspicious, given such incidents can and do occur. But if you want to get into hypotheticals, let's say a child was deliberately avoiding payment of the fare, and let's say they had sworn at the Guard, the outcome is not going to change, it's still an assault.

Indeed. Part of the job is not to lose your temper even in extreme situations. If a member of staff does, particularly if it gets physical, then they aren't suitable for the role. But for a guard gobby people who haven't paid* is going to be a daily thing anyway.

* I know he had.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nonetheless, as always with these things I would like to see the *whole* incident, not just the latter part of it, before coming to any kind of judgement. We are only seeing part of the incident here.

What would justify an adult assaulting a child who is sat down?

 

[yorkie]

Given that teenage lads tend to be gobby,

That's the stereotype, but it's not as true as claimed.

I also find that if you approach them in the right way, then except in the most extreme cases, the situation would not escalate out of control. Conflict avoidance/management should be part of the training.

it is probably quite likely that something like* "I ain't gettin' off bruv, I've paid" was said.

I don't think it's fair to say that; someone could counter that by saying it is quite likely the Northern Guard wasn't as polite as he should have been, but I don't think any judgement should be made either way on either party regarding what went on before; in any case it's both theoretical/hypothetical and irrelevant.

However that's not an excuse to resort to that kind of violence. Even a bouncer removing someone from a club tends to do so in a far more controlled way, this looked like he lost his temper, and part of the role is that even in rather extreme situations that must not occur.

* In Scouse though - yes, I know it's Lancashire, but the prevailing accent round there is a soft Scouse...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2023 ==



Indeed. Part of the job is not to lose your temper even in extreme situations. If a member of staff does, particularly if it gets physical, then they aren't suitable for the role. But for a guard gobby people who haven't paid* is going to be a daily thing anyway.

* I know he had.

Indeed, there is no suggestion that the journey hadn't been paid for, there is no suggestion (other than people talking hypothetically) of any criminal wrongdoing on the part of the child (putting aside any debate about whether he should have complied; that's perhaps a thorny issue, but it has no bearing on what we saw happen in the video as it would not be justified either way), and in any case even if we get into hypotheticals, nothing excuses the behaviour depicted in the video. I don't understand why we are going round in circles on this.

 

[Bluejays]

What do you think happened before that could justify this? There's no justification for it, what happened before, whilst maybe interesting, isn't of any relevance

Purely hypothetical now admittedly. But a couple of months ago a little scrote of around that age threatened to stab me, because I'd asked him to move out of first class.
I didn't physically assault him, and I wasn't wearing a cam. But if I'd had bodycam footage of him making the threat while pretending to go for his pocket(which is exactly what he did). Then I imagine a half decent lawyer would have been able to explain away a fair old physical reaction by myself as self defence.

As I said in my first message, it seems utterly crazy that the guard did what he did and I find it hard to see him not being sacked.

But the usual absolutist arguments seem to be in play again. There is 'no possible justification ', ' this is definitely assault ' etc etc. I stand by my remarks that it is possible (although unlikely) that other footage could provide a lot more context

 

[Deafdoggie]

But the usual absolutist arguments seem to be in play again. There is 'no possible justification ', ' this is definitely assault ' etc etc. I stand by my remarks that it is possible (although unlikely) that other footage could provide a lot more context

It may, and only may, provide context. But it's not going to provide justification.

 

[yorkie]

Purely hypothetical now admittedly. But a couple of months ago a little scrote of around that age threatened to stab me, because I'd asked him to move out of first class.
I didn't physically assault him, and I wasn't wearing a cam. But if I'd had bodycam footage of him making the threat while pretending to go for his pocket(which is exactly what he did). Then I imagine a half decent lawyer would have been able to explain away a fair old physical reaction by myself as self defence.

In that scenario, you absolutely would not do what was depicted in the video. Would you?

As I said in my first message, it seems utterly crazy that the guard did what he did and I find it hard to see him not being sacked.

But the usual absolutist arguments seem to be in play again. There is 'no possible justification ', ' this is definitely assault ' etc etc. I stand by my remarks that it is possible (although unlikely) that other footage could provide a lot more context

And I stand by what I said above.

 

[Bluejays]

In that scenario, you absolutely would not do what was depicted in the video. Would you?

Yeah, of course I would



It's hard to imagine doing it isn't it , the lad was sitting down so the actions of the guard seemed to put both of them at risk and it's bloody hard to see any justification . The fact that he's gone to him while he's sitting down makes it hard to see any legitimate self defence motives or to see it as the guard legitimately acting in fear.

The only scenario I can really imagine where I'd act like that would be if I'd just taken a good smack in the head and was completely out of it . While highly unlikely, things like that are always possible when all we see is the video of the end of conflict.


The most likely scenario of course is that the kids gobbed off about a ticket, the guards reacted stupidly and will be quite rightly looking for a new job as we speak. Hopefully not one that involves dealing with people.

 

[rs101]

Yeah, of course I would



It's hard to imagine doing it isn't it , the lad was sitting down so the actions of the guard seemed to put both of them at risk and it's bloody hard to see any justification . The fact that he's gone to him while he's sitting down makes it hard to see any legitimate self defence motives or to see it as the guard legitimately acting in fear.

The only scenario I can really imagine where I'd act like that would be if I'd just taken a good smack in the head and was completely out of it . While highly unlikely, things like that are always possible when all we see is the video of the end of conflict.


The most likely scenario of course is that the kids gobbed off about a ticket, the guards reacted stupidly and will be quite rightly looking for a new job as we speak. Hopefully not one that involves dealing with people.

The guard will hopefully also be looking for a defence lawyer too - I can't see how this isn't a clear case of assault.

 

[YorkRailFan]

If the child is regularly traveling on this route or with Northern, perhaps they should get a season rail ticket to prevent further incidents like this. But I also think that this is completely out of order on the conductor's part.

 

[John Luxton]

This incident did get an airing on BBC North West Tonight shortly after it happened.

What the guard did was incredibly foolish in 2023 - but if it had been 1953 would things have been different?

I worked in education from the 1980s to 2019 during period which saw the transition from a limited amount of permitted physical intervention to that of don't touch.

When I started teaching a certain amount of physical persuasion was allowed when dealing with an awkward pupil however by the late 1990s it was a definite no-no.

However, I do wonder if society in general has become better for this change? Has it resulted in youth more willing to challenge authority?

I encountered a similar passenger ejection not from a train but from a coach service around 1979/80.

Given that the company is long defunct and the driver who was late 50s early 60s then has possibly passed on by now I think its safe to give some details as the events remain firmly etched on my mind.

The incident happened when I was travelling on the Bude - Okehampton - Exeter coach which over had a decade earlier replaced the rail service.

I was on a relief coach that terminated at Okehampton and returned to Bude as a school service. This departed a few minutes before the through Exeter service and was lightly loaded unlike the Exeter service.

Just as we were about to move off a youngish chap probably around my age at the time 18/20 ran up with a bottle of cider in his hand.

The driver stopped and told him he could board but had to leave the cider bottle as he couldn't bring alcohol on board, this the chap complied with.

He boarded and the coach set off.

Approaching Halwill Junction the youth started vomiting.

When the coach reached the old station forecourt which was the designated stop, the driver leapt out of his seat, dragged the chap out of his seat and literally booted him off the top step of the coach leaving him sprawling on the ground. After getting himself together he ran off, to be honest I am surprised he wasn't hurt.

The driver then apologised to the rest of the passengers, fetched a bucket and mop out of the boot and having obtained some water from a shop cleaned up the mess.

As he was doing it the driver commented that not only had he been drinking he could smell "wacky baccy" on him and it wasn't surprising he was sick.

Myself and fellow passengers were rather appreciative of the driver's actions. It all seemed like swift justice.

The there obviously wasn't any repercussions for the driver as I saw him on several occasions after that incident.

Interesting how attitudes can change in 40 odd years.

Is it for the better?

 

[357]

I know some people randomly film stuff but as a rule if an interaction is being filmed then the bit before the filming starts is often crucial evidence for that is what prompted filming to start.

For this reason, some TOC bodycams are constantly recording and when the button is pressed save the last 30/60 seconds of footage in addition to anything from then onwards.

 

[ainsworth74]

Has it resulted in youth more willing to challenge authority?

Yes yes the youth today are feral, disrespectful and refuse to obey the rightful authority of their elders. Something which has been said throughout history about young people stretching back as far as recorded history and I'm certain before. Indeed you give an example of a young person misbehaving despite it being an era in which corporal punishment was not yet banned. You'll forgive me if I don't think that returning to beating children is going to help the situation in any meaningful way.

 

[185]

I could probably understand this employee's actions from longer serving staff where there would have been no objection 25 years ago to bundling (any) fare evader out the door with reasonable force, but nowadays the train company policies are clear - to satisfy their own insurers, train companies must impose a hands off / walk away policy to mitigate claims. Interestingly, there are provisions in law to lawfully remove someone from a premises however since around 2008-2011 this will be superseded by a company's own hands off policy aka a company rule.

One interesting point - if someone had come from a background such as a police officer, security or the forces - as is often the case, the transition between a hands-on to a hands off-job could be a difficult one.

There seem to be a lot of experts here, however given the circumstances of the incident, I don't believe this goes anywhere near the threshold for "common assault", although I suspect chancers BTP & the CPS will try it on.

 

[virgintrain1]

Not all TOCs have a strict hand off policy.

For us it's certainly not encouraged but the byelaw is not explicitly banned etc as there are occasions where you need to make contact. Such as in A defensive way, e.g holding arm out to stop person getting too close to you or prevent them from re boarding etc.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The guard will hopefully also be looking for a defence lawyer too - I can't see how this isn't a clear case of assault.

I don't understand why the BTP weren't contacted by the guard if something was amiss - they have a sizeable base at Wigan North Western and could be waiting at Wallgate easily.