Man arrested for using plug socket on Overground train

[Flamingo]

HST's run on 450-650 V AC. I'm given to understand that is what the unprotected sockets marked "Not for public use" can surge to.

One other point is that if the unauthorised/untested item plugged in does catch fire, on a HST it is located just where passengers using the fire exit will have to pass it...

 

[Haydn1971]

HST's run on 450-650 V AC. I'm given to understand that is what the unprotected sockets marked "Not for public use" can surge to.

Out of curiosity - how long has there been signs saying "not for public use" ?

 

[PaxVobiscum]

In the Garden of Eden there was a "Not for Public Use" sign on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but it didn't work then either.

 

[talldave]

Thing is on most EMUs these days especially on AC lines, you plug your phone into a power socket some idiots forget it's not just 240V behind that plug but anything up to 25,000V.....

I think that's unnecessary scare-mongering. Are you saying those sockets are fitted without adequate inverters/regulators? Of course the tolerance is likely to be greater than that for a domestic supply, so maybe 300V? But your domestic supply fluctuates significantly and power supplies are designed to cope. However, the cheaper the power supply the hotter it'll get when pushed. As Sarahj notes, they run very hot under normal operation.

 

[broadgage]

HST's run on 450-650 V AC. I'm given to understand that is what the unprotected sockets marked "Not for public use" can surge to.

One other point is that if the unauthorised/untested item plugged in does catch fire, on a HST it is located just where passengers using the fire exit will have to pass it...

I believe that you are mistaken regarding this. The supply for internal or domestic equipment on HSTs is 3 phase, 50cycle AC at about 230/240 volts.
The catering equipment used in the buffets and kitchens is intended for UK standard supply and generally survives just fine.
The non public socket outlets are connected to this supply and are used by the cleaning firm for standard domestic or light industrial cleaning equipment.

The voltage actually supplied varies a bit, but so does the UK mains supply, and some foreign supplies vary a lot more.

If a notice tells customers not to use a socket outlet, then the customer should heed that notice, but to imply actual danger rather than breaking a rule is IMHO going too far.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now can these staff bashing forum members here still stand by their statements that the PCSO was on a ego chasing trip bearing in mind the railway byelaws quite clearly state they were in the right and that the passenger in question should have not used equipment clearly marked NOT for public use.

Yep, I can and will stand by my opinion. Although I don't agree with your insinuations saying I'm "staff-bashing", as though criticising a particular PCSO's attitude in a particular situation means I think all coppers and all railway staff are always wrong.

The main issue for me is that the man had got up and left the train, as the PCSO had asked him to do. So all the wibble about power surges and trip hazards is irrelevant. He'd gone. He'd unplugged his phone and he'd left the train, which is obviously what the PCSO asked him to do in the first place.

Therefore getting four bizzies to arrest him on the platform and cart him off to the station is an action motivated, in my opinion, purely by revenge; an ego-trip. "That man with the stupid hair was a bit rude to me and then walked away, I'll show him who's boss at great expense to the taxpayer!"

Add in to the mix the fact that the gentleman in question had previously shown the police up to be incompetent idiots in a recent Grauniad article, and you're well on the way to showing the PCSO was a jumped-up little twerp on an ego-trip.

I don't defend his actions in using the plug socket, but then I never have. I've simply said all along that the PCSO was acting unprofessionally in chasing after him after he'd unplugged his phone and left the train, obviously because he didn't kiss ass enough. And that's far more troubling than someone taking 2p's worth of electricity and causing a hypothetical trip hazard (not that I think he will have- you don't leave a £600 iPhone where someone can stand on it).

As for the power surges and the danger presented, I'd be concerned if a TOC left equipment open and usable if it was dangerous to use it. A sign doesn't negate that danger. I'd say the sign was more about backside-covering than anything else. And that doesn't mean he could or should have used it, and nor does it mean I'm defending him using it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of curiosity - how long has there been signs saying "not for public use" ?

Right back to BR days.

It almost doesn't matter why they're not for public use. If it says that, and someone in authority says to pack it in (however politely or otherwise they tell you to is largely irrelevant, as *you* are doing something wrong by using it), the right thing to do is to pack it in and apologise, and I'm certain that would have been that if he had.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the right thing to do is to pack it in and apologise, and I'm certain that would have been that if he had.

I would completely agree with that.

I just don't like the attitude of a PCSO wasting everyone's time- and my money- by chasing after him after he'd unplugged his phone and left the train.

 

[Aictos]

I would completely agree with that.

I just don't like the attitude of a PCSO wasting everyone's time- and my money- by chasing after him after he'd unplugged his phone and left the train.

Fact is none of this would have happened if the idiot in question didn't use the power socket in the first place, if there are signs saying not for public use guess what, they mean they're not for public use :roll:

Hence why I took the time to leave the precise railway byelaws in my post to show exactly why he was in the wrong, it doesn't matter that he unplugged his charger, the fact remains that he didn't have authority to use it in the first place which a lot of you are forgetting!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not forgetting the Byelaws, I'm questioning the professional judgment of a PCSO who chases after someone, with the intention of arresting them on spurious grounds, who has already unplugged his phone and left the train.

I totally get the "broken windows" theory of policing, but I genuinely can't believe how anyone can think this is an appropriate reaction to the alleged offence.

 

[AM9]

I would completely agree with that.

I just don't like the attitude of a PCSO wasting everyone's time- and my money- by chasing after him after he'd unplugged his phone and left the train.

But according to reports, maybe to be confirmed in court, he:
a) refused to remove it when asked (this is when the 'I'll do what I want' statement is supposed to have been said which he doesn't deny
b) was abusive/insulting to the PCSO, which is an offence whatever anybody thinks about the lowly status of them
c) tried pushing past BTP officers who tried to speak to him/detain him/etc., which is when his options started to narrow down rapidly.

There are probably a number of serial offenders who regularly ignore prohibition signs on the railway and elsewhere thinking that they don't apply to them. No amount of public warnings about the legal or safety consequences of ingnoring the notices will persuade them, but a single high profile case where one of their kind is dealt with by a court will be worth the time spent in making some of them think again. That would be even better value if this seemingly arrogant individual, when he starts ranting about his rights and why he broke a byelaw, is put into place by a no-nonsence beak.

That's the way the law works, if an individual tries to get macho when the case against him is clear, a lesson from a court in full public view is good value, and his card is marked for next time.

 

[BanburyBlue]

so what you're really saying Arctic Troll, is that it's okay to murder someone, as long as you walk away quietly afterwards!!

The reason this escalated was because of the man in question's attitude. Not because the PCSO was doing their job.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yep, I can and will stand by my opinion. Although I don't agree with your insinuations saying I'm "staff-bashing", as though criticising a particular PCSO's attitude in a particular situation means I think all coppers and all railway staff are always wrong.

The main issue for me is that the man had got up and left the train, as the PCSO had asked him to do. So all the wibble about power surges and trip hazards is irrelevant. He'd gone. He'd unplugged his phone and he'd left the train, which is obviously what the PCSO asked him to do in the first place.

Therefore getting four bizzies to arrest him on the platform and cart him off to the station is an action motivated, in my opinion, purely by revenge; an ego-trip. "That man with the stupid hair was a bit rude to me and then walked away, I'll show him who's boss at great expense to the taxpayer!"

Add in to the mix the fact that the gentleman in question had previously shown the police up to be incompetent idiots in a recent Grauniad article, and you're well on the way to showing the PCSO was a jumped-up little twerp on an ego-trip.

I don't defend his actions in using the plug socket, but then I never have. I've simply said all along that the PCSO was acting unprofessionally in chasing after him after he'd unplugged his phone and left the train, obviously because he didn't kiss ass enough. And that's far more troubling than someone taking 2p's worth of electricity and causing a hypothetical trip hazard (not that I think he will have- you don't leave a £600 iPhone where someone can stand on it).

As for the power surges and the danger presented, I'd be concerned if a TOC left equipment open and usable if it was dangerous to use it. A sign doesn't negate that danger. I'd say the sign was more about backside-covering than anything else. And that doesn't mean he could or should have used it, and nor does it mean I'm defending him using it.

So you were there and know EXACTLY what happened and was said, were you?

No, thought not, so this is your usual assumption. Well done Mr Troll!!

 

[jon0844]

I still don't get the 'wasting our money' bit. Surely the PCSO gets paid regardless? As do the BTP officers.

So what's the extra loss? All that was wasted, if it was wasted at all, was time. It's stupid to put a monetary cost to the time as you'd then be saying why is the PCSO getting paid just to walk about observing things but not doing anything?

 

[Clip]

I still don't get the 'wasting our money' bit. Surely the PCSO gets paid regardless? As do the BTP officers.

So what's the extra loss? All that was wasted, if it was wasted at all, was time. It's stupid to put a monetary cost to the time as you'd then be saying why is the PCSO getting paid just to walk about observing things but not doing anything?

There isn't any loss at all. Arctic Troll knows this but seems to want to use as an argument for the PCSO not to be doing her job....

 

[AM9]

There isn't any loss at all. Arctic Troll knows this but seems to want to use as an argument for the PCSO not to be doing her job....

I suppose he would say that she should be out there looking for 'real criminals', (as in somebody else), just like speeding motorists do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Time is money, and the hours spent down the station processing this arrest is time that could have been spent trying to catch the pondlife who nicked my friend's phone.

It's not about catching "proper criminals", though, it's about not wasting time and money on a petty vendetta.

The bloke had gone. Chasing after him for a petty misdemeanour is more about the PCSO trying to teach the man with stupid hair a lesson for not kissing ass. I'd go so far as to say that that's an abuse of power. Unless he was violent or abusive (and the BTP haven't said he was, which makes me think he wasn't) then it's just pathetic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Plenty of you are agreeing on the basic facts. I've seen it said by others that he was arrested for abstracting electricty as either "a pretext to get him off the train" or "because he didn't apologise for his behaviour.

We know he was asked to stop using the plug socket and was a smart-alec before voluntarily getting off the train (the fact it was his stop is irrelevant, he did as he was asked). We know that the PCSO then called four BTP officers to have him arrested for abstracting electricity, before revoking that arrest some time later, instead arguing for "inappropriate behaviour" (not being abusive/violent to a police officer, I note).

That means he was arrested for one (or both) of two things:
1. Stealing electricity, which is pathetic;
2. Being a smart-alec to a PCSO, which is pathetic and an abuse of power.

I guess it boils down to whether you think it acceptable that the BTP arrest someone because he's a pretentious git with stupid hair. I don't.

As for the wasted money, we'll have either one of two outcomes:
1. The issue gets quietly dropped, in which case four police officers and a PCSO have wasted hours of their employer's time on a pointless issue, or
2. The matter goes to court and we get to waste the time and money of the Magistrates Court and a CPS lawyer as well as the police time.

As I said, time is money.

 

[jon0844]

I do wish you'd stop mentioning the waste of time/money. I am sure if something major happened at the same time, BTP would have said 'You're a lucky man this time' and rushed off.

As that didn't happen, presumably, then what's the harm?

You keep saying he'd gone, as if he just walked off without any fuss - but do you really believe that? If he had been in any way abusive (physically or verbally) then I fully believe it's right that he was held.

 

[EM2]

1. Stealing electricity, which is pathetic;
2. Being a smart-alec to a PCSO, which is pathetic and an abuse of power.

I guess it boils down to whether you think it acceptable that the BTP arrest someone because he's a pretentious git with stupid hair. I don't.

No, but I think that it is acceptable to arrest someone because
1. He is stealing electricity, no matter how miniscule the amount;
2. Attempting to push past officers.
And that's just based on what I have read. If there was any abusive or aggressive behaviour on top of that, then that's another point for which someone should be arrested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, though I would say that (as the PCSO apparently did) telling someone to pack it in first is probably fair when you're talking about such a minor crime. On refusal, however, the attitude test has been failed so I'm happy for them to prosecute away

For #2 assaulting a Police officer might be applicable?

 

[Tetchytyke]

You keep saying he'd gone, as if he just walked off without any fuss - but do you really believe that? If he had been in any way abusive (physically or verbally) then I fully believe it's right that he was held.

I believe he was a jumped-up prat who was rude. I don't, however, believe he was abusive or violent. I'm fairly sure that the BTP would have arrested him for a damn sight more than "inappropriate behaviour" if he'd threatened to lamp the PCSO or sworn at her. The fact they didn't nick him for that makes me think he was a smart-alec but nothing more.

No, but I think that it is acceptable to arrest someone because
1. He is stealing electricity, no matter how miniscule the amount;
2. Attempting to push past officers.

He was de-arrested for the abstraction of electricity, so obviously the BTP don't think he should have been arrested for it either. Which leaves us with (2), being arrested for pushing past police officers who shouldn't have been arresting him or preventing him from leaving the railway station in the first place...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For #2 assaulting a Police officer might be applicable?

Interesting that they didn't go for that then, isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that they didn't go for that then, isn't it?

It is. Perhaps he didn't actually push past (cf stories of Jean-Charles de Meneszes jumping barriers when in fact he used them correctly using his Travelcard/Oyster) but simply ran away (or attempted to do so) without any actual contact with one of the officers?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps he didn't actually push past...but simply ran away (or attempted to do so)

Bingo. He probably didn't even run. He doesn't look like a runner.

Generally speaking, a police officer will arrest for the most serious offence that they can do, and rightly so in most cases. If the worst they can get is "unacceptable behaviour" then I'd suggest it's a storm in a teacup that will quietly get forgotten now the PCSO has caused him some inconvenience.

Whether that's appropriate behaviour from a £25,000 officer of the state is a different argument.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bingo. He probably didn't even run. He doesn't look like a runner.

I'm not sure how you look like a runner. I definitely don't "look like a runner" (heavily built, a bit fat etc) but I can shift if I need to

See what you mean though.

Generally speaking, a police officer will arrest for the most serious offence that they can do, and rightly so in most cases. If the worst they can get is "unacceptable behaviour" then I'd suggest it's a storm in a teacup that will quietly get forgotten now the PCSO has caused him some inconvenience.

Whether that's appropriate behaviour from a £25,000 officer of the state is a different argument.

Fair point.

 

[Busaholic]

I offer the following without any comment from myself:-

''Megabus.com has announced a new international route linking the the UK with Italy for the first time....Fares on every megabus.com journey start from £1 and all services will operate using high spec coaches with free Wifi, power sockets, air conditioning and a toilet''

Quotatation taken from 'Bus and Coach Week' 7/7/15

 

[Minilad]

I offer the following without any comment from myself:-

''Megabus.com has announced a new international route linking the the UK with Italy for the first time....Fares on every megabus.com journey start from £1 and all services will operate using high spec coaches with free Wifi, power sockets, air conditioning and a toilet''

Quotatation taken from 'Bus and Coach Week' 7/7/15

Maybe next time the jumped up fool wants to charge his phone he can do it on a Megabus to Italy then......and stay there

 

[EM2]

He was de-arrested for the abstraction of electricity, so obviously the BTP don't think he should have been arrested for it either. Which leaves us with (2), being arrested for pushing past police officers who shouldn't have been arresting him or preventing him from leaving the railway station in the first place...

A de-arrest doesn't necessarily mean that they don't think he did it, or even that they don't have evidence that he didn't - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497

For an arrest to be lawful it must adhere to the conditions laid out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An arresting officer must hold an "honest and reasonable" suspicion that a criminal act has been carried out by the detainee, explains Kevin Donoghue, solicitor-director of Donoghue Solicitors. If at any point the facts of the original arrest change, he says, then an officer has to question whether he or she still maintains that honest suspicion. ...a de-arrest is not necessarily an admission of a mistake on behalf of the officer, says Acpo. And a de-arrest doesn't overturn the fact of the arrest

So, there is no reason for BTP shouldn't prevent him from leaving the station. He was arrested for abstraction, he was taken to the nick, for some reason he was de-arrested and re-arrested on another charge (presumably related to his actions at the scene).

 

[Tetchytyke]

A de-arrest doesn't necessarily mean that they don't think he did it, or even that they don't have evidence that he didn't - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497

The link you posted shows that a de-arrest happens when evidence exonerating the suspect appears before they have processed the suspect. So the link you posted shows that a de-arrest does mean that they have no evidence to show that he did it.

The fact he was de-arrested shows that he didn't abstract electricity, making the PCSO's complaints ridiculous.

The fact he was immediately arrested for something else is irrelevant. Though the fact he was arrested for an offence under the Byelaws rather than, for instance, "assaulting a police officer" is rather telling. I'd say it goes so far as to prove the PCSO wasn't abused, verbally or otherwise, as he'd have been arrested for that if he was.

 

[EM2]

The link you posted shows that a de-arrest happens when evidence exonerating the suspect appears before they have processed the suspect. So the link you posted shows that a de-arrest does mean that they have no evidence to show that he did it.

Evidence exonerating the suspect appears before being processed, but not before being arrested. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the officers felt there was evidence, otherwise they would not have carried out the arrest in the first place.
After all, if that had been the case, surely Mr. Lee would now be claiming unlawful arrest?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Evidence exonerating the suspect appears before being processed, but not before being arrested. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the officers felt there was evidence, otherwise they would not have carried out the arrest in the first place

The assertion of the PCSO that he had abstracted electricity is enough to show reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers.

I don't think the arresting officers did anything wrong in arresting him on the word of their colleague.