Pensioner against feet on seats

[HarleyDavidson]

We've chucked kids off numerous times and on quite a few occasions we've been thanked by the passengers for doing so.

We will not tolerate any anti social behaviour or tampering with CFAs, emergency door egresses, passcoms or PA systems, doing so will see them ejected at the earliest opportunity and if that means stopping especially to do so, so be it.

Even if it is the last train of the day too. Did it a while back, with them smoking, drinking and doing most of the above, they were about 13-15, no money, no tickets and we're being abusive and disruptive, so got dumped.

The next train was something like 0530 the next morning. The crew of the following train were told not to take them either. They had a nice 6 mile walk home, pity it wasn't raining.

 

[Class377]

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, to quote the post below yours;

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.

Sometimes it's better not to get all worked up - live and let live. They weren't running around causing massive problems, they had their feet up on a seat. Not fantastic but hardly crime of the century either. Let those who are trained to deal with these problems do it - if the kids do it all the time it will eventually catch up with them.

To put across a similar problem; if you see someone speeding, do you follow them and try to get them to stop - and get their details to pass on to police? I would assume not.

 

[AlterEgo]

We've chucked kids off numerous times and on quite a few occasions we've been thanked by the passengers for doing so.

We will not tolerate any anti social behaviour or tampering with CFAs, emergency door egresses, passcoms or PA systems, doing so will see them ejected at the earliest opportunity and if that means stopping especially to do so, so be it.

Even if it is the last train of the day too. Did it a while back, with them smoking, drinking and doing most of the above, they were about 13-15, no money, no tickets and we're being abusive and disruptive, so got dumped.

The next train was something like 0530 the next morning. The crew of the following train were told not to take them either. They had a nice 6 mile walk home, pity it wasn't raining.

You were lucky nothing happened to them as a result, if that was recent. I'm being totally serious.

 

[Harbornite]

Let's not forget that some forum members (*Cough* *cough* Cheshire East) are old enough to remember when babies would be dumped at the top of mountains for being too weak. Somehow, I think that some people on here would demand this punishment for any child who dares place their foot upon a train seat.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You were lucky nothing happened to them as a result, if that was recent. I'm being totally serious.

Couldn't give a monkey's, no money, no tickets, no right to be on board, broke multiple laws, they're not mine, I'm protecting the train, the passengers who have paid and do have tickets.

Not only board CCTV will have caught their antics, as will have the station CCTV cameras, control knew of the issues, as was the signaller.

Once they're off where they go is of no consequence to me.

As for the OAP, good on him, he's doing what the parents should be doing and that's giving him some discipline. If you let them get away with it, then you get the $h17 state that the country is in today.

 

[AlterEgo]

Couldn't give a monkey's, no money, no tickets, no right to be on board, broke multiple laws, they're not mine, I'm protecting the train, the passengers who have paid and do have tickets.

Not only board CCTV will have caught their antics, as will have the station CCTV cameras, control knew of the issues, as was the signaller.

Once they're off where they go is of no consequence to me.

I can see where you're coming from, sure. But...

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

It's called having a duty of care.

There would be a s**tstorm whether you or I liked it or not.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I don't have a duty of care to them, they're actually trespassing and I really don't care if they get run over or anything else, once they're off they're not my problem. All the police will do is remove them from the station to a reasonable distance and dump them.

 

[Class377]

As for the OAP, good on him, he's doing what the parents should be doing and that's giving him some discipline. If you let them get away with it, then you get the $h17 state that the country is in today.

You believe that parents should be putting their children in an arm lock (and twisting their arm round to cause needless pain)?!?!?!

I sincerely hope, if you have children, that you have never treated them like that, as I would class it as domestic abuse.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I can see where you're coming from, sure. But...

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

It's called having a duty of care.

There would be a s**tstorm whether you or I liked it or not.

So are you implying that the duty of care for a guard/conductor extends to a passenger until they successfully reach safety, after leaving the train/station?

 

[meridian2]

You believe that parents should be putting their children in an arm lock (and twisting their arm round to cause needless pain)?!?!?!

I sincerely hope, if you have children, that you have never treated them like that, as I would class it as domestic abuse.

Good, they aren't your children, so how someone disciplines them is of no concern to you.

Spare the rod etc.

 

[JamesRowden]

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 have witnessed that situation. The child is told by the guard to buy a ticket or get off at the next station, Frant (a rural station). The child refuses. The guard calls BTP to be ready for the child at the next station (Tunbridge Wells).

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So are you implying that the duty of care for a guard/conductor extends to a passenger until they successfully reach safety, after leaving the train/station?

I know it's pathetic isn't it. Do you think that the police will take them home? You must be joking. It'll be either a good distance away or down the nick.

I removed two girls from a train and frog marched them to a BTP office for doing an egress at speed and trying to light a bin. They were about 12, a second MoS escorted me and the girls to ensure that they couldn't accuse me of any kind of impropriety against them.

I can imagine the language would have been a bit blue when their parents got a call from BTP at 2230.

 

[AlterEgo]

So are you implying that the duty of care for a guard/conductor extends to a passenger until they successfully reach safety, after leaving the train/station?

No, but there is a general duty of care not to leave vulnerable or young passengers (like minors) in those sorts of situations.

Very poor attitudes from a few members of staff on this forum. Shame.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have witnessed that situation. The child is told by the guard to buy a ticket or get off at the next station, Frant (a rural station). The child refuses. The guard calls BTP to be ready for the child at the next station (Tunbridge Wells).

If the child gets turfed off into the company of the police then that certainly satisfies duty of care.

 

[Class377]

I still can't quite work out why we're on about kicking kids off trains (either at a rural station or into the custody of the police) for having their feet up?!

I'm sure several of the pedantic people on here can tell me it's a bylaw offence, and it's far from pleasant, but...get some perspective! It happens all the time, and nobody has ever really suffered from it. It might not be ideal, but part of the deal with going on public transport is that you have to share it with the public, who may not all uphold the same values as you do.

If you're really, truly offended by people putting their feet up (to the point where you go and put them in an arm lock, or try and get them kicked off the train), I'd suggest that public transport isn't for you.

 

[Jamesb1974]

I know it's pathetic isn't it. Do you think that the police will take them home? You must be joking. It'll be either a good distance away or down the nick.

Speaking from experience, the cops would have a higher duty of care in these circumstances and would take them to a place of safety or home. No copper worth his salt (or wanting to remain in a job) would dump a child at the roadside. There is a very definite duty of care to make sure they are safe in those circumstances.

This is from the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia;

Although the idea of a general duty of care is now widely accepted, there are significant differences among the common law jurisdictions concerning the specific circumstances under which that duty of care exists. Obviously, courts cannot impose unlimited liability and hold everyone liable for everyone else's problems; as Justice Cardozo put it, to rule otherwise would be to expose defendants "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."[1] There must be some reasonable limit to the duty of care; the problem is where to set that limit.

Duty of care in English law
The leading judicial test for a duty of care in England was found in the judgments of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman,[2] in which the House of Lords set out the following three-part test:

Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;[3] [4] [5]
A relationship of "proximity" must exist between the defendant and the claimant;
It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability.

There has to be a limit to a duty of care. If a conducter/guard turfed off non-paying adult, who was drunk and was then run over by a bus half a mile from the station, would it be the conductors fault?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Very poor attitudes towards staff who have a job to do and MoP who will not tolerate anti social behaviour.

I really detest the self righteous who won't discipline their kids and think that it's perfectly acceptable to allow their offspring to harass and harangue other people, cause, delay, damage and general inconvenience to many.

 

[Harbornite]

I really detest the self righteous who won't discipline their kids and think that it's perfectly acceptable to allow their offspring to harass and harangue other people, cause, delay, damage and general inconvenience to many.

That did not happen in this particular instance. Well, you could say they were damaging the seats at a push, but this is pretty hard to justify. Not that I'm saying the kids were as good as gold in this incident and entirely blameless.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

But they were causing inconvenience and harassing others. Where were the parents and why haven't they been teaching them manners and instilling some discipline?

This is a load of BS and the parents should be taken to court. This is probably going to go the same way as that guy who did a similar thing in Scotland. An absolute nonsense.

 

[Class377]

But they were causing inconvenience and harassing others. Where were the parents and why haven't they been teaching them manners and instilling some discipline?

This is a load of BS and the parents should be taken to court. This is probably going to go the same way as that guy who did a similar thing in Scotland. An absolute nonsense.

Their parents should be taken to court...because their kids had their feet up? How many more court cases are we going to have to see every year if this is now the response? :roll:

Overreactions galore on this thread, I wonder whether it was these sort of over-the-top attitudes that led to the man using an arm-lock in the first place...

 

[Jamesb1974]

But they were causing inconvenience and harassing others. Where were the parents and why haven't they been teaching them manners and instilling some discipline?

This is a load of BS and the parents should be taken to court. This is probably going to go the same way as that guy who did a similar thing in Scotland. An absolute nonsense.

Why should the parents be taken to court? Is instilling discipline and manners now a legal requirement of parenting, rather than a desirable facet? Sadly, some parents can't be bothered to instill discipline and manners to their offspring, but by the same token, it doesn't automatically give random strangers the right to put the same kids in positions of pain compliance for minor bylaw infractions (which, by the way, have nothing to do with that random stranger). Of course, it's desirable that children are well mannered and respectful to their elders, but this is the real world where a good proportion of modern children are the opposite. It doesn't make it right for an adult to get them in an armlock though. It's hardly going to instill some long-term discipline in them, is it?

 

[route:oxford]

It's a case of children discovering the potential risks of engaging with an individual who does not conform to their perception of society norms.

This could well be someone with mental health issues who has undermedicated or perhaps has a form of Alzheimers or dementia that triggers violent behaviour in stressful situations.

Of course, there is very little firm content about the situation and if the child had engaged in a physical assault that put others into danger (eg hiv/hep risk through biting) how else would you keep them down and their mouth away from you?

 

[AlterEgo]

But they were causing inconvenience and harassing others. Where were the parents and why haven't they been teaching them manners and instilling some discipline?

This is a load of BS and the parents should be taken to court. This is probably going to go the same way as that guy who did a similar thing in Scotland. An absolute nonsense.

Well, that may be true, but it doesn't avoid your duty of care towards all your passengers. Even those which are drunk, loud, abusive, little turd kids, I'm afraid.

Hard old life.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Anyone who puts their filthy shoes on the seats should be fined, I believe that this is the case on Merseyrail. A £50 fine, iirc.

I generally don't mind if you put a newspaper on the seat and then put feet on that, provided that the train is quiet.

 

[bramling]

It's a case of children discovering the potential risks of engaging with an individual who does not conform to their perception of society norms.

This could well be someone with mental health issues who has undermedicated or perhaps has a form of Alzheimers or dementia that triggers violent behaviour in stressful situations.

Of course, there is very little firm content about the situation and if the child had engaged in a physical assault that put others into danger (eg hiv/hep risk through biting) how else would you keep them down and their mouth away from you?

One point to note, we haven't seen the full sequence of events leading up to the pictures.

Word of mouth is notoriously unreliable in these situations. I've investigated so many incidents where review of CCTV paints a very different picture, to treat word of mouth with a complete pinch of salt. Likewise still photos or films taken on cameraphone which inevitably don't show the beginning of an incident.

 

[Class377]

Anyone who puts their filthy shoes on the seats should be fined, I believe that this is the case on Merseyrail. A £50 fine, iirc.

I generally don't mind if you put a newspaper on the seat and then put feet on that, provided that the train is quiet.

Yep, a £50 on ONE TOC. Others generally don't care about it or ignore it. It's not a massive issue really, is it? Certainly not one that warrants being physically assaulted or sent to court!

 

[sciisfun]

OK, lets flip this on its head for a second, if it was the old guy being put in an arm lock for whatever reason, there would be an outrage!
Or if say a young kid demanded an elderly person to move, as they had booked the seat (they would be breaking by-laws if they don't sit in their allocated seat!) there would again be an outrage! the youth today gets a bad wrap whatever they do!
I know in the above case the guard would be very unlikely to say anything, but the same is said for feet on seat
while the kids were being annoying, they weren't directly harming, or even inconveniencing this 'gentle'man, and he still took it upon himself to physically restrain a kid who said no (I'm sure they would have agreed if asked in the correct manner)
For the record, being a 'Youth' (21 in a few days) I would have used physical force to remove this person from restraining the youth (after a verbal warning, loud enough for everyone in the carriage to hear), before ensuring he was picked up by a bobby at the next station.

Remember, Respect flows both ways and it's give and take #all lives matter

 

[Jamesb1974]

One point to note, we haven't seen the full sequence of events leading up to the pictures.

Word of mouth is notoriously unreliable in these situations. I've investigated so many incidents where review of CCTV paints a very different picture, to treat word of mouth with a complete pinch of salt. Likewise still photos or films taken on cameraphone which inevitably don't show the beginning of an incident.

Good point. Interesting to note that it was the Daily Mail that reported this, a paper with a bit of reputation for mispresentation.

 

[Antman]

OK, lets flip this on its head for a second, if it was the old guy being put in an arm lock for whatever reason, there would be an outrage!
Or if say a young kid demanded an elderly person to move, as they had booked the seat (they would be breaking by-laws if they don't sit in their allocated seat!) there would again be an outrage! the youth today gets a bad wrap whatever they do!
I know in the above case the guard would be very unlikely to say anything, but the same is said for feet on seat
while the kids were being annoying, they weren't directly harming, or even inconveniencing this 'gentle'man, and he still took it upon himself to physically restrain a kid who said no (I'm sure they would have agreed if asked in the correct manner)
For the record, being a 'Youth' (21 in a few days) I would have used physical force to remove this person from restraining the youth (after a verbal warning, loud enough for everyone in the carriage to hear), before ensuring he was picked up by a bobby at the next station.

Remember, Respect flows both ways and it's give and take #all lives matter

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

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

 

[Antman]

Anyone who puts their filthy shoes on the seats should be fined, I believe that this is the case on Merseyrail. A £50 fine, iirc.

I generally don't mind if you put a newspaper on the seat and then put feet on that, provided that the train is quiet.

Here here, no excuse for it.

 

[sciisfun]

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

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!