Get off my Train

[MintTrav]

Guy is a hero. simple

Sorry, guy is a thug.

The victim of the assault is a student. But if he had been a chav, as some have said, then so what? He claims to have bought a return but was given two singles at the ticket office.

"I had been out celebrating after an exam and I was half asleep on the train. I did have a ticket but I must have handed over the wrong one to the conductor."

[zerofive]

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Normally I'm in your park Milligan, get rid of the idiots etc. but this seems a little extreme. You've paid for your ticket, it's the middle of the night, and some fat scottish bloke gives you the rock bottom onto a train platform. Unjust imo.

[  ] he has paid

Even if you can prove he hasn't paid, doesn't give fat people the right to push him off a train. Where do you draw the line? At school there were a lot of people in my classroom who used to get frustrated because I had a learning disability and the class (train in this metaphor) wasn't getting to its destination as quickly as everyone else would have liked. Would a fat guy have been a hero if he'd have beaten me up there and then for the benefit of a few impatient whinos? Or would he have just been picking on a retard?

Issue the kid a fine ffs. Easy game.

[ManuelsMum]

Lol at describing Big Man as a bully - he was just someone who wanted to get home vaguely on time.

If the ned hadn't have been such an argumentative prick the conductor wouldn't have wanted him off the train so quickly.

The complaints against Big Man are exactly the reason why few people stand up to anti-social scrotes on public transport. (Though in London there is also the added factor that doing so is liable to get you shanked).

The law disagrees with you, do you think we should change it?

If he'd picked up the wrong guy, pretty reasonable chance of a blade in the stomach for our chubby bully superhero vigilante there. lol Ned would have said in court 'I was defending myself, I thought he was about to injure me!'

[X] He'd have been right.

[celtic]

Should have been thrown off purely on the basis that he was wearing a Dappy hat.

Shame the train was at a station at the time.

[AndrewT]

Lol at describing Big Man as a bully - he was just someone who wanted to get home vaguely on time.

If the ned hadn't have been such an argumentative prick the conductor wouldn't have wanted him off the train so quickly.

The complaints against Big Man are exactly the reason why few people stand up to anti-social scrotes on public transport. (Though in London there is also the added factor that doing so is liable to get you shanked).

The law disagrees with you, do you think we should change it?

If he'd picked up the wrong guy, pretty reasonable chance of a blade in the stomach for our chubby bully superhero vigilante there. lol Ned would have said in court 'I was defending myself, I thought he was about to injure me!'

[X] He'd have been right.

This is the problem - in your scenario the law is favouring the guy who a) doesn't pay to travel on trains, b) swears aggressively at someone just doing their job and c) is carrying a knife on them.

Damn right that's not how things should be.

[TheChipPrince]

Lack of any manners worse than not having the correct ticket imo.

Fling him.

[ManuelsMum]

Lol at describing Big Man as a bully - he was just someone who wanted to get home vaguely on time.

If the ned hadn't have been such an argumentative prick the conductor wouldn't have wanted him off the train so quickly.

The complaints against Big Man are exactly the reason why few people stand up to anti-social scrotes on public transport. (Though in London there is also the added factor that doing so is liable to get you shanked).

The law disagrees with you, do you think we should change it?

If he'd picked up the wrong guy, pretty reasonable chance of a blade in the stomach for our chubby bully superhero vigilante there. lol Ned would have said in court 'I was defending myself, I thought he was about to injure me!'

[X] He'd have been right.

This is the problem - in your scenario the law is favouring the guy who a) doesn't pay to travel on trains, b) swears aggressively at someone just doing their job and c) is carrying a knife on them.

Damn right that's not how things should be.

Good point. The only downside I see in our proposed new system is hapless chubbies not being able to discern where to intervene and where not to, or injuring the ned in the process due to lack of formal restraint training. Maybe we could formalize the system, employ a big band of chubby guys, give them uniforms, weapons and training. Sure, they couldn't be at every situation, but if we gave them a special number, maybe people could call them in and they could go there quickly.

[millidonk]

Even if you can prove he hasn't paid, doesn't give fat people the right to push him off a train. Where do you draw the line? At school there were a lot of people in my classroom who used to get frustrated because I had a learning disability and the class (train in this metaphor) wasn't getting to its destination as quickly as everyone else would have liked. Would a fat guy have been a hero if he'd have beaten me up there and then for the benefit of a few impatient whinos? Or would he have just been picking on a retard?

Issue the kid a fine ffs. Easy game.

Corporal punishment was abolished in the UK some time ago, if you had/have a learning disability you should be taught in a seperate class so it is not detremental to others. This was common place at many of the schools I went to and obv is no reason for a fat kid to beat you up. But for metaphor's sake if you were sat in class swearing at the teacher and disrupting everyone I would happily watch a fat kid pick you up and throw you out of the room! I might even give such act a round of applause.

Guy is a hero. simple

Sorry, guy is a thug.

The victim of the assault is a student. But if he had been a chav, as some have said, then so what? He claims to have bought a return but was given two singles at the ticket office.

"I had been out celebrating after an exam and I was half asleep on the train. I did have a ticket but I must have handed over the wrong one to the conductor."

Lolz. Even if he had handed over the wrong ticket, when the conductor was speaking to him why didn't he just say "sorry" and hand over the correct ticket instead of swearing at the collector and upsetting everyone. Lol at the pic also, where is the pic of his pre bought ticket??

[millidonk]

Lol at describing Big Man as a bully - he was just someone who wanted to get home vaguely on time.

If the ned hadn't have been such an argumentative prick the conductor wouldn't have wanted him off the train so quickly.

The complaints against Big Man are exactly the reason why few people stand up to anti-social scrotes on public transport. (Though in London there is also the added factor that doing so is liable to get you shanked).

The law disagrees with you, do you think we should change it?

If he'd picked up the wrong guy, pretty reasonable chance of a blade in the stomach for our chubby bully superhero vigilante there. lol Ned would have said in court 'I was defending myself, I thought he was about to injure me!'

[X] He'd have been right.

This is the problem - in your scenario the law is favouring the guy who a) doesn't pay to travel on trains, b) swears aggressively at someone just doing their job and c) is carrying a knife on them.

Damn right that's not how things should be.

I don't often agree with Andrew T's posts. but he has nailed it here!

[AndrewT]

ManuelsMum had a pretty good comeback though.

In a perfect world, Dibble is the answer, but it's more that those who need to have their behaviour changed are the least likely to pay heed to corrective measures.

[MintTrav]

Lol at the pic

So now we know what you really think. "Lol at the pic" of someone's injuries from being thrown face-down on the ground with force.

You think these injuries are funny?



Even if he hadn't paid [which he says he had], it wouldn't justify an assault. Some people seem to relish an excuse to have a go at anyone who is considered to have made any transgression. Regardless of how minor the offence, they seem to think they are justified in beating them up as if some spurious moral high-ground makes them immune to the law and gives them the opportunity to do things that they are usually restricted from. Quite rightly, it doesn't work likely that.

Also, the Inspector requested the attack and had a go himself at the end. They should both be prosecuted.

[bobAlike]

The kid was in the wrong, the inspector and big guy handled it wrong.
I'm in the camp which says kid deserved what he got.
Treating minor offences such as this with a softly softly approach is the reason this country is in the state it's in (and no, I'm not on about the financial state). This has led to a whole load of disrespect for everyone and everything. People will always try and get away with things if they feel there are no significant consequences.

[paulhouk03]

Tbh

I blamed  the ticket guy for not controlling the situation better.

Young guy  was wrong for being gobby

The fat guy just got pissed off and did what he thought would make him get home on time
But ott

[edgascoigne]

Ticket or otherwise the behaviour of 'big man' is absolutely heinous.

We all want to get to where we are going on time when we travel, but any logical soul accepts the (admittedly frustrating) possibility of delays.

Here these delays are exacerbated by an incompetent ticket inspector, which some giant daft twot uses as an excuse to take out some pent up aggression under the guise of 'the public interest'.

He will get a fcuking in the courts for what effectively amounted to ABH, and rightly so.

[millidonk]

Lol at the pic

So now we know what you really think. "Lol at the pic" of someone's injuries from being thrown face-down on the ground with force.

You think these injuries are funny?



Even if he hadn't paid [which he says he had], it wouldn't justify an assault. Some people seem to relish an excuse to have a go at anyone who is considered to have made any transgression. Regardless of how minor the offence, they seem to think they are justified in beating them up as if some spurious moral high-ground makes them immune to the law and gives them the opportunity to do things that they are usually restricted from. Quite rightly, it doesn't work likely that.

Also, the Inspector requested the attack and had a go himself at the end. They should both be prosecuted.

I have had worse shaving cuts. and my knees/shins look a million times worse every time i play football. He was thrown down as he kept fighting back to try and get back on the train he had no right to be on! Requested the attack? he asked him to be removed, he didn't say beat him up and jump up and down on his head.

at·tack (-tk)
v. at·tacked, at·tack·ing, at·tacks
v.tr.
1. To set upon with violent force.
2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.


1. The big man was deliberate and forceful. I wouldn't say he was violent. He tried to usher him out of the carriage but the dodger kept trying to fight his way out of the man's clutches.
2. I would say the young man lead a verbal attack on the elderly fragile controller

I really hope the big fella doesn't get punished in any way. This would make an example that people can't just go around not buying tickets and gobbing off as they please.