Another public transport incident - a fare-dodger this time

[syl1]

I would'nt.

You said..."I would rather have young people acting like young people" ...so do you think this is the normal way for "young people" to act? When would it become unacceptable in your opinion...when the lad turns 20? or 30?.
By that time he would be so used to riding roughshod over people he would be a bleeding menace instead of a minor tw**..

A short sharp lesson by this upstanding citizen will probably guarantee that he pays for his next ticket.

[timey]

The thing is if he hadn't done it then the train would have been delayed for ages while they got the police who would have escorted him off the train. And it's not just a few quid, the losses are in the millions of pounds over a year, hence why inspectors are employed to wed them out. Unfortunately in this case it was a rather mild-mannered old gent who couldn't cope with a lad refusing to pay for the correct ticket. Whether he was offered the opportunity to pay or not I don't know, but he was adamant that he had the correct ticket so I doubt he would have paid.

[Earl]

I would'nt.

You said..."I would rather have young people acting like young people" ...so do you think this is the normal way for "young people" to act? When would it become unacceptable in your opinion...when the lad turns 20? or 30?.
By that time he would be so used to riding roughshod over people he would be a bleeding menace instead of a minor tw**..

A short sharp lesson by this upstanding citizen will probably guarantee that he pays for his next ticket.

You've no way of knowing that's what would happen at all. I used to ride for free on the train all the time, I didn't become a menace. You don't need to strong arm or bully people into acting more responsibly, young people get drunk and do daft things, big deal.

The bloke throwing his weight around is another matter, he strikes me as a wife-beating cretin.

[syl1]

And when you rode for free did you ever get caught?
I think the way he acted had more to do with the way the situation developed than the fact he did'nt have the right ticket.

How you can judge the "big man" to be a 'wife beating cretin' beggars belief.

I tell you what, If that was your dad or your son or someone you knew (maybe even yourself) who could'nt defend themselves, on the recieving end of some little scroats abuse, I bet you would welcome someone like him to help out.

[Earl]

He wasn't on the end of any abuse, he was arguing with a drunken fare dodger, most likely with no money. he could just walk away if he didn't like it.

I can judge the bloke who kicked him off, because he's clearly quick to use physical force to get his own way. Looks like a right rotter, only a complete cunt carries on like that, nothing more than a bully. Not exactly courageous tackling a puny youth.

[syl1]

Thats your way of looking at it, yet lots of people dont tackle puny youths because they are afraid.
The man did'nt hit him, he removed him...and good for him.

Your way of looking the other way would lead to chaos. If one scroat did'nt pay why should any other scroat? Then we would have a two tier system...the mugs who pay for the scroats who dont.

I dont like the sound of the sort of society you would prefer.

[Earl]

The kind of society I prefer is the one we're already in. Your opinion is based on this incorrect assumption that people who don't pick on little weeds are cowards, when in fact it takes a bigger man to just live and let live, and a bully to kick some hapless wanker off the train in the middle of nowhere.

Cheeky buggers have dodged paying for rail fares for decades, strangely western civilization has not yet collapsed. Civil unrest and nationwide chaos is a bit of an over-dramatisation, in reality bugger-all would have happened.

We already have a system where the more successful pay for the losers, and it's working fine. I don't consider myself a mug, I'm a winner, and part of the cost is paying to keep dead losers out of the gutter stinking up my good world. You might consider yourself a mug, but you'll only make yourself bitter. I'm much happier all round.

[syl1]

No I dont consider myself a mug at all. I dont pay for scroats who try to get free rides, and that in part is down to people like the man who sorted out this incident.
If everyone thought like you little abusive bullies would be allowed to dictate to society.

We have law and order, and like it or not it applies to everyone, even drunken kids like him.

And 'Live and let live' does'nt mean cowardly looking the other way when a drunken twerp is being abusive to an elderly man who is trying to do his job.

[Earl]

You are the one who said that it's mugs who pay for scrotes, and we do that all the time, so you must consider yourself to be a mug. Little abusive bullies don't dictate society, big abusive bullies do.

Well the law applies to the thug who man-handled the little drunk, so if we're playing by the letter of the law he should be charged with assault, a much more serious crime than dodging a fare.

No, live and let live doesn't mean cowardly looking away, it means live and let live. It's got nothing to do with courage, it's not a brave or courageous thing taking on a puny drunk, it's pathetic.

[syl1]

I said if people like him were allowed to ride free the people who followed the rules would be paying for their ( the scroats) tickets, and it would be a two tier system.
If people let little drunks ride free they would be mugs to allow it. As it stands they have to have a ticket, he did not, he got ejected. Good.

I know youngsters have always tried to get away with stuff, the difference now is they get aggresive and have no respect for people when they are caught...and THATS why he got flung off the train imo. No doubt if he had acted in a reasonable manner after he had been copped he would have been allowed to give his name and address, someone might have even offered to buy his ticket.

The other case of the guard who was stabbed when the two youths were told they needed tickets, is that what you want? Because if you have one set of rules for them and one for everyone else thats how it will go.


I actually think it's more pathetic when people DONT get involved. It happens all the time, unacceptable behaviour is not challenged, why? Thats not letting people "live and let live" it's avoiding conflict because people dont want to get involved...and sod everyone else.

Seems to me that the man did everyone a favour, and the round of applause he got confirms this.