The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: GROWLER on September 06, 2007, 10:12:07 PM
-
Scroll down to the 'Train seat causes furore' story, to watch the video
Don't know how to link it directly into here. crash:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northwesttonight/latest_stories
I'm suprised no one from up here hasn't already discussed this item.
I for one applaud Mersey Rail for their stance on this zero tolerance AND the dirty little munter concerned. happy088
Cub scout leader too! eeek:
Sadly though, the courts decided to let her off, probably because she appears to be 'a decent sort'.
Arse wipes. evil:
Lets hope others follow suit.
There may be some hope for us after all, or is this the start of the revolution, and the weary public fight back?
-
Agree ? zero tolerance is the only way forward.
Have to wonder tho if she would have been taken to task if she was in a gang of hooded thugs?
-
Agree ? zero tolerance is the only way forward.
Have to wonder tho if she would have been taken to task if she was in a gang of hooded thugs?
Dunno, but that 'built like a brick shit 'ouse train rozzer' looked a bit handy. scared2:
-
Utterly ridiculous! As you all know I am a regular user of public transport. Bugger prosecuting people for putting their feet on the seats how about actually prosecuting people who don't pay their fares? How about actually telling the mob of yoof to stop smoking? Actual stop people bringing their bikes on board during rush hour. I could go on and on and on. Feet on seats is anti-social yes, but there are an awful lot more important issues for them to be prosecuting on public transport.
-
I could go on and on and on.
I am sure you could my dear.
I trust the day finds you well and otherwise in good humour?
-
I could go on and on and on.
I am sure you could my dear.
I trust the day finds you well and otherwise in good humour?
It did until I got on the sodding train and the ticket inspector asked everyone apart from the school/college kids to show their tickets. Really what is the point? I am writting, yet another, email to the railway company. cussing: Banghead Banghead Banghead Banghead
-
Feet on seats is anti-social yes, but there are an awful lot more important issues for them to be prosecuting on public transport.
Agree, but I feel this is sending out the correct message to the anti social ones in our midst.
Step out of line by behaving like a scum bag, and you're nicked, and that will no doubt include such issues as fare evasion too.
Last time I went on Mersey Rail, about 3 years ago, i had to sit and watch this arrogant foul thuggy toilet rat sitting with his shitty feet on the seat, AND spitting on the floor.
Sorry, but I don't want to be anywhere near that sort of crap thanks. I find that far more offensive than fare evasion, as serious as that is. evil:
-
Feet on seats is anti-social yes, but there are an awful lot more important issues for them to be prosecuting on public transport.
Agree, but I feel this is sending out the correct message to the anti social ones in our midst.
Step out of line by behaving like a scum bag, and you're nicked, and that will no doubt include such issues as fare evasion too.
Last time I went on Mersey Rail, about 3 years ago, i had to sit and watch this arrogant foul thuggy toilet rat sitting with his shitty feet on the seat, AND spitting on the floor.
Sorry, but I don't want to be anywhere near that sort of crap thanks. I find that far more offensive than fare evasion, as serious as that is. evil:
Problem is look at the woman that was prosecuted. She didn't seem to be from the anti-social element and that is because those "in charge" on the trains never approach them. So, I will get fined, prosecuted for not paying my fare putting my feet on the seats but the teenage hoodlum smoking the next carriage down will get passed over because "they" are afraid of them.
I'm all for sending a message but why do the generally law abiding have to be the ones that pay for sending it? Send it via one of their own kind and it will be far more effective IMHO.
-
Problem is look at the woman that was prosecuted. She didn't seem to be from the anti-social element
'Seem to be'?
Bit of an angelic face? No hoody? So?
SHE HAD HER FEET ON THE SEAT! = dirty anti social conduct. evil:
What would you say if I came 'round to your house, spat on the carpet and put me dog shite ridden feet on your sofa?
-
"Would you like some of my special fruit salad?"
-
Issue on the spot fine, with 28 days to appeal/pay. Failure to pay ~ then go to court to collect the fine.
It works for speeding, parking and various other anti social spot fines. Why on earth waste all that time and public money going straight to court? Absolute nonsense. Yes she was in the wrong, yes she should pay the fixed penalty but these numpties have chosen to "Crack down" on an easy target because they don't have the balls to tackle the problems properly and are hoping to earn a reputation for "Tough Action" that will prevent further problems. They are very wrong. All they are doing is criminalising something that has been going on since trains were invented.
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
-
Problem is look at the woman that was prosecuted. She didn't seem to be from the anti-social element
'Seem to be'?
Bit of an angelic face? No hoody? So?
SHE HAD HER FEET ON THE SEAT! = dirty anti social conduct. evil:
What would you say if I came 'round to your house, spat on the carpet and put me dog shite ridden feet on your sofa?
Oh that's easy ~ I wouldn't invite you again. Just like Mersey Rail have the option of telling her she may no longer use their trains. Simple, if you stop and think about it.
-
Issue on the spot fine, with 28 days to appeal/pay. Failure to pay ~ then go to court to collect the fine.
It works for speeding, parking and various other anti social spot fines. Why on earth waste all that time and public money going straight to court? Absolute nonsense. Yes she was in the wrong, yes she should pay the fixed penalty but these numpties have chosen to "Crack down" on an easy target because they don't have the balls to tackle the problems properly and are hoping to earn a reputation for "Tough Action" that will prevent further problems. They are very wrong. All they are doing is criminalising something that has been going on since trains were invented.
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
Thank-you far more eloquently put than I was managing.
She should have been fined absolutely. But fine her on the spot don't take her to court. Take the pricks that were letting off fireworks in my carriage last year to court now THAT is anti-social behaviour!
-
Issue on the spot fine, with 28 days to appeal/pay. Failure to pay ~ then go to court to collect the fine.
It works for speeding, parking and various other anti social spot fines. Why on earth waste all that time and public money going straight to court? Absolute nonsense. Yes she was in the wrong, yes she should pay the fixed penalty but these numpties have chosen to "Crack down" on an easy target because they don't have the balls to tackle the problems properly and are hoping to earn a reputation for "Tough Action" that will prevent further problems. They are very wrong. All they are doing is criminalising something that has been going on since trains were invented.
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
Take the pricks that were letting off fireworks in my carriage last year to court now THAT is anti-social behaviour!
Once again, sleep021 I AGREE!
I'm NOT condoning any of this other anti social behaviour, and yes, there are differing degrees of it. What i am saying is, well done Mersey Rail, for cracking down on the scourge of todays society....inconsideration and selfishness towards others. Hopefully we will see this as at least the start of zero tolerance towards ALL anti social behaviour in public places, and for that i applaud them. happy088
-
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
If it sends out the right message that we are no longer tolerating the basics of what is wrong with society today, then i for one consider it money well spent.
This is not simply about some selfish floozy with her Nikes on a seat, this is positive action towards the arse wipes of society in general.
-
Yes I agree and if I thought they were clamping down on all segments of society then I would agree. However, I can't help think that the true anti-social elements will be passed over because those giving out the punishments are too afraid of them to do anything. It isn't a side swipe and making an example because those who really need to be dragged into court know that they have total immunity.
-
Well it's a start in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
I too however have my usual cynical doubts that we will see a sudden upsurge in cracking down on the more serious problems of society in general, but we live in cynical hope.
I was simply pleased that SOMEONE seemed to be tackling part of the root of all evil in our scummy society of today. I appreciate that their is a long way to go and it's going to cost all of us dearly to tackle it successfully.
-
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
If it sends out the right message that we are no longer tolerating the basics of what is wrong with society today, then i for one consider it money well spent.
This is not simply about some selfish floozy with her Nikes on a seat, this is positive action towards the arse wipes of society in general.
I understand that it was virtually bare feet ~ she was wearing flip-flops.
-
And as a Merseyside Tax Payer Growler you paid for that fiasco. If I were you I'd be asking them to justify the expense when it could have all been resolved for much less.
If it sends out the right message that we are no longer tolerating the basics of what is wrong with society today, then i for one consider it money well spent.
This is not simply about some selfish floozy with her Nikes on a seat, this is positive action towards the arse wipes of society in general.
I understand that it was virtually bare feet ~ she was wearing flip-flops.
How can you have 'vitual bare feet'? confused:
They either ARE or they aren't.
Flip flops can carry as much dog shite, chewing gum or any other undesirables as a pair of steel toe capped workmans Doc Martins.
-
What if one took ones shoes off and put bare feet on the seat? redface:
-
That would be classed as pollution
-
That would be classed as pollution
What if they aren't smelly and are clean and nicely presented?
-
Seems unlikely.
-
Seems unlikely.
They are!! I get regular pedicures.
-
What if they aren't smelly and are clean and nicely presented?
I have never seen train seats that meet that description.
-
What if they aren't smelly and are clean and nicely presented?
I have never seen train seats that meet that description.
Or even trains for that matter.
-
What if they aren't smelly and are clean and nicely presented?
I have never seen train seats that meet that description.
Or even trains for that matter.
Indeed.
Who remembers carriages with slide-down windows and notices that said "Please don't lean out of the window"?
Some reprobate had usually altered it to "Please don't Clean Soot Off the windows". whistle:
-
Banghead
-
What if they aren't smelly and are clean and nicely presented?
I have never seen train seats that meet that description.
Or even trains for that matter.
Indeed.
Who remembers carriages with slide-down windows and notices that said "Please don't lean out of the window"?
Some reprobate had usually altered it to "Please don't Clean Soot Off the windows". whistle:
Indeed but everyone on those trains had polished their shoes.
-
I liked those trains! Happy memories of Inter Rail. Mind youi the ones in Yugoslavia (1973) had square wheels noooo:
-
It looks like Growler could use some support here.
Being a dainty sweet-as-a-cookie chick got her off. No more no less. The rules are "No feet on the seats". what is so hard about understanding and complying with that?
It doesn't distinguish for an instant whether they are cute clean bare feet or encased in muddy boots. The rule does not imply that cute girls should not feel threatened by it or thugs feel that they have special feet that will get them into trouble. It is demonstrably, natural equality of feet.
I appreciate that it is a trivial thing to get into trouble about, but it was self-inflicted. If having a conviction was such a major plank in her life then she should pay attention to details, things like "Keep your feet off the seats" for example and not risk her career with such thoughtless behaviour.
Whether she was a cute scout leader or not is entirely besides the point. She deliberately flouted the rules and when you do that you should take into account that you may have to account for yourself. In a way, she possibly counted on her innocence to keep her out of trouble, and if so, that would make it worse.
It is a mute point that is was a minor transgression, it showed clearly that she had a selfish mindset which precluded any consideration for her fellow passengers. that makes her just as bad as any other anti-social person that acts without caring about anyone else except themselves. Isn't that how we define anti-social behaviour?
How would she have behaved had a woman wearing a white dress (or whatever) came and sat on that seat and marked it? If she doesn't care about that, then she is anti-social. Period! If she harboured regrets about it, then she would be the first to admit that she did wrong and should stand up and face the consequences.
In her case, she got away with it, That will make it twice as hard to get a conviction from anybody else as the precedent had been set - it is just too trivial to be bothered with ... unless it happens to be a black kid doing it and no slack is cut, or worse it's you that happen to be wearing white.
I HATE double standards. Even Zero-tolerance appears to be PC nowadays. A trivial offence should receive a trivial punishment and not absolved from liability simply because it is trivial. Either you break the law or you don't, it's that simple.
-
Yea. That's basically what i was trying to say....unsuccessfully. redface:
Bouncer. Did you do english at school by any chance? eeek: happy088
Did I, or is my memory simply failing me? sad32:
I take your applause to 100 for your eloquence. cloud9:
-
It looks like Growler could use some support here.
Being a dainty sweet-as-a-cookie chick got her off. No more no less. The rules are "No feet on the seats". what is so hard about understanding and complying with that?
It doesn't distinguish for an instant whether they are cute clean bare feet or encased in muddy boots. The rule does not imply that cute girls should not feel threatened by it or thugs feel that they have special feet that will get them into trouble. It is demonstrably, natural equality of feet.
I appreciate that it is a trivial thing to get into trouble about, but it was self-inflicted. If having a conviction was such a major plank in her life then she should pay attention to details, things like "Keep your feet off the seats" for example and not risk her career with such thoughtless behaviour.
Whether she was a cute scout leader or not is entirely besides the point. She deliberately flouted the rules and when you do that you should take into account that you may have to account for yourself. In a way, she possibly counted on her innocence to keep her out of trouble, and if so, that would make it worse.
It is a mute point that is was a minor transgression, it showed clearly that she had a selfish mindset which precluded any consideration for her fellow passengers. that makes her just as bad as any other anti-social person that acts without caring about anyone else except themselves. Isn't that how we define anti-social behaviour?
How would she have behaved had a woman wearing a white dress (or whatever) came and sat on that seat and marked it? If she doesn't care about that, then she is anti-social. Period! If she harboured regrets about it, then she would be the first to admit that she did wrong and should stand up and face the consequences.
In her case, she got away with it, That will make it twice as hard to get a conviction from anybody else as the precedent had been set - it is just too trivial to be bothered with ... unless it happens to be a black kid doing it and no slack is cut, or worse it's you that happen to be wearing white.
I HATE double standards. Even Zero-tolerance appears to be PC nowadays. A trivial offence should receive a trivial punishment and not absolved from liability simply because it is trivial. Either you break the law or you don't, it's that simple.
No argument from me ~ I was simply pointing out that these matters must be kept in proportion and this was not.
The Railways have always had bylaws and fines that could be enforced by court action WHEN NECESSARY. In this case the enforcement action taken was out of proportion to the offence and should not have gone straight to court. On cost grounds alone it was over the top.
-
Thank you Growler for the 'clap' We are all in need of different skills...
Snoopy, I am not sure as to the specific circumstances of this girl but... A fixed penalty fine is, in all circumstances an option ONLY where the transgressor agrees to it.
I would imagine this option was put to her and she declined to agree, choosing to exercise her lawful right to have the matter tried in a court.
This is usually opted for in the case where the accused is either denying that an offence was committed or refuses to pay the fixed penalty.
Seeing as she readily accepted her guilt in court and confessed to putting her feet on the seat then that just leaves the refusal to pay option, that may have been decided on in a fit of pique and a belief that it would 'come to nothing' because she was a nice girl. Given the circumstances surrounding the event it would certainly seem that the referral to trial would have been a result of a failure of agreement at the scene and it remained the only option other than walking away from it. If it was an acrimonious exchange in front of onlookers the official may well have had a hard time walking away. Indeed, in his place, so would have I.
If that was indeed the scenario, then the whole fracas was entirely of her own making and for that she deserved a conviction and penalty for the offence that she admitted that she had done, even if only to recoup the expenses of an unnecessary court hearing and would have been no less than she deserved.
-
The Merseyside Railways claim to have another 600 cases to bring to court but in view of what the magistrates had to say on this case they may well be rethinking those cases. This was not a one of but a concerted effort to "enforce" their bylaws by using the courts as a first port of call instead of the final action when other methods had failed. The magistrates made the point that the option for a fixed penalty was not offered and that, in the opinion of the court, it should have been.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2162545,00.html
Note also that the Times reports includes the following from the court case
Earlier Kevin Jones, representing Merseyrail, told the court that, as a train inspector approached Miss Jennings, she took her flip-flops off the seat. He admitted there was no verbal warning but said that a notice in front of her warned passengers of a ?100 penalty for resting their feet on seats.
So they admit they did not caution her, they did not enforce their own notice but went into court. stupid and ultimately expensive for the tax payer.
-
Note also that the Times reports includes the following from the court case
Earlier Kevin Jones, representing Merseyrail, told the court that, as a train inspector approached Miss Jennings, she took her flip-flops off the seat. He admitted there was no verbal warning but said that a notice in front of her warned passengers of a ?100 penalty for resting their feet on seats.
So they admit they did not caution her, they did not enforce their own notice but went into court. stupid and ultimately expensive for the tax payer.
That simply means that that they both committed indiscretions. The fact that they chose an inappropriate route for redress does not alter the circumstances of her guilt in the slightest.
Further, as she admitted committing an act which carried a ?100 penalty and that she was aware of that fact, then she should have been convicted and fined at least ?100. Any other result is a travesty of justice. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can be let off after admitting their guilt.
I didn't pay it too much attention but I understood the conviction was the issue not the fine anyway. As far as I am concerned it is seeding the rot that we are experiencing in declining standards. If we must argue the ethics of every case and invoke proportional justice in every case then we can be prepared for so-called 'jobsworths' not to risk the flak of sticking their necks out in actually doing anything. First the thugs get let off because we are afraid of them, then the blacks are being let off because we are picking on them, then the Muslims are being let off because we don't understand them and now pretty girls get let off because they have career prospects. At this rate it'll only be idiots and white Caucasians left to answer charges.
Her prospective career was irrelevant to the offence in the same way as a budding race driver's career would be when facing conviction for drink / driving. Different magnitudes agreed, but the principle it still the same. She should have thought of that before deciding to flout the law.
Trivial it may be, but the principle of mindset is constant - if she knew she was doing wrong and she didn't want to stand the consequences - then she shouldn't have done it. And on that fundamental point of consistent law enforcement the Magistrate got it wrong, it is not within the remit of a Magistrate to dictate what cases are presented to a Court.
A Magistrate's Court is empowered to try the trivial end of the scale anyway in the groupings of misdemeanour's and offences only. Felonies are to be committed to a higher court. A civil magistrate has a sworn duty to try fairly without fear or favour and cases where a person is presented to a court to answer a lawful charge. Their sole duty on the bench is to determine guilt or innocence and certainly not to evaluate the merits of cases presented to them for decision.
Although I (admittedly) am banging on about it I would say for the record that I am equally upset about the lenient sentencing handed down in serious cases, it is equally bad. The point is consistency, If she was guilty then she should have been convicted, the due sentence is a matter of debate but should have been no less than the ?100 that she was forewarned by notice about.
There is far too much of this 'exceptional justice', ultimately it is not fair and it is not equitable to anyone in the long run. Justice is meant to be blind. the sooner we get back to that state the better.
-
YES & I DO AGREE WITH YOU
But if you are going to set out rules then at least follow the correct procedures or you can expect to be thrown out of court. As this case proves. She was wrong, she admitted it but the Merseyrail employee was also wrong and he admitted it. That is why the Magistrates exercised the powers granted to them and threw the case out. It doesn't signify the end of civilization but it may mean that Merseyrail will follow the correct procedures in enforcing the bylaws that the Government has seen fit to empower them to put in place. Hopefully they will now crack down correctly on all wrongdoers and enforce all their bylaws.
Let us also hope that the same lessons will be learned throughout the land and that all authorities act promptly and correctly and enforce the laws and bylaws fairly and rigorously in all cases of transgression ~ but we both know they will not.
-
YES & I DO AGREE WITH YOU
But if you are going to set out rules then at least follow the correct procedures or you can expect to be thrown out of court. As this case proves. She was wrong, she admitted it but the Merseyrail employee was also wrong and he admitted it. That is why the Magistrates exercised the powers granted to them and threw the case out. It doesn't signify the end of civilization but it may mean that Merseyrail will follow the correct procedures in enforcing the bylaws that the Government has seen fit to empower them to put in place. Hopefully they will now crack down correctly on all wrongdoers and enforce all their bylaws.
Let us also hope that the same lessons will be learned throughout the land and that all authorities act promptly and correctly and enforce the laws and bylaws fairly and rigorously in all cases of transgression ~ but we both know they will not.
Agreed, and lets crack down on all anti-social behaviour on trains, not just that of those that the transport police/train employees don't feel intimidated by.
-
Kathryn Hughes
(http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/news/story/0,,2162649,00.html)wrote in the Guardian last week:
Because another of my antisocial traits is trying to make sure that no one sits next to me on the train. I do this by scattering my bags, books and laptop over as many seats as possible and then looking mad or cross or insanitary if anyone dares to ask: "Is this seat free?" Antisocial in the truest meaning of the phrase, but is it really something for which you'd want to see me hauled before the courts?
The answer's YES.
Also I never ask "Is this seat free?" but "could you move your stuff please, I would like to sit there."
-
Ahhh but maybe she is like me and has a wierdo friendly tatoo on her forehead. I don't mind people sitting next to me if there is no where else to sit but if the carriage is empty why come and sit next to me?
-
Ahhh but maybe she is like me and has a wierdo friendly tatoo on her forehead. I don't mind people sitting next to me if there is no where else to sit but if the carriage is empty why come and sit next to me?
Silly question whistle:
-
Ahhh but maybe she is like me and has a wierdo friendly tatoo on her forehead. I don't mind people sitting next to me if there is no where else to sit but if the carriage is empty why come and sit next to me?
Agreed but I'm a commuter so an empty carriage is not likely.
Gets on train, let's see... Pretty girl or fat slob, who shall I sit next to? rubschin:
-
Don't call Wenchy a fat slob! noooo:
-
Feet on seats is anti-social yes, but there are an awful lot more important issues for them to be prosecuting on public transport.
Agree, but I feel this is sending out the correct message to the anti social ones in our midst.
Step out of line by behaving like a scum bag, and you're nicked, and that will no doubt include such issues as fare evasion too.
Last time I went on Mersey Rail, about 3 years ago, i had to sit and watch this arrogant foul thuggy toilet rat sitting with his shitty feet on the seat, AND spitting on the floor.
Sorry, but I don't want to be anywhere near that sort of crap thanks. I find that far more offensive than fare evasion, as serious as that is. evil:
"Last time I went on Mersey Rail, about 3 years ago, i had to sit and watch this arrogant foul thuggy toilet rat sitting with his shitty feet on the seat, AND spitting on the floor."-- ------------------------------ WTF did you expect it was Mersey Rail point:
"
-
Ahhh but maybe she is like me and has a wierdo friendly tatoo on her forehead. I don't mind people sitting next to me if there is no where else to sit but if the carriage is empty why come and sit next to me?
I never have any such problems on the rare occasions that I use the train.
Even the roughest slobs, cretins and drunks vacate the entire seat when I go to sit down, some leave the carriage altogether.
It has been suggested that a combination of my boots and a dog that emits a constant low growl through long and shiny teeth, may be a help.
-
George Melly used surrealist poetry to the same effect.
Come to think of it.................. rubschin:
-
George Melly used surrealist poetry to the same effect.
Come to think of it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rubschin:
Mellie?
-
You have been quiet. He is dead. What is your excuse?
-
You have been quiet. He is dead. What is your excuse?
I had hoped ..... ::)
-
You have been quiet. He is dead. What is your excuse?
He Thought he was dead.