Train seat causes furore

[Misunderstood]

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.

[GROWLER]

Yea. That's basically what i was trying to say....unsuccessfully.

Bouncer. Did you do english at school by any chance?  
Did I, or is my memory simply failing me?

I take your applause to 100 for your eloquence.

[Snoopy]

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.

[Misunderstood]

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.   

[Snoopy]

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.

[Misunderstood]

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.   

[Snoopy]

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.

[Bar Wench]

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.

[Uncle Mort]

Kathryn Hughes
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."

[Bar Wench]

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?

[Snoopy]

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 

[Uncle Mort]

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? 

[Barman]

Don't call Wenchy a fat slob! 

[Shy Talk]

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.

"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
"

[Darwins Selection]

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.