The Peelian principle states that “The police are the public and the public are the police“

So when a member of the public is willing to stand up when something goes wrong rather than stay quiet and hope it disappears if they keep their head down then are they following these principles. Or are they vigilantes?

Recently a video appeared on YouTube of a big man kicking a young lad off a train for allegedly not paying his fare. But though it seems that the lad was a drunk yob and definitely did not have a valid ticket and knew this before he boarded the train so was not in the right, the big man’s actions seem not to be right either due to the use of physical violence.

Part of what the police can do which the public can’t is that of physical violence. A police officer is allowed to use a certain amount of physical force to carry out their work. A member of the public is not allowed to use any physical force. So the big man’s use of force, especially uncontrolled force which lead to the young man falling head first to the ground, might have meant that the situation was terminated, it probably wasn’t the best way of defusing the problem on the train.

I heard a retired police officer say that that what should have been done is that when it was obvious that the lad wasn’t going to be paying or getting off, the ticket inspector should have informed the driver and got hold of the British Transport police and arranged for them or the real police to sort out the problem. I would also say that taking the lad’s photo and using it to identify him could also be a potential step.

Would the big man have done the same thing if this woman was drunk and refused to pay her fare?

So the lad was in the wrong and should have been arrested. But the big man was also in the wrong and could end up being arrested too.

So should that stop others from getting involved in such disputes. Yes and no. No they shouldn’t get involved if it’s something that the authorities involved should sort out themselves. But they should get involved to the extent that if they see someone who hasn’t paid their fare they should do their best to inform the ticket inspector or guard. The more it becomes a social unacceptable act and the more people take note the less of a problem it will be.

Brian December 21,
2011 at 23:32

Remember this notorious case from a few years ago? The ticket
collector threatened a good samaritan with arrest for organising a whip round
to buy a £115 penalty fare for a 75 year old lady.

Saul December 21, 2011 at 14:07

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101

mikelm December 21, 2011 at 18:58

Google :- Herald scotland wrong ticket.(Student was sold wrong
ticket.)

James Rigby December 19, 2011 at 16:12

In the past, the ticket inspector would have hauled the transgressor off
the train and the other passengers would have continued their journey. If the
transgressor had complained to the police, the police would have told him that
he should have got off the train when told. And that would be an end of
it.

But now, our companies and even our law enforcers are so bogged down in
human rights, procedures, health & safety, risk assessments, etc . that
those minded to take the piss can do so with the utmost nonchalance. I saw it
myself with a woman shoplifter recently who, when confronted outside the store
by a store detective, immediately pointed to her bump and explained that he
was not allowed to touch her because of the risks to her baby, and therefore
she was going to just walk away. And he let her. And she held onto her
ill-gotten bounty.

If those charged with enforcing the law, whether in the pay of the public
or of private companies, are unable to do the jobs expected of them, it can be
no surprise that members of the public step in and do their job for them.

mikelm December 18, 2011 at 20:44

Youtube is not for social comment. The kids watch it because it is
funny.The scotrail video is funny . Mostly for the bit of him trying to
reboard the train. He wants to get back on train to retrieve his bag which has
his insulin money and phone.He is diabetic. I do not know how much danger
there is in a diabetic parted from him insulin. But I think the boy that
through his bag of the train is his friend. And is a life saver. And the video
is less funny seen in a different light.

JuliaM December
19, 2011 at 13:40

No, it’s still funny!

mikelm December 19, 2011 at 18:45

So where do you do you’r knitting now theres no gallows?

JuliaM December 20, 2011 at 05:56

Mostly, the ‘comment’ section of local newspapers, where real people
get a chance to prove they aren’t all that keen on the ‘let’s give
everyone many, many chances, they need help!’ agenda that the
Progressives are pushing…

2Mac December 20, 2011 at 20:33

I think it was funny especially the bit where he landed on his head. A
sociaety that meekly stands by while old people are intimidated by young
thugs for fear of upsetting the middle clas pacifist lefties is one doomed
to fail.
Try walking down a street in many inner cities or large towns
late at night when these youths are out with their mates and you are alone.
They will prey on you like the animals they are. See how much compassion
your idealistic “everyone deserves a chance” attitude will get you.

mikelm December 23, 2011 at 15:07

He said I,ll sit here I,ll wait.Tell them not to moan.I,ve paid. Not
very intimidating is he ?

mikelm December 18, 2011 at 19:24

dens had a ticket. So how does he have the Wrong ticket? Well he go’s to
the station earlier than he would normally.He tries buy a return with his
student discount card. But the guy points out that he is to early to use this
ticket. So he asks to purchase a standard return.But the ticket guy says he
can save a few pennies if he buys two singles, the return leg discounted.Only
he gave him two ticket that are the same, only one is discounted. I would
imagine even in a back water like Falkirk the ticket machine will be
computerised. and there will be record of two tickets being sold for cash ,one
of them discounted for a student.

JuliaM December
19, 2011 at 13:41

Oh, well, that’s OK then. We’ll just excuse the foul-mouthed ranting and
refusal to leave the train when told to do so. After all, if officialdom
makes a mistake, that’s how one rectifies it, right?

Wrong.

Walter Cairns
December 18, 2011 at 06:30

So there is a distinction between the transport police and “real” police”?
What an insult to that fine body of men and women who do a very good job,
sometomes under more trying conditions than the so-called “real” police. You
should be ashamed of yourself.

JuliaM December
19, 2011 at 13:39

Errr, the joke has always been that the BTP is where you go when they
find out you’re just too dim, lazy and /or thuggish for the real
police…

Nigel December 17, 2011 at 21:04

after what happpened to Hussain, Bin Laden and Gadaffie, I would have
supposed that physical violence was the way to go when folk do not behave
themselves…………just following the example that the great and the good have set
for me you understand………

Mjolinir December 17, 2011 at 11:21

@Saul – At least no vigilante ‘escalated the level of violence’ by
intervening?

Saul December 17, 2011 at 10:32

Could have been much worse..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

Andrew Duffin
December 17, 2011 at 12:16

Ah, youths of no appearance again.

Draw your own conclusions.

JuliaM December 17, 2011 at 14:29

No, they are both white. It IS East Tilbury….

binao December 17, 2011 at 09:19

The train company was facing a loss of income because of an alleged fare
dodger. No apparent risk to other passengers, and a company employee, the
inspector, was on the case. So no need for vigilante action however much we
may applaud the sentiment.
A bit tough if the alleged gobby thief gets
sympathy and the vigilante and inspector get sent to the naughty step.
Now
if it had been a case of a similar young gentleman with his feet on the seats
or swearing, I have a much more immediate and interventionist view.

ReefKnot December 16, 2011 at 17:08

From what I saw, the Big Man put the yob out of the carraige using only
such force as was necessary to achieve that objective, whereupon the yob,
being drunk, fell over.

talwin December 16, 2011 at 18:38

You are the duty court solicitor and I claim my £5.

JuliaM December 17, 2011 at 06:49

Only £5? Nah, they’ll make much more out of this incident before it’s over…

And out society will get that bit more fearful and thuggish. Still, as
gladiolys seems to think, we can’t be saints all the time….

Peter MacFarlane
December 16, 2011 at 11:58

I’m with Katabasis.

I know, and you know, and all the other passengers know, that the only
other possible outcome was that the wee ned would have continued the argument
until the train got to his station, and then legged it. And nothing would ever
have happened to him.

I am completely sympathetic to the impossible position the train staff are
put in: they are told they can’t use force, they are CCTV’ed all the time, and
if they step out of “the procedure” at all, they get disciplined. All this
while trying to deal with drunken little shits like this – and worse.

It may not turn out well for the Big Man, but there isn’t a jury in the
land who would convict him; the plods will make damn sure it never comes
before a jury, for that very reason.

Good on yer, big man, we need more like you.

talwin December 16, 2011 at 09:04

Along with many others, I guess, I applauded the guy who intervened to
remove Student Tosser.

But as soon as I saw the image of ST with the face wound, my heart sank as
I thought ‘Oh – Oh. Not good. This is going to turn out badly’. Reasonable
force is all to do with the circumstances, and ‘they’ won’t let facial
injuries stemming from quasi-passive loutishness fit ‘reasonable’ here.

I’m afraid it will turn out badly for ‘big man’.

And, no, I’m not some soft, caring-sharing type: actually, more like the
‘sound-thrashing’ brigade. Just saying how it is in 2011.

No, I’m not some sort of soft

Gewyne December 16, 2011 at 10:34

Possibly, they may however deem that it was the students self induced
state that caused the injury to become as severe as it was.

JuliaM December
16, 2011 at 12:23

“Reasonable force is all to do with the circumstances, and ‘they’
won’t let facial injuries stemming from quasi-passive loutishness fit
‘reasonable’ here.”

Oh, really? Wanna bet?

Robbo December 16, 2011 at 06:33

“A member of the public is not allowed to use any physical force.”

Simply not true.
Reasonable force is always allowed, and sometimes
necessary.
The question is, in a particular set of circumstances, what
degree of force is reasonable ?

john malpas December 15, 2011 at 22:34

From the tone of this post it seems the current vogue is to sit there and
do nothing and try to not attract attention. And maybe a uniform with
come!
Because the uniform is the all controlling government.

JuliaM December
16, 2011 at 05:51

Spot on!

JuliaM December
15, 2011 at 18:33

” But though it seems that the lad was a drunk yob and definitely did
not have a valid ticket and knew this before he boarded the train so was not
in the right, the big man’s actions seem not to be right either due to the use
of physical violence.”

‘Seem not to be right’ to whom? Not to me! He didn’t rough him up, he
simply escorted him off the train.

Alex December 15, 2011 at 22:13

He drew blood by throwing him off the train and causing him to hit the
platform head first – there but for the grace of god he didn’t cause a far
more serious head injury.

Very unlikely that a copper would have done this, as they are trained.
The fare dodger, whilst being drunk and foul mouthed was not threatening or
assaulting anyone. There is a huge difference between a violent thug that
attacks innocent people and a pissed up gobshite.

Ed P December 15, 2011 at 23:17

I’m amused by your expectation of restraint from trained coppers. Many
have much lower expectations. Reasonable force was used to remove the
incoherent passenger – he will hopefully study his own behaviour video
positively.

JuliaM December 16, 2011 at 05:49

“Very unlikely that a copper would have done this, as they are
trained”

Alex, may I introduce you to Sgt Mark Andrews?

“There is a huge difference between a violent thug that attacks
innocent people and a pissed up gobshite.”

Not really; the more we tolerate and seek to excuse the actions of the
latter, the more we’ll have of the former…

OwainS
December 18, 2011 at 02:56

Ahem.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/sgt-mark-andrews-gets-his-job-back-shock/

Furor
Teutonicus December 16, 2011 at
13:57

XX Alex December 15, 2011 at 22:13

He drew blood by throwing him off the train and causing him to hit the
platform head first XX

GOOD! The fare dodging bastard will deffinately remember THAT next time
he is buying tickets….or NOT buying them, whichever.

Far more effective against memory loss than an asbo at some time in the
future when the courts can be arsed fitting in a “slapped wrist”
appointment.

Joe Public
December 16, 2011 at 20:08

The yob, ejected from the train, was so drunk as to be incapable of
maintaining his balance.

Katabasis December
15, 2011 at 17:43

Sit around and wait for the “proper authorities” to come.

LOL.

Super Sam December 15, 2011 at 17:24

Reports say the lad was a 2nd year uni student – you would think that he
would know the correct ticket(s) to purchase by now. Even if he had moved
after his first year, he’d be a few months into his 2nd year.

Brian December
21, 2011 at 23:21

Swearing in public was absolutely wrong. The lad apparently asked for two
singles, there and back but was sold either two theres or two backs. He only
noticed the error after boarding the train. Due to the malicious complexity
of the ticketing system it is often cheaper to buy singles instead of
returns or even separate tickets for sections of the journey. It’s not worth
arguing with ticket collectors who have targets to meet. Possession of a
valid train ticket, I was once informed in BR days merely meant that one
would not be arrested for trespass on railway property – no seat was
guaranteed.

JimS December 15, 2011 at 17:07

The lad claimed that he had two single tickets and wasn’t avoiding paying
the fare. He also says that he tried to get back on the train to retrieve his
bag.

I still have memories of, as a student, travelling from Sheffield to
Nottingham on the only train available at that time of night. The ticket
collector on the train insisted that my ticket was ‘via Chesterfield’ rather
than Derby and made me buy a single which cost more than the original return
ticket. On the train between Derby to Nottingham another ticket collector,
when shown both tickets, tutted and said “Didn’t he have anything better to
do?”. Railway fares are still too complicated and not customer-friendly.

JuliaM December
15, 2011 at 18:35

Hs bag was thrown out onto the platform by another passenger. Perhaps if
he hadnt gotten himself into such a state, he’d have realised that?

JimS December 15, 2011 at 21:34

When I was a student my bag was my ‘life’. Money, books, clothes,
bedding, the lot. I dread to think what state I would have been in if I
had been parted from it violently.

Good police action seeks to calm things down, not pile in and sort out
the bodies later.

JuliaM December 16, 2011 at 05:51

“When I was a student my bag was my ‘life’. Money, books, clothes,
bedding, the lot. I dread to think what state I would have been in if I
had been parted from it violently.”

He wasn’t parted from it, far from it.

And, if you’d got drunk and abusive whilst fare-dodging, perhaps
you’d have deserved to be parted from it? It’s what we call
‘consequences’, surely the dirtiest word in today’s England, I’m sad to
say…

gladiolys
December 16, 2011 at 22:34

Yeah yeah yeah, but we can’t all be saints, all the time…

JuliaM December 17, 2011 at 06:50

It’s ‘saintly’ to refrain from getting p****d as a fart and hurling
obscene invective at a man doing his job? Really?

*polishes halo*

Lurch December 15, 2011 at 17:02

It’s not often I disagree with this blog, this is one of those
occasions.
The poster talks about Peelian principles but then ignores them.
The police derive most of their ‘powers’ from Common Law and the principle of
using force to prevent a breach of the Queen’s Peace is one of them.
It is
simply not correct to say that MOP are not allowed to use physical force
though this seems to be the lie often enough repeated that it seems to become
the truth, even amongst those who are paid to know better.

JuliaM December
15, 2011 at 18:36

Spot on! We can’t use excessive force. That’s all.

This wasn’t excessive.

Engineer
December 16, 2011 at 10:55

Nail….head.

Surreptitious
Evil December 21, 2011 at 11:43

Nailing him in the head, for not buying a ticket, seems to be a
little harsh. However enjoyable it might be.

Michael
Fowke December 15, 2011 at 16:56

But with so many yobs carrying knives these days …

2Mac December 15, 2011 at 23:19

Being a rascal meant I received several clips round the head from the
police. One of them is now retired & I meet him in passing occasionally.
I have always respected him & the fact he gave a guiding slap in right
direction and I never got charged for teenage stupidity. It cost nothing and
worked.

Rob December 15, 2011 at 16:47

There used to be a rule that if you shot your mouth off you run the risk of
being smacked in the ……mouth.

Cheeky yobs would be given a good clip round the ear – and “clip” doesn’t
really do it justice as I’ve been on the recieving end.

Everyone knew this. Everyone accepted this, Plod would turn a blind eye
becuase the natural justice of people policing their own neighbourhoods made
for better neighbourhoods. If plod gave a “youth” a clip round the ear then
people expected it. There was no such thing as “Human Rights” and no-one even
considered Compensation then.

The drunk lout got his just deserts and maybe a bit more. If he hadn’t
tried to get back on the train he wouldn’t have got thown.