Monday, July 13, 2015

Sense of Proportion Needed

This Piece of nonsense is the kind of thing that a case hardened old Sergeant could have sorted out with some choice words of advice in a quiet corner of the canteen.

Put this case in front of any Bench that I can imagine, and it would have conditional discharge written all over it.


30 comments:

  1. Although if they presented it as a bylaw offence, it'd be an entirely different story!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you read other perhaps more reliable news sources the story is somewhat different. He was asked to stop using the socket by a pcso , he refused and became aggressive to the point the pcso had to request assistance. He then continued to be aggressive to officers and barged past them. Don't ever believe the daily fail

    ReplyDelete
  3. As an aside... about 15 years ago, and before the demand for recharging facilities absolutely everywhere, my son was a guard on FGW and one day came across a man with his laptop plugged into a socket which was tucked away in the luggage racks. My son pointed out that the sockets were there for the use of the cleaners and received a mouthful of abuse. He shrugged his shoulders and walked away. The point being that when the diesel engines are brought up to full power, there is a surge through the circuit which is safe to the wiring and installed equipment but not to itinerant delicate electronics. (We are supposed to use surge-protected sockets even at home and intended charging points will be similarly protected.) It's a shame the pcso didn't take after my son and just wait for the next gradient to enjoy the puff of smoke coming from the ipad...

    ReplyDelete
  4. When did "unacceptable behaviour" become a criminal offence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not in the House of Commons, for sure.

      Delete
    2. Railway Bylaw number 6. (Bylaws made under Sec 219 of the Transport Act 2000)

      Delete
    3. 1861. Offences against the person act.

      Delete
    4. 1861. Offences Against the Persons Act!

      Delete
  5. I would have thought not guilty rather than conditional discharge. Given many trains have sockets which customers are allowed to use, it is not unreasonable for someone to think that they are entitled to use the socket on this train. Therefore very difficult to establish the defendant had the necessary guilty mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are labelled as not for public use.

      Delete
    2. Nor are the seats

      Delete
  6. If police execute a search warrant at a premises are they illegally "abstracting electricity" if they decide to switch on the lights to assist? Or is it normal practice to read the meter before and after and make a payment to the householder? How about using the loo, switching on the heating, or making a cup of tea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting it is acceptable for officers executing a search warrant to help themselves to tea?

      Delete
    2. As per the letter of the law, you would argue that they had "due authority" to use it in order to conduct the search.

      Delete
  7. When it comes to "sense of proportion". some of the contributors to threads on this site might like to have a good think about it before posting yet another anti govt thread.

    This thread however looks like it emanates from the "original Bystander"

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Original Bystander"?

    How dare you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. easy.. The "Original" Bbystander who started this site had a sense of perspective.. that I feel has been lost.. too many young guns trying to make there mark..

      Time for a thread on NO returns methinks...

      Delete
  9. Let's get down to the crux of the matter.
    You buy a ticket to travel from A to B.
    Everything on that train is for your benefit, unless stated, or, locked.
    So the guy used a plug socket. (was it stated "not for use")
    If the answer is no the person was in his rights to use it (why) because when you buy a ticket all facilities within the confines of such carriages are for the use of the patrons.
    If for example it is 20pence to use the toilet. 20 pence is what you pay.Simple eh.
    You are a disgrace to even consider that this man had done anything wrong.
    If your logic is the way magistrates work now you need to go and re-educate yourselves in what our system works on. Common Law is our system and if you don't like it f*** Off to a place where they will put up with believing people like you and your ilk.
    Shut down your site because you are full of sh*t.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always find fan mail embarrassing, don't you?

      Delete
    2. "So the guy used a plug socket. (was it stated "not for use")"

      According to the reports, yes.

      Do you watch the cops shows where someone tries very hard to get arrested by shouting, swearing and behaving in an appalling way? Even when the cops clearly don't want the hassle of an arrest?

      Delete
    3. Everything on the train is for your benefit? My understanding of contract law (which is founded on common law principles) is that train travel is subject to terms and conditions. If there is a sign prohibiting use of the socket or even if it is in the small print then you have no right to use it. Am I entitled to shoot a musket when I buy a ticket to the British Museum?

      Delete
    4. Admission to the British Museum is free. But I assume that a contract still exists.

      Delete
    5. Going a bit off topic now but the terms of entry can be found on the website, these would form part of the contract whether you enter for free or buy a ticket to a special exhibition.

      Delete
  10. Why do I get the feeling that once at the local nick, reality dawned on minds greater than the arresting officers, ie the Sarge, who swiftly realised they would be laughed out of Court for this one, so made up a spurious charge instead to justify all the officers, the arrest etc. It is not exactly an uncommon tactic deployed by HM's Constabulary.

    Equally, "Unacceptable Behaviour" could well mean he dared to argue his case/rights with the PCSO's, which last time I looked was not an offence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The paperwork clearly shows detention was refused so no spurious charge needed to be made up. And the last time you looked you obviously didn't consult the railway bylaws of the land.

      Delete
  11. And I don't suppose anyone read the rational piece of reporting on this incident which clearly said the man was de-arrested for the abstracting electricity at the scene but was arrested instead because of his behaviour ? Doesn't make for quite such a good 'bungling police officer' story though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Every time I travel on a train I see laptops or phones plugged into the table-height sockets by passengers. What exactly is the law on this? If okay to charge your device, then no way would I have given a cond discharge - a not guilty for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's also the other end of the argument where courts are too lenient.

    In our local paper last week is the case of a serial offender who, for at least the last six years, has been committing the crime of theft in one manner or another on average at least once a week. He has been convicted each time and given multiple chances to reform. Each time he has failed to comply and after his latest case he has been given yet another 'last chance'.

    I don't have a link to this as the online version of our local news is a very sanitised edition and only reports on positive aspects of life in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I thought Bystander deprecated the Daily Mail as a source of news stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not when it's slagging the cops off.

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.