MMmmm now that IS useful to know, there are one or two circumstances in which I would have liked to have availed of that Law. Please do tell more !
Most of our existing laws are still based upon historical law. Murder for example, having been made illegal some many hundreds of years ago. Age of a Law does not suddenly negate its applicability or relevance, and indeed recent Law is of such poor quality as to be constantly under Appeal in many cases. Change for change sake is hardly a prescription for managing anything that works let alone the Law
No-one imposed themselves upon the person. The passenger asked the Guard of he wished the person removed from the train, presumably taking the age of the Guard into account. The fact that he is a Guard does not necessary mean he was endowed with the ability to physically remove the person from the train. What if it had been a lady Guard ?
The Railway Byelaws are quite clear in authorising a person to be removed from a train (or other Railway premises) using whatever force is considered necessary. The person made an attempt to rejoin the train and was prevented from doing so, again this is legal.
With respect you are hardly in any position to say that the situation was handled properly or improperly. You can have your opinion but that is all it can ever be. Had you been able to demonstrate some experience in dealing with such situations then maybe your opinion may hold a greater weight, unfortunately you do not have the experience to fall back on, neither do you seemingly have all the facts relating to the lead up to this.
Because of this I find it quite ironic that you seek to do the very thing that you have professed a dislike of.
There is no "supposed crime". The person concerned was in breach of the Railway byelaws and Conditions of Carriage. Had he been a little more astute or even had the intelligence he claims to be endowed with if he is attending University, then he would have been far better in managing his dealings with the Guard. I have little doubt that had he explained the circumstances around him buying the tickets in the first place, that the Guard may well have been disposed to let him travel on. As with all things in life attitude and approach have a very high bearing upon how a Guard/Conductor/TM will treat you. Very few of them go to work looking for unnecessary trouble and conflict.
On the contrary it has rather a lot to do with the issue.
You have entered onto a Forum that has many Railway staff on it, who have done many years service in such situations and many indeed still work in such roles.
You have then proceeded to (and continue to) state very firmly that the Guard was wrong, did not handle the situation very well, etc, etc.
Now in a lifetime of Railway work I have been involved in a number of similar situations, although most of my colleagues on here have substantially more experience in these matters than I do. What I have learnt both through the job, and in passing through life, is that there are two sides to every story, and that selective and incomplete filmed footage or indeed photograph, can actually convey a completely inaccurate image of an event.
I have not really taken part in the discussions here mostly because at this time the full facts are not necessarily known. The one thing I would NOT do is to raise any criticism of the Guard unless I really had good reason to do so, and that this criticism would be based upon my own experience in being involved with such situations. I have not criticised the Guard.
With great respect to yourself, you do not have this experience and therefore your opinion is speculative at best, and offensive at worst, not only to the Guard concerned but also to my on-train colleagues.
Now opinions may change in the fullness of time of course but at this stage no-one who has experience in dealing with these situations is saying much, and I think that the shrewd readers here will understand why this is the case.
From my own perspective I do HAVE a view but that is a private opinion that I would wish to validate in due course. As to the removal of the person concerned this would certainly appear to have been an appropriate course of action given the facts that are clear so far.
