Pensioner against feet on seats

[Deepgreen]

When the stats don't fit what you want to believe... just say they're wrong!

They're further up the thread, and show anti-social behaviour has been strongly declining amongst 10-15 year olds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You can't just say they're outright wrong. This is a classic case of just dismissing inconvenient evidence. Rather than saying "they must be wrong!" could you state how the methodology or collation or them is incorrect? They're freely available with the source further up the thread.

They're certainly a lot more reliable than any of our personal experiences, which inherently have a very limited view.

However, these are only incidents that are reported to the police (notably excluding BTP), and take no account of day-to-day lower level unreported issues which make up the vast majority of peoples' experiences. There are also the people who fall outside the 10-15 year old range.

 

[TheKnightWho]

However, these are only incidents that are reported to the police (notably excluding BTP), and take no account of day-to-day lower level unreported issues which make up the vast majority of peoples' experiences. There are also the people who fall outside the 10-15 year old range.

It is possible to extrapolate total numbers of cases from reported cases - there is methodology for that.

And yes it doesn't take into account people outside that bracket, but the debate was about whether children don't have any respect anymore, which the data shows is probably rubbish.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They're further up the thread, and show anti-social behaviour has been strongly declining amongst 10-15 year olds.

No they don't, they show that a) crime has remained largely constant and b) anti-social behaviour requiring court intervention dropped. b) can be mostly explained by the abolition of ASBOs and their replacement with Criminal Behaviour Orders in 2014, when the stats show that anti-social behaviour numbers dropped off a cliff. ASBOs were issued on the balance of probabilities to people who are engaging in anti-social behaviour that may have been below the criminal threshold, whereas CBOs can only be issued where someone has been convicted of a criminal offence. The order rates would be expected to drop as the "catchment area" is a lot lower.

As I have also showed elsewhere, crime rates on TfL services have been increasing at about 5% year on year for the last few years, particularly on bus services and on London Overground.

 

[transmanche]

As I have also showed elsewhere, crime rates on TfL services have been increasing at about 5% year on year for the last few years, particularly on bus services and on London Overground.

Is that absolute number of crimes? Or crimes per million passengers/passenger kms? Does it distinguish between crimes on daytime and night buses? Does it include crimes that didn't actually occur on the bus network?

The London bus network has grown massively in recent years - especially growth in the Night Bus network. (There are now 51 Night Bus routes, plus a further 66 24-hour routes in London.)

Bus ridership grew by 69 per cent between 1999/00 and 2013/14 and the number of bus kilometres operated increased by 41 per cent.

Source: TfL Press Release, May 2014.

The gender split between daytime and night buses is marked.

Women are more likely (57%) to be day bus passengers than men (43%). Meanwhile, almost two-thirds of night bus passengers are men (64%) - compared to just one third of night bus passengers who are women (36%).

Source: TfL Bus User Survey 2014.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No they don't, they show that a) crime has remained largely constant and b) anti-social behaviour requiring court intervention dropped. b) can be mostly explained by the abolition of ASBOs and their replacement with Criminal Behaviour Orders in 2014, when the stats show that anti-social behaviour numbers dropped off a cliff. ASBOs were issued on the balance of probabilities to people who are engaging in anti-social behaviour that may have been below the criminal threshold, whereas CBOs can only be issued where someone has been convicted of a criminal offence. The order rates would be expected to drop as the "catchment area" is a lot lower.

As I have also showed elsewhere, crime rates on TfL services have been increasing at about 5% year on year for the last few years, particularly on bus services and on London Overground.

Can it be explained by that, or are you hoping that it can be explained by that?

 

[Master29]

He was out of order. He was only supported by people who think this country needs more like him. No, it doesn`t.

I hate seeing anyone put feet and legs on seats, but what makes this guy think he`s some kind of daily mail type superhero correcting all young people on their misdemeanors.

The kid could have argued back, thanks for your generation screwing it up for mine by forcing up house prices but I`m not going to kick you in the shins for it. Petty maybe but not without a nodule of truth. Of course not all old people are responsible for a housing crisis any more than a child putting his feet on seats

The kid was bang out of order and so was the old guy. Both could use a lesson perhaps.

 

[fowler9]

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. A house should be a home not an investment.

As for the old guy, what did he think he was doing, Dirty Harry with pensioners and kids. Tell them why they shouldn't do it. They've spent the day walking through all kinds of poo and wee and now they have their feet on the seats. Seats other people have had their feet on and that they are touching, and then they are putting their fingers in their mouths. Mmmmm, nice.

 

[bramling]

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. A house should be a home not an investment.

As for the old guy, what did he think he was doing, Dirty Harry with pensioners and kids. Tell them why they shouldn't do it. They've spent the day walking through all kinds of poo and wee and now they have their feet on the seats. Seats other people have had their feet on and that they are touching, and then they are putting their fingers in their mouths. Mmmmm, nice.

I don't see the connection between old people and rising house prices.

House prices (in a free market) are determined by demand and supply.

So with a rising population and massive difficulties in increasing supply of housing at a comparable rate, prices will naturally rise. Unless old people are to be blamed for living longer and failing to limit immigration?

 

[Master29]

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. A house should be a home not an investment.

I never said they were, not entirely anyway but they were sold a lie is simply not true, even if that has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[fowler9]

I don't see the connection between old people and rising house prices.

House prices (in a free market) are determined by demand and supply.

So with a rising population and massive difficulties in increasing supply of housing at a comparable rate, prices will naturally rise. Unless old people are to be blamed for living longer and failing to limit immigration?

I never said there was a connection to be honest, in the broader sense at least. I think you are replying to the wrong person. Only the older bankers and politicians who encouraged people to treat a house as an investment.

Buy to let landlords have played their part in totally messing up the housing market and they certainly aren't all old.

I am concerned that you attribute to me attitudes that I just don't have?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. A house should be a home not an investment.

I never said they were, not entirely anyway but they were sold a lie is simply not true, even if that has nothing to do with this thread.

Nah sorry mate, I know, I let my brain drift off topic and I apologise.

 

[Harbornite]

Nah sorry mate, I know, I let my brain drift off topic and I apologise.

Did you mean to apologise to yourself?

 

[fowler9]

At the end of the day you can't "Knock common sense in to people". Violence begets violence. That fella was a fool.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did you mean to apologise to yourself?

Ha ha, I was replying to Master 29. How did that happen. I look like a lunatic now. If you look at the last paragraph of what I replied to it was something he said. I'm doubting my own sanity now. Ha ha.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. A house should be a home not an investment.

The property that we purchased in 2004 when I was 59 years of age was one that both of us saw as being the home in which, when retirement came, which it did for me in 2010, we could spend the rest of our lives in a very rural situation in a home that had that we could possibly required in terms of amenities.

Of course, it is also an investment which has appreciated many fold, on account of its location, but that most certainly was not the prime reason for purchasing the property

 

[cjmillsnun]

He was out of order. He was only supported by people who think this country needs more like him. No, it doesn`t.

I hate seeing anyone put feet and legs on seats, but what makes this guy think he`s some kind of daily mail type superhero correcting all young people on their misdemeanors.

The kid could have argued back, thanks for your generation screwing it up for mine by forcing up house prices but I`m not going to kick you in the shins for it. Petty maybe but not without a nodule of truth. Of course not all old people are responsible for a housing crisis any more than a child putting his feet on seats

The kid was bang out of order and so was the old guy. Both could use a lesson perhaps.

And on the above post which sums it perfectly, the thread should end.

 

[PauloDavesi]

Paul Sidorczuk, you should be congratulated for making a wise property decision, hopefully the house will remain suitable for your needs as you & your wife face the challenges of your senior years.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I don't think all older people are responsible for house prices going up, they were sold a lie. .

Can't see how it can be a lie - you either made the sacrifices necessary to buy something or you left yourself at the mercy of Rachman and his ilk.
A choice, limited maybe but still a choice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can't just say they're outright wrong. .

..and you can't just say they are outright right.

Milk is good for you - the Milk Marketing Board says so.....

 

[TheKnightWho]

..and you can't just say they are outright right.

Milk is good for you - the Milk Marketing Board says so.....

Convenient how you cut out the part of my post where I ask by what measure they are wrong. Any answer forthcoming..?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Convenient how you cut out the part of my post where I ask by what measure they are wrong. Any answer forthcoming..?

... precisely , just goes to show how things can be manipulated to suit a particular argument.

 

[TheKnightWho]

... precisely , just goes to show how things can be manipulated to suit a particular argument.

So how was this particular thing manipulated?

Because it sounds to me like you don't want to admit your preconceived ideas could possibly be wrong, and not that you know a genuine problem with the statistics.

 

[transmanche]

As some people have mentioned the use of reasonable force, I thought it would be interesting to see what a teacher would be allowed to do in similar circumstances. This is an extract of a typical primary school's 'Positive Handling Policy':

Section 550 of the Education Act 1996 together with national guidance (DfES Circular 10/98), establishes the power of teachers and other staff to use reasonable force if required. This applies to all occasions when that member of staff is in charge of children both on and off school premises. There is no legal definition of reasonable force, this would depend on the individual circumstances of each case. Only a court may judge what is reasonable in terms of the amount of force used in physical handling and obviously does so retrospectively.

Reasonable force would NOT include any of the following:

• Holding a child around the neck, collar or other way that may restrict breathing
• Slapping, punching, kicking or tripping a child. Holding or pulling a child by their hair or ear.
• Twisting or forcing limbs against joints.
• Indecently touching or holding.
• Holding a child face down on the ground
• Lifting a child off the floor in order to intimidate

Types of incident where the use of force may be necessary are given as:

1. Action due to imminent risk of injury
2. Action due to imminent risk of significant damage to property
3. Action where a pupil is compromising good order and discipline

The third type of incident is unlikely to be cause for restraint in a primary school setting as it is usually possible to remove the rest of the children from the scene and allow the child concerned to calm down safely. This strategy of removing the class is always to be used where possible.

The degree of force employed must be in proportion to the circumstances of the incident and the seriousness of the behaviour or the consequences it is intended to prevent. Any force should always be the minimum needed to achieve the desired result. In all cases, the person exercising the restraint must be authorised by the Head Teacher and have received appropriate approved training.

Staff must take into account if the child has an individual risk assessment or is listed on the medical needs register and follows any guidelines mentioned. Individual staff risk assessments must be considered.

So let's say it was a school trip and the boy behaved as he did. Following the guidelines above a teacher would not have been allowed to use force in those circumstances. And even if he/she were allowed to use reasonable force, they would only have been able to do so if they had received the relevant training. However, the 'armlock and twist' hold apparently used by the man would be deemed to be excessive force.

So a teacher doing what that man did would most likely lose their job and receive a ban from the profession - and face prosecution.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Twenty two pages in and we're still arguing the same points.

 

[Antman]

As some people have mentioned the use of reasonable force, I thought it would be interesting to see what a teacher would be allowed to do in similar circumstances. This is an extract of a typical primary school's 'Positive Handling Policy':



So let's say it was a school trip and the boy behaved as he did. Following the guidelines above a teacher would not have been allowed to use force in those circumstances. And even if he/she were allowed to use reasonable force, they would only have been able to do so if they had received the relevant training. However, the 'armlock and twist' hold apparently used by the man would be deemed to be excessive force.

So a teacher doing what that man did would most likely lose their job and receive a ban from the profession - and face prosecution.

Hence far fewer school trips!

I doubt if a teacher would have been sacked or prosecuted, I mean what are they supposed to do if two kids are punching the living daylights out of each other, ask them nicely to stop?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hence far fewer school trips!

I doubt if a teacher would have been sacked or prosecuted, I mean what are they supposed to do if two kids are punching the living daylights out of each other, ask them nicely to stop?

Proof there are fewer school trips? Not in my experience.

I suppose you're in favour of corporal punishment, despite 0 evidence for its effectiveness?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hence far fewer school trips!

I doubt if a teacher would have been sacked or prosecuted, I mean what are they supposed to do if two kids are punching the living daylights out of each other, ask them nicely to stop?

The poster you were responding to was clearly referring to kids with feet on seats, not fighting each other.

Incredible really how this thread has been prolonged by posts like this. I congratulate you.

 

[JohnB57]

Milk is good for you - the Milk Marketing Board says so.....

And they happen to have been proven absolutely correct. Whole milk is incredibly good for you.

Sometimes hype does turn out to be fact.

 

[AM9]

Twenty two pages in and we're still arguing the same points.

If it is boring you you have an obvious choice.

 

[Antman]

The poster you were responding to was clearly referring to kids with feet on seats, not fighting each other.

Incredible really how this thread has been prolonged by posts like this. I congratulate you.

Don't congratulate me, there are others who have contributed far more

 

[ATW Alex 101]

What a wonder Antman reading your posts has certainly made me chuckle.

 

[anti-pacer]

22 pages in and not one of you has asked "Where was the guard"?

I note with no surprise that this was a Northern service. As it quite often the case on said TOC, both now and under the previous franchisee, a lot of Northern guards show little presence, hiding in the back and appearing after some inaudible one word announcement (e.g. Ou'wood for Outwood) to open the doors. After departure it's back in the rear facing cab.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that ALL Northern guards do this. There are some great guards who work for Northern, but sadly a lot can't be bothered. It's not great for the travelling public who PAY for a SERVICE.

I'm not condoning the lengths this guy went to, it was way over the top, but there are far too many scrotes travelling on public transport who have the "I'm alright Jack" attitude. Doesn't the railway have byelaws over certain things like feet on seats, littering, loud music, etc?

If you're lucky enough to have a job on the trains then surely customer interaction should play a big part of your job, including dealing with anti-social behaviour. I'm not saying you should put your lives at risk, but a few words with your passengers who "assume" it's OK to behave in a way that is antisocial to most may allievate the chances of some p*ssed off passenger dealing with this themselves.

Regarding duty of care, well from what I've learned tonight, I'm assuming the next time I go out, all I have to do is get myself ejected from a licensed premises that is "bouncerised" and due to their duty of care AFTER I've left, I will expect to be put in a free taxi home.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In addition to my last post, surely the guard will be asked where he was during this incident?

 

[me123]

Could well have been in another carriage on revenue protection or other duties? It looks like this happened quite quickly, and unless the guard happened to be in that carriage it's unlikely they would have had much opportunity to get involved.