Video shows possibly homeless man having dirty water poured around him outside Sutton Station

[WelshBluebird]

This is someone who refuses all help.

Then that is what sectioning is for.

Problem is, people as obnoxious and defiant as this low-life can refuse to move and no-one can make them move. So that means the area can never get cleaned or whatever needs to be done?

From watching the video - I doubt the purpose of getting him to move was to clean the area etc (especially as it was outside the station, somewhere which may not even be railway premises). It seems quite clear they were frustrated with him and saw no other way to move him. I totally understand that and have sympathy with staff and passengers who have to deal with this guy (based on what has been said he can be like). However as I said two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From watching the video - I doubt the purpose of getting him to move was to clean the area etc (especially as it was outside the station, somewhere which may not even be railway premises). It seems quite clear they were frustrating with him and saw no other way to move him. I totally understand that and have sympathy with staff and passengers who have to deal with this guy (based on what has been said he can be like). However as I said two wrongs do not make a right.

And reasonable force could have been used to remove him if he was on Railway property, e.g. a member of staff on each arm.

Does anyone know categorically if the area of pavement in question is Railway property or not? If it is not, they do not have any right to even ask him to move from it, however desirable that outcome might be. Though the presence of timetable boards would suggest it perhaps is, in which case back to reasonable force.

 

[Please Explain]

[BANNED!]

 

[atraindriver]

As the status quo of leaving aggressive drunks to harass innocent members of the public is clearly not A Good Thing, what do you suggest staff should be doing in the interim? "Nothing" is not really an acceptable option, after all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the status quo of leaving aggressive drunks to harass innocent members of the public is clearly not A Good Thing, what do you suggest staff should be doing in the interim? "Nothing" is not really an acceptable option, after all.

If they are on public land there is nothing they can do without the Police - simple as that. It's annoying, but that's how it is.

If on Railway land they could use reasonable force to remove them. Reasonable force would perhaps be one member of staff on each arm and picking him up and moving him. Reasonable force would not be an act that could easily cause a homeless person death by hypothermia. (Were it midday in the middle of August it might have been more reasonable).

 

[atraindriver]

Do you really think an aggressive person who has already threatened other people is simply going to cooperate when two railway staff attempt to pick him up and carry him off?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you really think an aggressive person who has already threatened other people is simply going to cooperate when two railway staff attempt to pick him up and carry him off?

If he assaults them, time for the Police (the Met would do in that case, an assault on public land). We do not have vigilante justice in the UK.

Do you even think that (for example) a 19-year-old 9-stone-when-dripping-wet lad and a 60 year-old woman (average railway staff, in other words) are even going to be able to pick that person up even if he doesn't resist? Have you ever tried picking an adult up?

If you'd met me you would know I am full well capable of picking an adult up, being rather on the large side myself (while I don't actually play rugby, that kind of height and build). But the examples you give are irrelevant, because neither of those involved fitted those descriptions. We are talking about what those specific two members of rail staff did, not some other hypothetical ones.

Sometimes I think you must live in a fantasy world. You really do need to start paying more attention to how real people behave instead of spouting this sort of rubbish.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot support the actions that were taken. They could have resulted in death by hypothermia. That is not acceptable, whoever he is.

 

[sw1ller]

If they are on public land there is nothing they can do without the Police - simple as that. It's annoying, but that's how it is.

If on Railway land they could use reasonable force to remove them. Reasonable force would perhaps be one member of staff on each arm and picking him up and moving him. Reasonable force would not be an act that could easily cause a homeless person death by hypothermia. (Were it midday in the middle of August it might have been more reasonable).

Ok, so he’s on railway property in this scenario and two people have picked him up at the arms to escort him off the property. At what point are they required to drop him like a sack of s....puds? Right at the gate line? Or are they allowed to take him further to where he actually was and place him down comfortably? If allowed to take him further as to not block access to the station, what is the difference in starting the procedure outside the railway from this scenario? Where is the line??

 

[GB]

If on Railway land they could use reasonable force to remove them. Reasonable force would perhaps be one member of staff on each arm and picking him up and moving him.

Not really a clever suggestion is it. Staff a taught not to get into physical confrontations with people as that can lead to all sorts of issues such as risk of serious injury to the staff, the person or anyone else near by...it also leaves the staff open to accusations of assault.

Its not the staffs responsibility to manhandle people in such situations. Now it turns out the guy is a convicted murderer...not a clever suggestion at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really a clever suggestion is it. Staff a taught not to get into physical confrontations with people as that can lead to all sorts of issues such as risk of serious injury to the staff, the person or anyone else near by...it also leaves the staff open to accusations of assault.

Its not the staffs responsibility to manhandle people in such situations. Now it turns out the guy is a convicted murderer...not a clever suggestion at all.

It's what they are legally allowed to do.

What they did, I contend that they were not legally allowed to do.

 

[Antman]

If they are on public land there is nothing they can do without the Police - simple as that. It's annoying, but that's how it is.

If on Railway land they could use reasonable force to remove them. Reasonable force would perhaps be one member of staff on each arm and picking him up and moving him. Reasonable force would not be an act that could easily cause a homeless person death by hypothermia. (Were it midday in the middle of August it might have been more reasonable).

I think any use of reasonable force should be left to the police, BTP or local police.

 

[PeterC]

Do you really think an aggressive person who has already threatened other people is simply going to cooperate when two railway staff attempt to pick him up and carry him off?
Do you not think that he might just decide to violently resist the two people who are trying to move him, and you then end up with two injured railway staff (and the aggressive person still in the same place)?

Do you even think that (for example) a 19-year-old 9-stone-when-dripping-wet lad and a 60 year-old woman (average railway staff, in other words) are even going to be able to pick that person up even if he doesn't resist? Have you ever tried picking an adult up?

Sometimes I think you must live in a fantasy world. You really do need to start paying more attention to how real people behave instead of spouting this sort of rubbish.

Who suggested doing it? You are commenting on a statement of legal rights not a proposed course of action!

 

[Antman]

Given that the UK electorate are repeatedly voting in governments which promise to continue cutting public services, which include the police, we all know that it's not going to be solved any time soon.
As the status quo of leaving aggressive drunks to harass innocent members of the public is clearly not A Good Thing, what do you suggest staff should be doing in the interim? "Nothing" is not really an acceptable option, after all.

Not referring to this particular incident, but it does intrigue me how the various threatening/aggressive drunks/druggies do seem to congregate outside urban and town centre railway stations in preference to other places offering equal levels of facilities (or lack thereof!). I wonder why they choose railway stations rather than bus stations, for example?

Presumably they think railway passengers are more likely to give them money? It should be possible to get a court order banning trouble makers from certain areas.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Given that the UK electorate are repeatedly voting in governments which promise to continue cutting public services, which include the police, we all know that it's not going to be solved any time soon.
As the status quo of leaving aggressive drunks to harass innocent members of the public is clearly not A Good Thing, what do you suggest staff should be doing in the interim? "Nothing" is not really an acceptable option, after all.

I fully agree. I wouldn't know what to do personally.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[bnm]

Now it turns out the guy is a convicted murderer

Not a murderer.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Not a murderer.

He admitted to murdering his friend and has been in and out of prison. If you know otherwise, could you please share?

 

[AlterEgo]

He admitted to murdering his friend and has been in and out of prison. If you know otherwise, could you please share?

Anyone with the capacity to read English will see he admitted manslaughter, and was convicted of manslaughter. Manslaughter is not murder.

 

[Jonny]

Anyone with the capacity to read English will see he admitted manslaughter, and was convicted of manslaughter. Manslaughter is not murder.

True, but if it was from the unlawful and deliberate use of force, even without the intent necessary for murder, then there is a higher risk factor at play. Many other vagrants have significant criminal histories, especially the one who said that he "didin't meet the criteria" but was less keen to admit that was because of a serious conviction for another offence; being deliberate and violent as well as having a sexual motivation.

 

[Firestarter]

So what happened to the staff involved?