Viable transport reduces capacity of train

the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train – with the bike’s
muddy wheels resting on two of them – while she, her husband and several
other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

MrCheerful wrote:
the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train – with the bike’s
muddy wheels resting on two of them – while she, her husband and
several other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

Kick him awake, tell him to get the bloody thing off the seats. If he won't
do it, do it for him.

On 19/02/2016 16:24, MrCheerful wrote:

the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train – with the bike’s
muddy wheels resting on two of them – while she, her husband and several
other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

Ah well, you see...

It wasn't his fault.

If you don't believe me, read the comment by one "liz evans", who says:

QUOTE:
The fact that he was asleep (if he is the one on the photo) would lead
me to believe he wasn't aware that people wanted the seats and therefore
begs the question "Is he fully to blame when no one bothered to wake him
and make him aware of the situation?". The train might have been empty
when he got on. Yes he shouldn't have put his bike on the seats but if
he knew he was going to sleep and didn't want his bike nicked (and
remember there is nowhere safe for him to leave it on the train) then
again "Is he fully to blame?". Shouldn't there be facilities where he
can lock his bike up elsewhere so he can relax without it getting in
everyone's way. The fact no one said anything is more worrying, there
were so many of you who were getting annoyed which only shows how
complacent you are in allowing him to continue with what he has done and
again begs the question "Is he to blame?" OF COURSE he SHOULD BE but if
nothing was said and no one woke him up then there is no recourse. What
also worries me is that if the hope of the article was to shame him,
wouldn't it have been better to show his face?
ENDQUOTE

So you see, it's obvious that it was the fault of all the other passengers.

A. He couldn't trust them not to steal his bike so was "forced" to put
it - muddy tyres and all - onto two passenger seats.

B. The passengers should have woken hum up and....

....oh, hang on, she doesn't actually *say* what they should have done
after waking him up other than make him "aware of the situation" (though
he was aware of that already).

Presumably, since he was obviously so dog-tired and comatose, he would
have pointed out where they were all going wrong and reminded them that
he is fully entitled to do as he likes, whereas they, probably all
heading for station car-parks in suburbia, are not entitled to anything.

Yes, that's it. It was everyone else's fault, and definitely not the
fault of that cyclist, I expect.

On 19/02/2016 17:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

MrCheerful wrote:

the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train – with the bike’s
muddy wheels resting on two of them – while she, her husband and
several other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

Kick him awake, tell him to get the bloody thing off the seats. If he won't
do it, do it for him.

How *dare* you?

He's a cyclist, bristling with entitlements which ordinary humans don't
have.

The other passengers were honoured by his presence. They should probably
have paid extra so he and his bike could go free of charge.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:24:47 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train - with the bike's
muddy wheels resting on two of them - while she, her husband and several
other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

The cyclists was in the wrong.
Fortunately this sort of behaviour is so rare it makes the papers.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 4:24:47 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
the man was taking up the chairs on the busy train - with the bike's
muddy wheels resting on two of them - while she, her husband and several
other passengers were unable to sit down.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3184656.html

If indeed he was asleep, pick up the bike & when you get to the next stop (Clapham Junction)place it on the platform.

Also those trains have dedicated cycle places.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:11:27 PM UTC, naazim palan wrote:

If indeed he was asleep, pick up the bike & when you get to the next stop (Clapham Junction)place it on the platform.

Also those trains have dedicated cycle places.

You think theft is acceptable?

On 19/02/2016 23:32, Paul George wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:11:27 PM UTC, naazim palan wrote:

If indeed he was asleep, pick up the bike & when you get to the next stop (Clapham Junction)place it on the platform.

Also those trains have dedicated cycle places.

You think theft is acceptable?



It would not be theft as there would be no intent to permanently deprive.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:40:56 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

It would not be theft as there would be no intent to permanently deprive.

Taking the property of someone asleep on a train is dishonest appropriation..
Putting it off the train at the next station where the legal owner will have no idea about the whereabouts of their property is intent to permanently deprive.
This is theft.
Sorry for the inconvenient facts.

1968 Theft act section 6

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights;

On 19/02/2016 23:51, Paul George wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:40:56 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

It would not be theft as there would be no intent to permanently deprive.

Taking the property of someone asleep on a train is dishonest appropriation.
Putting it off the train at the next station where the legal owner will have no idea about the whereabouts of their property is intent to permanently deprive.
This is theft.
Sorry for the inconvenient facts.

1968 Theft act section 6

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights;


Cyclists always love to argue about which laws to follow, and how they
should be interpreted.