|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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; |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Viable transport reduces capacity of train
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YCMIU: Baby threatened by viable transport, on a train | Mrcheerful | UK | 1 | December 5th 15 01:36 PM |
Viable transport | Tarcap | UK | 20 | August 23rd 15 07:57 PM |
viable transport | Mrcheerful | UK | 2 | June 16th 15 11:56 PM |
Viable transport | Mrcheerful | UK | 133 | October 14th 13 12:44 PM |
Viable transport | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 4 | December 4th 12 08:07 PM |