Yorkie wrote:
wrote:
As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?
Is carrying a mobile 'phone compulsory?
No, but most people carry them, and the OP said that he told the
troublemakers that he would phone the police if trouble continued.
What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?
It was answered, by two railway staff. Why would having the driver
involved have improved the situation?
So what did you want to do - go on beyond Hatfield?
Ridiculous question. How did they know he was wanting to get off at
Hatfield? As he had done no wrong, they had no right to eject him from
the train (the fact he wanted to get off there is irrelevant), and he'd
have been perfectly within his rights to refuse if he was going
further.
It may be that the railway staff took the view that he was among the
people involved in the incident, and wanted all those off the train.
Whether they were right or wrong in this, I don't know (though to my
mind it looks like the OP was genuinely trying to help), but their
judgement may have been affected if he was perceived as being affected
by drink. My question isn't ridiculous at all - the OP said that "I
was asked to leave at Hatfield, which was my stop anyway, and also the
others. I specifically made a point of saying that he was ensuring I'd
be attacked as soon as the train departed". I'm curious as to what the
OP wanted - did he want to go on beyond Hatfield, or did he want the
troublemakers left on the train, or what?
I realise that you are upset, but that's bad advice. If decent people
don't try to help what chance is there? The likelihood is that the
people who were being abused and threatened prior to your involvement
are, in fact, grateful to you, just as, I am sure, you would be
grateful to someone who intervened to try to help you.
Why defend the company for doing absolutely nothing constructive then?
You can't have it both ways!
I'm not trying to have it both ways. As I made clear in my original
post, I feel that the police should have been called, particularly as a
child was involved. What do you think should have been done
differently?
While I agree that decent people should try to help, they should be
backed up by the rail company. If they're going to be ejected from the
train for trying to help, and you defend that, then how can you say
it's wise to help?
I think that it is wise to help, but I'm conscious that any situation
involving drunks is difficult and unpredictable. That's even more true
in the environment of a train, and probably more so with a drunken
female involved. And the presence of a child adds to the difficulty.
The OP has said himself that people's perception of his involvement may
have been affected because he had been drinking. It is also possible
that the railway staff's view was affected by his attempt to go back
into the car where the trouble was in order to tell what had been said.
Having been involved in an altercation, threatened to call the police,
left, then stopped the train, his returning would, almost certainly,
have made things worse.
Apart from the involvement of the child this looks like what is, sadly,
a pretty standard "What the **** are you looking at?" incident. Given
the child's involvement, and the events at the station, I think he
should have dialled 999 at the time, and I think it might be beneficial
if he were to contact the police now.