Merseyrail "Draconian"

islandannie

Enough said

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6977871.stm

blue_haddock

There has been another thread regarding this recently and i'm sure it'll get merged.

Dylanwing

I looked for the other thread and could not find it, as I wondered if it was the samer person. It seems that the Court agreed with those of us who found the Merseyrail approach OTT, giving her a Conditional Discharge and-
The court said a fixed penalty system would be a more appropriate punishment.
What a total waste of time and money!

islandannie

My point entirely.

There were to many flog them and hang them types on that thread,it seems the courts do not agree with them.

Steve_xx

That thread was deleted for some reason.

I disagree with you. The court were wrong in their decision in my view. Since the matter was now in the court it would have been appropriate for the barmy magistrates therein to issue an appropriate penalty, enough to signal to others that they would do well to refrain from this antisocial activity.

Instead they have chosen to send a signal out to anyone who feels like putting their feet on the train seats, that they can't be bothered to deal with it, and in the process they have humiliated Merseyrail in their attempts to run an orderly service. Thereby ensuring a free-for-all situation and, in my view, actually encouraging this appalling behaviour.

budgetflyer

Feet on seats, chucking litter, letting dogs dirt the pavement, smoke a little dope, steal some sweets, swear at the teacher,write on a a bus shelter. All little "insignificant" rules.Who cares if they are broken ? Does it matter ? YES, of course it does. If we cant get the little things right, then what hope do we have of punishing the big crimes.
This also sends out a "Stuff it, do what you want, rules are to be broken" message. Shame on this court and judge for not having the guts to follow through.
I hope Mersey rail continue these prosecutions and next time, get a result and send out a proper message

jonesMUFCforever

I disagree with the posters and agree with the court.

It was a ridiculous decision to take to a court. It should have been a fixed penalty fine with perhaps a ban from using Merseyrail trains for say 12 months.
It should have only got to court if the penalty had not been paid.
Courts have better things to do with their time than this!

islandannie

budgetflyer wrote: »

Feet on seats, chucking litter, letting dogs dirt the pavement, smoke a little dope, steal some sweets, swear at the teacher,write on a a bus shelter. All little "insignificant" rules.Who cares if they are broken ? Does it matter ? YES, of course it does. If we cant get the little things right, then what hope do we have of punishing the big crimes.
This also sends out a "Stuff it, do what you want, rules are to be broken" message. Shame on this court and judge for not having the guts to follow through.
I hope Mersey rail continue these prosecutions and next time, get a result and send out a proper message

For rules do you actually mean laws?

As far as i know the courts deal with offences where the law has been broken and in this case deemed that a fixed penalty would have been the appropriate action.

You of course are at liberty to make the rules up as you go along.

budgetflyer

islandannie wrote: »

For rules do you actually mean laws?

As far as i know the courts deal with offences where the law has been broken and in this case deemed that a fixed penalty would have been the appropriate action.

You of course are at liberty to make the rules up as you go along.

I think you will find it is a By Law. Its a local "rule" enforcable by law by a local authority or in this case transport authority that ensures things tick along nicely for the benefit of most.
Its simple really, dont like the rule, dont use the train. It is well sign posted so if you break it, you have no defence.
If someone stood in dogs dirt,or had chewing gum stuck to their shoe,then put their feet on the seat and then YOU then sat on it, would you be quite so tolerant ?

In New York, when crime,murder and mayhem were out of control. They brought in Zero Tolerance.
What they found was when they arrested people who broke the "insignificant crimes" they were often involved in other more serious stuff, drugs, drunk driving, unlicenced guns etc etc. They could clear the streets of yobs with no effort. Simply dropping litter was enough to lift them.
Dont you wish our streets were that safe ?

Dylanwing

Wow, first Steve_XX writes the most OTT twaddle ever and then gets thanked 3 times. WHY?? - Even the hang 'em flog 'em Daily Mail was not impressed with this. Then, I actually agree with Ejones!!
If convicted, this girl would have a criminal record, could have lost her job, and been banned from visiting the USA. What the court are saying is that for this type of minor offence (Feet were quickly removed, with an apology) a fixed penalty is more appropriate, so that the courts are not clogged up with trivial cases brought by petty jobsworths enforcing minor rules over-zealously. They give shoplifters under £150 fixed penalties to free up courts to hear more important cases, not to be filled by this sort of rubbish.

In New York, when crime,murder and mayhem were out of control. They brought in Zero Tolerance.
What they found was when they arrested people who broke the "insignificant crimes" they were often involved in other more serious stuff, drugs, drunk driving, unlicenced guns etc etc. They could clear the streets of yobs with no effort. Simply dropping litter was enough to lift them.

Well, once the UK Government actually bring in zero tolerance and have actually cleared some of the yobs off the street, maybe then we can think of prosecuting feet offenders.

MarkyMarkD

Dylanwing wrote: »

(Feet were quickly removed, with an apology)

So what? It's Ok to break the law if you apologise when you get caught? Twaddle!