The "Big Man" on the train - charged with assault.

[sitandnatter]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077080/Big-Man-threw-alleged-fare-dodger-train-hit-internet-video-charged-assault.html

I am sure you have all heard about the gobby young man who was refusing to get off the train and a large gentleman offered to help the elderly guard to get the gobby kid off the train so they could all continue their journey. So he grabbed him lobbed him off, his face was quiet seriously cut to be fair.

Now the "Big Man" who was a hero to many standing up to the gobby youth, has been charged with assault. I'm not surprised to be honest, whilst I have a sneaking admiration for his actions it was assault.

I hope the judge is generous with a conditional discharge though.

Hows about charging the train companies instead for having a stupid policy of this train ain't moving unless you get off (same as the buses), if that isn't meant to insight the rest of the passengers to gang up I don't know what is.

Seen it a million times on the buses in London.

kelly - it's not quite that simple. There is no single privacy law in this country - just a mishmash of stuff growing up in response to the Human Rights Act (and there's a duty of confidence e.g. to your employer, which I think is common law - need a lawyer to check - and the Data Protection Act). The Human Rights Act has two competing rights, freedom of speech and right to respect for private and family life.

I think you are referring to Naomi Campbell, where the Mirror was held to be at fault because she was snapped going into an NA meeting. That doesn't mean anyone else would benefit from the same rule. A. because most of us don't have the money to take people to court (certainly not over privacy issues) and b. the courts treat celebrities differently as their image has financial value.

Us mere mortals do not have any rights over our own images - copyright is always vested in the photographer, unless they have assigned that right to someone else. If you are photographed in a public place, than there's nothing you can do about it. However, operators of CCTV are regulated to some extent because of data protection.

I think this is why I feel uncomfortable about it.

In both the recent cases - a woman shouting racial abuse and a fare-dodger being ejected - the crimes committed really were quite low-level. It seems the racist is mentally ill, too.

Did the people concerned really deserve to have their faces and personal details published world-wide?

CCTV is one thing and it's relatively controlled but this is something quite different. This is entertainment.

It does seem very "Big Brother" to me that someone can't leave their front door without risking being filmed, shown around the world and their actions analysed and condemned.
If a husband or wife did this in a domestic situation, they'd be considered abusive and controlling. I don't see that this is much different.

'big man' was a bully
couldn't the guard have let the train go and then asked for the police to get on at one of the next stations?

Bemybebe, if the violent big man hadn't chucked the annoying little man off the train before his details had been taken, ALM would have been charged! It's 'selective' only in that the police can only charge someone they have identity for and evidence against- if legal process had been followed at the time, ALM would be the only one in trouble.