Man arm locks child on train

[Grassgreendashhabi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/man-armlocks-child-who-refused-to-take-feet-off-seats-on-train/?campaignid=A100&campaignn_type=Email

Why would you think this is acceptable.

Crikey! You read a lot into my post that I didn't type!

Let me see...

Am I a reasonable person who can see that kids get gobby and rude, try their luck, when let loose in summer holidays? Yep! I've been a teacher for decades, kids of all ages act up when set free

Am I a reasonable person who can see that, in this case, an adult tried to tell off a small group of unruly kids and failed, not only did he fail to stop them but he failed to stop himself acting in an unacceptable manner? Yep! And I haven't even tried to defend his actions

Am I a reasonable person who thinks that if other passengers had added their voices, tutted, looked, spoken up when the boys had started to act up, then the one adult who tried to do something may not have lost his temper and acted like a bullying prat? ^Yep! And I haven't even mentioned their parents, cos I would expect them to be horrified at the behaviour of their kids as well as completely irate at the actions of the man"

Am I a reasonable person who thinks that the more we, as a society, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and desperately sing 'la la le la la' the more younger people will lose out on knowing what the real social boundaries are? That everybody will be able to have a practical and active input to molding a more acceptable society? Yep, cos I am ever optimistic!

I have no idea where, in my original post I said anything about beating the crap out of bolshy boys, but I am hoping this one has reassured you that the error was yours and I am not an advocate of beating strangers to make them behave!

But Blanche, it isn't younger people, it is everyone.

People of all ages are rude, put feet up etc on public transport all the time.

The reason this guy started with these kids is because they were kids. It is is to do with their ages and him being a bully.

Why would we hold kids we don't know to standards that adults are routinely ignoring?

This is the result of a 40year old grown man hitting a child. Needless to say it did take a lot of strength for me to not go round and physically beat this man. It's not acceptable to hit a child. Most sane people know this and I think what many are trying to say is that sometimes the behaviour of some children can push you over that edge..even though we try not to.

I'm sorry your boy was hurt bitcat. But re the pool cue- would you use that on a late teen who broke in your house?

almond how do you know the man only did this because they were children?

You're right Tam, I'm speculating. He may well get into violent conflicts all the time.

I think you are still misunderstanding me, almond - I'll try again:

Kids will be kids. They need boundaries.

Some bloke manhandling them isn't the way to set them.

Spare a thought for those who merely looked on.

Yes, he may. And these may be gobshite kids who are used to no-one challenging their behaviour and thought an old bloke wouldn't give them any grief. Like I said, I bet they would have moved them sharpish if some 6 ft 20-something built-like-a-brick-shithouse man asked them to.

Wordsareeverything I would do whatever I have to if it means protecting my kids. Material items can be replaced people can not. I wouldn't use it unless absolutely necessary I'm not a thug. I just don't want to be in another situation where my kids are attacked again and I have no way of protecting them.

""The man taught those kids a valuable lesson - you can't do whatever the hell you want."

Right. He also taught them another valuable lesson - if you don't like what somebody is doing, punch them.

I wish I had the physicality to do something like that to anti-social yobs inflicting their vileness on others.

Sounds like the kind of man who thinks hurting children is OK.

BITCAT - that's awful. I'm not sure that 'no independent witnesses' thing is correct. Think of all the domestic abuse cases where family members are the only witnesses - they still go to court. Sounds like the police fobbing you off to me. What about all the other evidence they should be gathering?

Can you go back and make a formal complaint and a demand that they do their jobs?

Seriously punching a kid in the ribs is Ok now? I'm sure he'd have told off a 6 foot 16 year old in the same way right?

I am staggered at the number of people who think travelling on your own at that age is unreasonable. No wonder we are raising a generation of cotton wooled kids with zero common sense, or resourcefulness.

I went on holiday with my best friend to Italy aged 9 and missed the start of my family holiday at Burgh Island in Devon which necessitated me travelliing from Paddington to Totnes aged 9 - if some bloke had told me to get my feet off the seats I would have done smartish.

Most train companies have 12 as the age to travel independently iirc.

Wow - more Nanny state nonsense.

Goodness! Look at you lot condoning and congratulating male violence to children.

If punching a child in the ribs and placing them in an armlock is suitable punishment for putting their feet on the seats and being gobby, what do you think is a suitable punishment for graffiti? Or people who sniff loudly and constantly? Could I get away with some restorative violence?

I'd also suggest that, in my experience, children who behave like that tend to be no stranger at all to violent physical punishment being meted out at random.

Yes and men who are happy to behave that way in public are certainly not strangers to behaving worse at home. But hey, congrats on showing a child who is boss.

This thread has been a real eye opener.

Just imagine... AIBU.... my DH punched my youngest in the ribs and got him in a head lock, for being cheeky and disrespectful. I'm thinking he did the right thing, and my DS will think twice about back chatting n future?

ENTIRE MN.... that's assault, ffs woman call the police, and 'LTB'.

It's not nanny state nonsense,it's to stop people allowing small children to travel alone who may need help and the conductors/ guards having to be responsible for them. 12 is a sensible age.

Kids will be kids. They need boundaries.

Boundaries mean nothing if you can keep on going wherever you want and you have neither empathy or fear to stop you doing it. Without something to make a boundary meaningful, its a boundary that will be crossed for the hell of it at best, or not even seen at worst.

It's not nanny state nonsense,

It is, kids mature at all different ages and it is up to the parents to know what their kids are capable of not a 'one size fits all' solution laid down by a government who invariably fuck up everything they touch.(despite good intentions)

"Boundaries mean nothing if you can keep on going wherever you want and you have neither empathy or fear to stop you doing it." Well no. But that's not what is up for debate. Enforcing boundaries by punching a child in the ribs and holding them in a headlock is not the only option. It isn't an either/or situation. There was plenty that could have been done before escalating to unreasonable violence.

It's the train companies who set the age for traveling alone not the government.

It's to stop people plonking 7 year olds on trains and wanting the guard to be responsible for them if anything happens.