Man arrested for charging phone on train

Llamaman said:
Ah, so he was resisting arrest. Never a good idea. People tend to 'fall down stairs' that way.
Click to expand...
:D
Llamaman said:
Probably not worth the paperwork. Technically, he was de-arrested as he hadn't been charged yet. But I'll allow it on pun license.
Click to expand...
Of course you have to allow it, I'd be shocked if you didn't :D
But I guess that was it, not worth the paper work especially as it was a Friday (afternoon? ) ;)
Llamaman said:
What, Wimbledon? [/London joke]
Click to expand...
That went Wooooooooooooosh..
 
Llamaman said:
Pretty stupid to get yourself arrested for it then! People used to get deported for stealing the equivalent of 50p.

Might act as a good deterrent to others now though!
Click to expand...

During the period of the Bloody Code (late C18th - early C19th) you could hang for 'stealing privately in a shop, warehouse or stable, goods of the value of 5 shillings' amongst many other things. This was increased to £10 in 1820, but the death penalty for 'shoplifting' was only repealed in 1823.

I assume we'd have to go back to public execution too, if we reintroduced this as a deterrent? Might give us something to argue about, other than hunting foxes with dogs! :D
 
MartynK said:
During the period of the Bloody Code (late C18th - early C19th) you could hang for 'stealing privately in a shop, warehouse or stable, goods of the value of 5 shillings' amongst many other things. This was increased to £10 in 1820, but the death penalty for 'shoplifting' was only repealed in 1823.

I assume we'd have to go back to public execution too, if we reintroduced this as a deterrent? Might give us something to argue about, other than hunting foxes with dogs! :D
Click to expand...

Ballistic trauma to the face anyone???
 
reminds me of the final weekend of the Bradford trolleybuses. Some operators (such as Bournemouth) permitted private tours with preserved vehicles, Bradford did not. a memo was circulated to the effect that in the event of any non Bradford vehicle attempting to run using Bradford's wires, those responsible were to be arrested and charged with theft of electricity
 
SAM-H-P said:
Why put sockets on a train that anyone can use ?
Click to expand...

Why have to come up with an alternative just because people are idiots?
 
If it was signed do not use then he is the idiot. I have been on trains where there is just a socket, nothing to say you can't use it. In which case the train operator is the idiot
 
SAM-H-P said:
If it was signed do not use then he is the idiot. I have been on trains where there is just a socket, nothing to say you can't use it. In which case the train operator is the idiot
Click to expand...
The ones on intercity trains by the tables are intended for customer use and usually have a sticker saying "mobiles and laptops only". The ones in the vestibules are stickered "for train staff only".

The ones on TFL overground (like the one in this case) are stickered to say not for public use. Perhaps the sticker was missing, but it's probably most likely that he was being a pillock who thought he was special.
 
SAM-H-P said:
If it was signed do not use then he is the idiot. I have been on trains where there is just a socket, nothing to say you can't use it. In which case the train operator is the idiot
Click to expand...
On the London overground they are clearly marked for cleaning use only. Which is where this incident happened.

Unmarked sockets by the seat, thameslink, Virgin etc has got them by each seat, you can happily use those. And guess what they are not marked ;)

The guy is a plonker, he likely got mouthy when told off and could have avoided this. The BTP don't just arrest people for the fun of it.
 
SAM-H-P said:
If it was signed do not use then he is the idiot. I have been on trains where there is just a socket, nothing to say you can't use it. In which case the train operator is the idiot
Click to expand...

If they're not clearly signed FOR public use.....it's bloody cheeky to assume.
 
viv1969 said:
If they're not clearly signed FOR public use.....it's bloody cheeky to assume.
Click to expand...
True, but you probably wouldn't get arrested by 4 BTP officers for it. The guy must have been kicking off quite spectacularly. I'm sure some YouTube footage will appear in due course.
 
If they are marked then serves him right. He properly did get really uptight which was the cause of the arrest. If it was a sorry sir, I won't do it again that would of been the end of it.
 
Llamaman said:
Not quite the same thing, since "stealing" wifi isn't actually depriving the lawful owner of anything (unless you could prove they had suffered economic loss due to degradation in the service).

Whereas taking electricity that they have to pay for most definitely is.


I'm not even sure "stealing" wifi would be a criminal offense. Can't be theft but might fall foul of one of the telecommunications acts? Would it meet the definition of hacking (unauthorized access)?
Click to expand...

It's a pretty good analogy.

Before a specific offence was created, abstraction of electricity under the 1968 Theft Act was the charge used for computer misuse ("hacking" in the vernacular). In taking control of someone else's computer, the perpetrator was abstracting the electricity needed to operate those commands, however trivial the amount might be.

Making unauthorised use of a WiFi access point would similarly use electricity to process the IP traffic.

That said, if it's broadcasting an SSID, my opinion is that an unsecured wifi access point is *advertising* its availability for use (which is a matter of plain fact) and the owner is (by proxy) inviting people to use it. It's like leaving a sign outside your unlocked front door saying 'come in and make yourself at home'.

The issue arose because manufacturers used to ship wifi routers with unsecured networks enabled by default and people didn't read the manuals. That situation has changed, thankfully.
 
If they labelled the socket '5000 volts" people would think twice about using it.

Anyway they should put adequate sockets in to keep the customers happy during delays.

I heard they arrested 2 youths. One for drinking battery acid and the other for eating fireworks. The police charged one and let the other one off.
 
Musicman said:
That said, if it's broadcasting an SSID, my opinion is that an unsecured wifi access point is *advertising* its availability for use (which is a matter of plain fact) and the owner is (by proxy) inviting people to use it. It's like leaving a sign outside your unlocked front door saying 'come in and make yourself at home'.
Click to expand...
s125 of the Communication Act 2003 has now made it an offence to "piggyback" on someone's wireless broadband. And this isn't just theoretical - there has been a conviction (see my earlier post for the link).
 
ianp5a said:
If they labelled the socket '5000 volts" people would think twice about using it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but some people would think "wow, that'll charge my phone REALLY fast"
 
SAM-H-P said:
nothing to say you can't use it. In which case the train operator is the idiot
Click to expand...
I don't think there are signs on the platform that say, "Please do not jump in front of the trains" either
Do we really have to label everything? ;)
 
Llamaman said:
s125 of the Communication Act 2003 has now made it an offence to "piggyback" on someone's wireless broadband. And this isn't just theoretical - there has been a conviction (see my earlier post for the link).
Click to expand...

Oh indeed. I disagree with the law and did at the time it was being passed. It is technically inept in intention, designed to protect the technically inept from their own ineptitude.

The wording of the act says that it's an offence to 'dishonesty' obtain services with 'intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service', which at least sets a bar of intent but raises the question of what the applicable charge might reasonably be.

Edit for iPhone autocorrect
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I don't think there are signs on the platform that say, "Please do not jump in front of the trains" either
Do we really have to label everything? ;)
Click to expand...

Apparently for the world's retards, yes.
It's either that or no win no fee.
 
It sounds like the arrested man's main mistake was not actually charging his phone in the "illegal" socket but the fact that he got argumentative with the PCSO on the train.
These days people often panic when their phone charge gets very low, especially when travelling far from home, and they will look high and low for a socket in desperation and it would never cross their mind that it's technically "theft", but at the end of the day they don't own the socket so arguing is probably not productive.
A lot of us as photographers have likely been told at some point that they "can't take photos here" and unless you know you are in the right then arguing is probably not productive either, so in some ways it's a similar scenario where being diplomatic rather than arguing is often best.
 
boliston said:
.., so in some ways it's a similar scenario where being diplomatic rather than arguing is often best.
Click to expand...
Someone obviously over reacted to make it all kick off. I guess we'll never know who though.
 
Cobra said:
I don't think there are signs on the platform that say, "Please do not jump in front of the trains" either
Do we really have to label everything? ;)
Click to expand...

In the US just about every bridge we passed over on a massive roadtrip had a road has the sign "Caution may become slippery when wet or icy"

And here, the biggest danger to motorcyclists departing their vehicle is the numerous amounts of road furniture, signs etc
 
Byker28i said:
In the US just about every bridge we passed over on a massive roadtrip had a road has the sign "Caution may become slippery when wet or icy"

And here, the biggest danger to motorcyclists departing their vehicle is the numerous amounts of road furniture, signs etc
Click to expand...

Similarly. ....used to make me chuckle in the US every tine there was a "hump" road sign.
Like it was an instructon. :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Similarly. ....used to make me chuckle in the US every tine there was a "hump" road sign.
Like it was an instructon. :LOL:
Click to expand...
It isn't?

Well, that explains why immigration won't let me back in. :oops: :$
 
viv1969 said:
Similarly. ....used to make me chuckle in the US every tine there was a "hump" road sign.
Like it was an instructon. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Some roads around here have similar signs - "Humps for 200 yards". Wouldn't that be dangerous?
 
928.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top