"got involved for the sake of the staff and the rest of the passengers on that train." Please clarify what risk you think i might have been posing to the other passengers on the train (which had left anyway!) I left the train to use the toilet (rather than using the bin as the majority of the other law abiding passengers were doing) and then may or may not have banged on the door when the train left. I then left the station when the police told me to. Drunk yes, but unreasonable/threatening/disturbance causing I think not. And how you can say it is "clear" when you were not even there is beyond me.

Woah, woah, woah. I think you are getting ahead yourselves there my friends. I have admitted all along that i don't remember the exact incident BUT the fact remains that at the time i denied doing anything and was genuinely shocked when they threw us out of the station, which suggests to me that i may not have done anything at all. It is only in the days that followed that, due to the alcohol consumption, i have trouble remembering so have been open to the idea that i may have swore (or something). However, the fact remains that the police at the time stated that they have cctv evidence of this happening and also of my friend doing the same thing. Given that i can my friend could not have done this ie. it was physically impossible, the officers have shown themselves to be liars, therefore it is quite possible that they lied about me? I would like to think that the average man is open to the idea that the police occasionally/frequently get things wrong and then fabricate stories to support their case, simply siding with them purely because i have admitted to being drunk is a little bit naive if you ask me. Being drunk is not a criminal offence yet somehow the police are experts on people being drunk and therefore can use the drunk and disorderly card as and when they choose, for no particular reason, and the average Joe is unable to complain. As an aside, i once witnessed police being heavy handed with a patron outside a nightclub and when i challenged them on it i was threatened with arrest for- guess what? drunk and disorderly! i challenged them to prove it but apparently there was no need as they were expert witnesses. This would all be fine had it not been for the fact that i hadn't touched a drop that night and was only present at the time to pick some friends up. I wouldn't want to tarnish them all with the same brush ( as they like to do to the ethnic minorities) but my experience of the UK police is that they are all a bunch of [REMOVED]

An update: the investigating officer is now going to continue investigating the incidebt ad apparently from my response saying II'll leave it it is clear that I still feel I was badly treated, hence he needs to look into it. The possible offences he quoted are byelaw 6 unacceptable behaviour & section 5 public order. Now, assuming they have me on cctv banging on the door and they can get a statement to say I called the rail staff an offensive word what is likely to happen to me? Fine, charge, criminal record etc? And will the fact that they've lied about having cctv of my friend kicking the train, assaulted him by grabbing hold of him and then not letting him travel simply because he was with me be of any use to me? Finally, am I being optimistic in thinking that a judge might understand my frustration at the train leaving when we'd left the train to use the toilet when there were people onboard urinating in the bins? And without repeating myself the 'frustration' I speak of was hardly that as we knew we'd miss the train and had already made arrangrments to go to the pub while we waited for the next one anyway - not that I'd tell the judge exactly that! I fear im guilty as charged and my only slight advantage is the way they treated my friend

I think you have misunderstood something somewhere along the line. They did not wait to deal with me at another time at all. We left when they asked us to, gave no details, were not charged etc etc. I complained and it was then that they said if you take thid further and I find that an offence was committed we will prosecute. If I drop the complaint ir all goes away. Also, having a drink and even being drunk does not mean you are incapable of understanding things nor does it mean that a police offucer can make stuff up and abuse his powers because he says you are drunk. If a woman haf been drinking and thrn said she'd been raped woild the police officer say you're drunk yoi cam report it in the morning? If she then had a hazy memory would they tell her they weren't going to investigate?

that still doesn't answer my question as to what has changed between then and now? why didn't they prosecute on the evening if a prosecutable offence had been committed?

and anyway, banging on a train door and swearing a bit when it was about to leave all because you got off to use the toilet: what would a court do anyway?

but surely it is a bit off that they didn't charge me with anything on the evening and yet they are now potentially going to do it only because i've had the audacity to complain about one of their own? Surely the way it works in England is that if you do something wrong the police arrest you or decide to let you go uncharged. If the police do something wrong you have to take it up with their complaints commission. By them letting us it infers that they didn't feel it appropriate to take it any further? What has changed now?

he hasn't offered advice other than assumed that i was drunk therefore has discredited anything else i've said, particularly with regards to my friend who i've clearly stated from the offset could in no way have done anything remotely wrong due to him being in the toilet. Capiche? I have video evidence of the police officer stating that they have " a positive ID and cctv of yourselves abusing rail staff and hitting the train". Once again, ignoring what i may or may not have done, to accuse us both is a blatant lie. Is that acceptable in your eyes? If my friend were to pursue a claim himself he'd have a good case? but would doing so likely land me in the sh#t?

Once again, thanks for your input but in future please refrain from commenting if you are unable to actually read what has been said. If you do feel the need to comment further please explain exactly what my friend did in all this, bearing in mind he was the one that was actually dragged out of the station in the first place - not me.

I'm not too sure to be honest and was merely using this forum as a way of venting my frustration. (I think) I would like someone to say to me either 1) Worst case - You openly admit you were drunk, the police will say you were drunk and behaving "inappropriately" regardless of whether you were or not, the police are expert witnesses in matters of drunknbness and therefore irrespective of what they originally accosted you for they will say they asked you to leave the station in the interest of keeping the peace/breaching the rail byelaw etc etc. Therefore if you pursue the complaint you are unlikely to win and get your taxi fare back, furthermore you may be prosecuted and the train company may ban you from their trains for the future 2) The police made a massive cock up by mistaking you and your friend who clearly look completely different and therefore were wrong and behaving unlawfully by grabbing hold of your friend and dragging him from the station. By then changing their story and accusing you instead they have cocked up even further and they should not have banned you both from the station simply because you happened to be together as you got off the train. If an offence had been committed they should have arrested you both there and then and cannot do it now just because you are making a complaint. Furthermore, banging on the train door and saying a few swear words (which no cctv will actually pick up) is not even a prosecutable offence. You and your friend should therefore pursue the complaint and you may very well get the justice you feel you deserve and the taxi fare home Ultimately i would like someone to give me advice on where i should go next (not you BazzaS). Hopefully it is clear for all to see that my friend was completely wronged and has a very good case for a complaint but he will not pursue it should it put me at risk of prosecution - that is the bit we are not sure about and i cant decide if the investigating officer ive spoken to was trying to scare me away??

how many times do i need to tell you: my friend was in the toilet at the time when he was supposed to have kicked and shouted at the train. When he left the toilet the train had already gone. The policeman grabbed hold of him and accused him of this offence. My memory may be hazy but i remember that much and my friend was below the legal driving limit and he says exactly the same - therefore what more evidence can i give you to prove that the original offence didn't happen??? If after we told them that this didn't happen they changed the story and accused me can't you see that they've messed up slightly (and possibly don't have any cctv evidence at all)? I chose not to mention before that i have part of the incident on film (the first and original part of the incident did not record for some reason) and it can clearly be heard that at first they are accusing my friend and only after we strongly dispute that do they then change the story to me. I;m genuinely surprised that in this day and age there are still people out there who hold the police in such high regard that they will not entertain the idea that they may have behaved inappropriately.

BazzaS you helmet, i've reacted to you not making any proper points, nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with me. As for the professional word - you brought this up when you mentioned that you would "support the view of a professional". It is a nonsense, meaningless word to the vast majority but clearly you give it some weight so i thought i'd point out that working in my profession some would call me a professional. Anyway, does that mean you would support the view of a supposed professional policeman that can't tell the difference between a white person and a black person? Me thinks that their "professional" training needs to be refreshed

Nobody said anything about anyone charging at a train. Originally they said MY FRIEND (who was in the toilet long after the train had departed) had kicked the train and sworn at it. Later they changed the story to it being me and i'd apparently banged on the doors and sworn at the rail staff - completely different i hope you'll agree?

The below extract from Southeastern put me off bothering to request the cctv as they've covered themselves from providing it in almost all instances i.e unless you were on the platform on your own. Furthermore, the officers knew the rail staff by name so i'd put money on them exercising the right not to provide it. What factors affect the disclosure of footage? Your request for CCTV may not be successful where: The camera was pointing in a different direction or not recording. The Police are involved. Not enough detail is provided in the request. The time frame is too broad (typically more than 2 hours) Third parties are identifiable in the footage (we are required to protect the rights of other people).

Nobody said you were obliged to do anything helmet but common sense would suggest that if you're going to reply to a post make it useful. You've made the assumption that I was behaving like a baffoon based solely on my own admission that id had a drink and the fact that the mighty police were involved in an incident? Surely the fact that im complaining about their actions would mean you should keep an open mind? I am also what you would call a professional but I dont see why you thought to make that part of your post. If you dont see anything wrong in the police assaulting someone on the platform based on an accusation that someone on said platform swore at the station staff without first checking the evidence I'm amazed. If you dont see anything wrong with the police having what they describe as a positive ID yet mistaking a black person who was in the toilet at the time for a white male then once again I am amazed. How on earth is that professional? Oh, but wait, apparently racism in the police is a myth hey officer?

you still haven't actually made a point though Bazza? Nobody expected an immediate response, i was merely being impatient so made a second plea for help, which i you have now ever so eloquently pointed out was ill-advised. However, if you can take the time to type all that nonsense please actually respond to my original post and don't make childish assumptions about the event based on me not leaving it 10 hours for a response! If i had to guess I'd say with an attitude like that you're probably part of the police yourself

No. The point i was making is that the officer investigating my complaint said that they would prosecute - because i've bothered to complain. Upon further investigation it would appear that being drunk on the train is a breach of the same bylaw that they quoted so irrespective of whether anything actually happened they'll probably just use that as their excuse. I openly admit to being a bit drunk but my friend was in a much better state, has perfect memory of the event and was clearly picked on for no apparent reason. However, the police are experts on drunkenness apparently so i fear i may be wasting my time as they'll just say we were drunk and so they asked us to leave.

what is the point of you BazzaS?

what offence did my friend commit then? unless you mean having consumed alcohol before travelling on the train? in which case 99% of the people on there would be guilty too. Also, i dont believe the transport police are being paid to seek out people who've been drinking!

anyone please?

Hi All. I was recently travelling home from London on a Southeastern train after a few drinks with my work colleagues. Due to the onboard toilet being out of use and me bumping into an old friend on the train we decided to exit the train and use the station toilet in the knowledge that the train may depart and we'd have to get the next one. As i left the toilet the train was about to depart, and although i can't remember exactly what happened due to the drinks id consumed, i may have swore a few times asking them to hold the train. My friend, however, was still in the toilet long after the train had left the platform. Next thing we knew a policeman grabbed my friend as we stood on the platform and started to drag him out of the station, all the while accusing him of kicking the train and swearing at it (later changed to swearing at the rail staff). My friend denied this completely but the officer insisted it was all captured on cctv - somehow? When we got to the station entrance another officer joined the party as well as a rail staff worker. The story then changed to it being me who'd sworn at the rail staff as well as apparently banging on the the doors and the windows. Since my friend was with me (we'd bumped into each other two seconds before we got to the station as we were both looking for the onboard toilet) he was being ejected/ and also they still insisted they had us both on cctv committing the offence. In the end we gave up arguing after the threat of an arrest on the basis of Bylaw 6 - Unacceptable behaviour on the railway. I am now in the process of making a formal complaint as I don't feel the actions of the officers on the night was appropriate. I accept that my case is weakened by the fact that I don't have a perfect memory of all the events that happened BUT my friend does and whilst i admit i may have sworn as the train left, I strenuously deny doing it in anything other than jest based on the mood i was (and that we'd already preempted this the train leaving) and i certainly am not one for kicking inanimate objects, drunk or not. Furthermore, when the rail staff who i'd supposedly sworn at arrived at the exit I had never seen him before so I really think it's a case of mistaken identity - which is evident from the fact they originally grabbed hold of my friend (who is tall, skinny and SriLankan) mistaking him for me (I'm shortish and I'm told my Irish heritage is clear to see!). The investigating police officer has assured me that if the cctv evidence proves a crime was committed they will prosecute - which feels like they are trying to blackmail me into not pursuing it. I'm now stuck needing advice as to what to do next. Ordinarily i'd leave it and put it down to a bad experience but being stuck 40 miles from home after midnight and then having to pay £100 in taxi fares means I feel I should pursue it. Even if i did swear, I feel it would be totally reasonable given that we'd left the train to use the toilet, when most other people on the train were just using the bins or the seats! I don't feel they'd have sufficient evidence to prosecute me or if there is even a prosecutable offence for that matter? but they may try and use this as a way to ban me from using the train services in the future, which will be much more costly than £100 when i have to find other means for getting to and from work. However, ignoring my issue, my friend has clearly been picked on for absolutely no reason, other than maybe his ethnic appearance and anything they said about having cctv of him is an absolute lie. I don't think it is reasonable that someone can make a wild accusation and the police simply side with them without first checking the supposed evidence themselves. Any thoughts appreciated!