By now a great many people will have seen the footage of the young man being ejected from a train apparently travelling from Edinburgh to Perth on the 9th December this year.

There has been much vilification and defence of the young man, the train-guard and the passenger who intervened and performed the bulk of the ejection.

What is remarkable is that little discussion seems to have taken place about what was effectively a kangaroo-court in action.

Within the space of a few minutes, an accusation was made, a repudiation given and a strong-arm execution of a sentence carried out.

Noticeably; there was no rational investigation in to whether or not a crime had been committed by the young man.

If there was, then arguably the eviction from the train is defensible even if questionable. Yet if no crime was committed then the injustice is more severe than merely being subjected to a Kangaroo-Court. It extends to unlawful punishment by a non-authorised executioner of judicial punishment.

In our country; as with many, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As many interested in the justice system will tell you, this reasoning is not a defence against conviction of the innocent, however it is still a basic judicial fact that if you haven't been proven guilty you are innocent, and punishment plays no roll in the process.

This footage whilst not doing any of those involved any favours as regards their behaviour as a citizen or railroad employee, does clearly show that in this particular episode, guilt seemed to be presumed from the outset.

This might well be the seed of the altercation. It was not so much about rudeness or public disturbance as it was about root level injustice.

This is what gives the young man the upper moral ground here. Even if guilty of trying to defraud the rail company, he was still legally entitled to be presumed innocent.

What entertains many of us is that we appear to see a cheeky young man getting his come-uppance. However appearances have always been taken to be potentially deceptive, therefore rational, judicial proccess is required.

This article is not about whether the young man is innocent or guilty. It is about whether we are guilty of presuming guilt prior to innocence.

If upon watching we conclude he is guilty then there is an entitlement on behalf that young man that we be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now consider this; Is it possible the young man genuinely thought he had bought and paid for the proper ticket? If you say No you require to prove this. If you say yes, you do not have to prove this- Because the benefit of the doubt reigns.

In amongst this brief youtubian flash of modern life -a great crime might be being committed by most if not all viewers - that crime being the failure to point out what is to all intents and purposes; A mis-carriage of justice.

That it occurred in a train carriage is merely a passing humourous consideration.