There does seem to be a lot more to this than first meets the eye. The media haven't helped by printing/broadcasting a shock/horror story which only gives one side of the story - from the "victim".
For example, ChrisB reproduces a quote, above. This quote seems to imply that the pram lady wanted: 1. Seats which weren't hers to take. 2. A disabled space to put her pram in.  One of the many reports that I have read on this episode states that the couple were asked to move from the seats that they were occupying as they had been reserved for the lady (with the pram) joining later in the journey. Who knows .............?
I'll leave GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to sort this one out - other than saying that a large dollop of common sense might have been the best solution from the outset. Too many high horses around maybe.

...................and, as usual, large numbers of the traveling public will be hugely inconvenienced because there will be no trains running west of Plymouth..........(not that there seem to be that many anyway at the moment !)

Any sort of Military exercise where things "go wrong" are of much more use than one where everything goes like clockwork. This is when we might actually find out that our optical equipment, on our guns/tanks, doesn't work very well in grass smoke - despite the manufacturer saying that it would !
Are we to assume that a potential enemy would only attack when vegetation wont catch fire; or when it's not muddy ? I seem to recollect one adversary setting fire to all the oil wells - our forces couldn't see a thing !!  I bet we never thought of that one in advance - now, had there been oil wells around Imber.........who knows ?
I know it's not very pleasant - I have just shut my windows - but are our armed forces expected to train only when there is absolutely no possibility of  "upsetting the neighbours" ?  For a few days every 20 years - surely not that unreasonable ?

Very recently we had some American friends visit us for the day. We took them back to Salisbury for a very quiet evening SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) service back to Southampton. The guard came through the train before it was due to leave and moved my friends up to the First Class compartment on the 158. My friends have always spoken highly of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) trains - they are even more impressed now.   Well done that man !!    (There was one other passenger on the train - in the other coach, he didn't get an upgrade !)

..................a criminal. You cannot argue that point, you are not a "suspect".

How is "breaking the law" - "very distinct from being a criminal" ?

You now state that they were breaking the law (what happened to "innocent until proved guilty" ?), that again makes them (very distinctly) criminals. But you have also said "if"............   If they broke that Law - they are criminals.  You seem to be saying that they did and didn't do whatever they may have been going to do.

Just suppose that I were spending my evenings spray painting GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s shiny new trains. You could not call me a criminal - or I would sue you in the Civil Court. But, I am a criminal - I know I am a criminal by breaking (possibly) The Criminal Damage Act 1971. If I end up in Court and am jailed I am then a "convicted criminal" - but I was still a "criminal" from the moment that the paint spray hit the nice new train.
I know that this might sound pedantic - or as the lawyers say "a finer point of Law" but that is how the Law works.

Sorry, but Mac is wrong there...........a criminal is anyone who has committed a criminal act. If you are convicted  - you are a "convicted criminal".  Following Mac's logic a serial killer only becomes a criminal when caught and convicted - not so, he becomes a criminal as soon as he kills his first victim.
I make no comment on this particular case.

The Chocolate Poodle strikes again !
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c8feced915d4c10000159/R082011_110407_Lavington.pdf

"The nearest access point was at Lavington Sands bridge, approximately 200m
from the rear of the train (figure 2).  An alternative access point was at the former
Lavington station, approximately 600m from the front of the train and beyond
both Lavington viaduct and ‘Chocolate Poodle Bridge’"

As a new member of the Coffee Shop I would like to ask if anyone can throw any meaningful light on what future plans there are for the rolling stock on the Cardiff to Portsmouth route - and its side shoots.
I have read that the existing 158s are going to replaced with "new" rolling stock with "increased capacity". I have sampled the replacement stock and am completely underwhelmed with it.

In the last two weeks I have traveled on both a 158 and a 166. The 158 had just been refurbished and did look very, very nice internally - even seemed to have a tiny bit more legroom in the airline seating. Could't really fault it in any way, even had a catering trolley. However, these nice shiny trains seem to be vanishing at an increasing rate (to the West ??) and more and more 150s are appearing on this route.

The 166 looked shabby and well worn internally, with 5 abreast seats (more capacity)!!!, hopper windows were open, so no air-con. I gather that we will end up with a 166 coupled to a 165 - very clever, no through corridor. How does the trolley get through ? I can hear it now.....not economic to have a trolley in each half, not enough crew - remove the catering facilities ! The only "plus" point on the 166 was, the engine noise did seem to be less than on the 158.
On the return leg on the 166 I sat (alone) in the declassified First Class (4 abreast) - now, if the whole trains were refurbished to something approaching this standard !!!!!! I fear not though.

What is happening now, appears to be along the lines of the shambles we had when First took over this route from Wessex/Alpha trains.