Gloster
Established Member
The following query is in one way irrelevant as I have lost contact with the people concerned. I think I had all the relevant details accurately at the time and can remember them correctly, even if some seem a bit odd.
About five or six years ago (possibly a bit more) a friend’s step-daughter, then in her last term at university, was travelling from Preston to London on Virgin West Coast. She was using a 16-25 Railcard and there was no question about it being false, nor was there any problem with the validity of the ticket she held. However, the guard (and it does appear to have been a guard) was not satisfied that she was entitled to it.
I will make clear here that she looked older than she was at the time, approaching or just past her 23rd birthday, as she had been very seriously ill in her late teens, effectively missed two years school and had been unable to start university until she was 20. If someone told you she was fifty, you would believe them, although you might think,”I would have thought she was a bit younger than that.”
The guard wanted proof that she was under 25 (or - presumably - that she was a mature student), but she could find nothing that seemed to fit the bill except a letter. However, this letter was from a well-known hospital and detailed her medical condition: she was on her way to a job interview and it was intended to assure the prospective employer that the illness was cured and would not affect her ability to work. She was prepared to show the heading which gave her name and date of birth, but she was not willing to show the text of the letter. (I understand that there was nothing of a serious nature in it, but you can understand a young woman not wanting her medical history to be seen by someone who doesn’t need to) The guard apparently claimed that he needed to read the letter to check that it was genuine. At this point, so I understand, another passenger, who claimed to be a lawyer, told the guard that any court would consider the heading of the letter sufficient proof. The guard then moved on.
My feeling is that the guard was acting totally unreasonably to insist on reading the letter.
I will another have another - very different - query from the same family soon.
About five or six years ago (possibly a bit more) a friend’s step-daughter, then in her last term at university, was travelling from Preston to London on Virgin West Coast. She was using a 16-25 Railcard and there was no question about it being false, nor was there any problem with the validity of the ticket she held. However, the guard (and it does appear to have been a guard) was not satisfied that she was entitled to it.
I will make clear here that she looked older than she was at the time, approaching or just past her 23rd birthday, as she had been very seriously ill in her late teens, effectively missed two years school and had been unable to start university until she was 20. If someone told you she was fifty, you would believe them, although you might think,”I would have thought she was a bit younger than that.”
The guard wanted proof that she was under 25 (or - presumably - that she was a mature student), but she could find nothing that seemed to fit the bill except a letter. However, this letter was from a well-known hospital and detailed her medical condition: she was on her way to a job interview and it was intended to assure the prospective employer that the illness was cured and would not affect her ability to work. She was prepared to show the heading which gave her name and date of birth, but she was not willing to show the text of the letter. (I understand that there was nothing of a serious nature in it, but you can understand a young woman not wanting her medical history to be seen by someone who doesn’t need to) The guard apparently claimed that he needed to read the letter to check that it was genuine. At this point, so I understand, another passenger, who claimed to be a lawyer, told the guard that any court would consider the heading of the letter sufficient proof. The guard then moved on.
My feeling is that the guard was acting totally unreasonably to insist on reading the letter.
I will another have another - very different - query from the same family soon.