Filming interaction with on board staff

[AdamWW]

I couldn't say either way, that goes well beyond my very sparse legal knowledge. Important part is that whether or not it is considered a public space in relation to the expectation of privacy, the entire railway (including outside the barrier line) remains private property at all times and staff have the right to ask you to leave.

This started as the comment: "But it's legal to film in public."

Surely there is a little doubt that filming in public areas on railway property is legal, just as it would be in a shopping centre?

In both cases the owners of the property could choose to ban filming, but in the case of railways it is clear that there is no such ban.

Also I don't see how there can be an "expectation of privacy" anywhere that the general public can regularly go, even if individuals could be excluded either on request or by not being able to afford a ticket.

 

[island]

Filming is indisputably legal on trains and in stations in the UK.

Staff do not have the right to ask ticket holders to leave trains or stations for filming, unless they break another byelaw in doing so.

 

[LOL The Irony]

So you are in fact proposing to record all interactions from the outset, or not?

You can’t just say “strawman” to avoid answering a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question now you’ve tied yourself in a knot.

I haven't tied myself in any knot. You're free to record if you feel like it and also free not to. Find the knots.

I would question whether such implied access actually extends beyond ticket barriers, where they operate, an onto trains.

I'd guess that possessing a ticket gives you implied access to wherever it is valid and passengers are permitted.

 

[43066]

Filming is indisputably legal on trains and in stations in the UK.

Staff do not have the right to ask ticket holders to leave trains or stations for filming, unless they break another byelaw in doing so.

However the railway is private property so if you’re asked to leave you must do so. Refusal to leave when instructed means you’ll be technically committing railway trespass.

Staff don’t need cite a particular breach of the bylaws to ask someone to leave (albeit in the majority of cases where things escalate it’s likely that one or more bylaws will indeed have been breached). It could simply be due to someone being distracting, or acting in a way the staff member considers intimidating.

If I am in a public facing role, tough. It's the world we live in and the job I signed up for. If I don't like it, I can hop on indeed and hand in my resignation.

Or they can decide the person filming is being intimidating, deny them travel, and tell them to leave.

But it's legal to film in public.

That’s as maybe, but, if you’re on railway property, you have to obey instructions and staff can withdraw your right to be there. If you go about with the entitled attitude you are showing on this thread it won’t be long until someone takes exception to it and escalates things.

 

[LOL The Irony]

If you go about with the entitled attitude you are showing on this thread it won’t be long until someone takes exception to it and escalates things.

If you're wearing a bodycam (which is what I've been talking about the entire time) and you don't want to be filmed yourself, I'd argue that you are the entitled one.

 

[matt_world2004]

However the railway is private property so if you’re asked to leave you must do so. Refusal to leave when instructed means you’ll be technically committing railway trespass.

Staff don’t need cite a particular breach of the bylaws to ask someone to leave (albeit in the majority of cases where things escalate it’s likely that one or more bylaws will indeed have been breached). It could simply be due to someone being distracting, or acting in a way the staff member considers intimidating.



Or they can decide the person filming is being intimidating, deny them travel, and tell them to leave.



That’s as maybe, but, if you’re on railway property, you have to obey instructions and staff can withdraw your right to be there. If you go about with the entitled attitude you are showing on this thread it won’t be long until someone takes exception to it and escalates things.

A person filming a member of staff walking around could be considered to be harassing or obstructing them in the course of their duties that is different than a passenger filming someone who is interacting with them particularly over a matter causing conflict

 

[43066]

If you're wearing a bodycam (which is what I've been talking about the entire time) and you don't want to be filmed yourself, I'd argue that you are the entitled one.

For the umpteenth time of repeating people wear body cams were required to do so for their job roles, and they are not equivalent to mobile phone footage recorded by a private individual, but are really a form of body worn CCTV. You appear to have advanced the conspiracy theory that CCTV is not controlled, and is edited by TOCs, so I don’t expect you to accept that, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

If you don’t want to encounter people wearing bodycams you can choose not to use the railway. You do not have an inalienable right to film staff with your mobile just because you don’t approve of body cams.

A person filming a member of staff walking around could be considered to be harassing or obstructing them in the course of their duties that is different than a passenger filming someone who is interacting with them particularly over a matter causing conflict

Yes. Albeit someone filming at close quarters might be regarded as intimidating.

This rarely comes up as an issue, of course, and staff are constantly filmed “in the background” by spotters/photters.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes. Albeit someone filming at close quarters might be regarded as intimidating.

This rarely comes up as an issue and staff are constantly filmed “in the background” by spotters/photphotteri

If someone is filming to ensure they themselves can make a complaint or they believe the staff member is acting inappropriately then it would be appropriate for the staff member to take a step back when the camera is out if they feel intimidated. But if the person the steps into their space after they have taken a step back that is what would be intimidating/Threatening

 

[island]

However the railway is private property so if you’re asked to leave you must do so. Refusal to leave when instructed means you’ll be technically committing railway trespass.

Staff don’t need cite a particular breach of the bylaws to ask someone to leave (albeit in the majority of cases where things escalate it’s likely that one or more bylaws will indeed have been breached). It could simply be due to someone being distracting, or acting in a way the staff member considers intimidating.

This is not correct as respects a ticket-holder.

Whilst the railway is private property, it is generally known and accepted that any member of the general public can enter upon stations without specific permission. This is referred to as "implied permission to enter" and can be withdrawn as respects any individual person, or people generally, at any time with or without a reason (although not, for example, for a reason that would constitute discrimination on a protected ground). An individual's permission might, for example, be withdrawn because they are begging for money, and people generally have their permission withdrawn when a station closes for the night.

Ticket-holders, however, do not use this implied permission to enter and remain on stations or trains. They have permission to be on the relevant station/train by virtue of the contract they have entered into; the railway has granted them this permission by selling them a ticket. The railway cannot unilaterally back out of the contract and require a ticket-holder to leave a station for no reason.

The railway byelaws provide that a passenger in breach of (most of the) byelaws can be removed from the station. A law can override the contract, and as such a ticket holder who does breach the byelaws can be removed. But the railway has no right in law to require the holder of a valid ticket to leave if they have conducted themselves legally. And filming on the railway is, in general, legal.

A non-ticket holder or a passenger who has reached their destination would not be within scope of the above and is susceptible to having their implied permission to be on the railway withdrawn.

You do not have an inalienable right to film staff with your mobile just because you don’t approve of body cams.

Actually, you do, since filming staff is legal.

 

[43066]

This is not correct as respects a ticket-holder.

Whilst the railway is private property, it is generally known and accepted that any member of the general public can enter upon stations without specific permission. This is referred to as "implied permission to enter" and can be withdrawn as respects any individual person, or people generally, at any time with or without a reason (although not, for example, for a reason that would constitute discrimination on a protected ground). An individual's permission might, for example, be withdrawn because they are begging for money, and people generally have their permission withdrawn when a station closes for the night.

Ticket-holders, however, do not use this implied permission to enter and remain on stations or trains. They have permission to be on the relevant station/train by virtue of the contract they have entered into; the railway has granted them this permission by selling them a ticket. The railway cannot unilaterally back out of the contract and require a ticket-holder to leave a station for no reason.

The railway byelaws provide that a passenger in breach of (most of the) byelaws can be removed from the station. A law can override the contract, and as such a ticket holder who does breach the byelaws can be removed. But the railway has no right in law to require the holder of a valid ticket to leave if they have conducted themselves legally. And filming on the railway is, in general, legal.

A non-ticket holder or a passenger who has reached their destination would not be within scope of the above and is susceptible to having their implied permission to be on the railway withdrawn.

Yes, it is correct.

You’re confusing criminal and contract law. You can be asked to leave the railway, thereby revoking permission to be on the premises due to your behaviour, even if you have a valid ticket. All that needs to happen is for you to be asked to leave and refuse and the criminal offence of railway trespass is then complete. The contractual position ie whether you have a ticket or not makes no difference (albeit you could potentially sue the railway for breach of contract having been denied travel, depending on the circumstances).

I’ve seen it happen: I asked someone to leave after he was abusive to me at a London terminal, he refused. BTP bundled him out of the station and warned him he would be arrested if he returned. Whether he had a ticket or not was neither here nor there (and nobody checked!).

Actually, you do, since filming staff is legal.

Can you cite it?

As above you are required to obey instructions of staff and can be instructed to leave the railway if your behaviour is considered unacceptable.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes, it is correct.

You’re confusing criminal and contract law. You can be asked to leave the railway, even if you have a valid ticket. All that needs to happen is for you to be asked to leave and refuse and the criminal offence of railway trespass is then complete. The contractual position ie whether you have a ticket or not makes no difference (albeit you could potentially sue the railway for breach of contract having been denied travel, depending on the circumstances).

I’ve seen it happen: I asked someone to leave after he was abusive to me at a London terminal, he refused. BTP bundled him out of the station and warned him he would be arrested if he returned. Whether he had a ticket or not was neither here nor there (and nobody checked!).



Can you cite it?

As above you are required to obey instructions of staff and can be instructed to leave the railway if your behaviour is considered unacceptable.

I would argue as long as your complying with the national rail conditions of travel and the relevant bylaws /Health and safety rules that creates a contractual obligation for the railway to make all reasonable endeavours to carry you. Asking you to leave because they don't personally like what you are doing or who you are is a breach of contract and a potential breach of the law.

 

[Watershed]

Railway property isn't and never has been a public space.

It most certainly is! Lots of places are public areas, even if privately owned. In fact, the very concept of "privately owned" is arbitrary and nebulous. 10 Downing Street is publicly owned - but that doesn't mean you can simply walk in!

Either way, what's relevant here is that filming is allowed in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Other than the toilets, that applies to just about all of a train's interior, and so filming is legal on the railway.

What evidence do you have of this, especially if you are saying it is the 'majority' of TOCs. GDPR breaches are very serious. If you have evidence. You should report it.



Easy to report.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach.

(Link is to the ICO for GDPR breaches)

The ICO is a chocolate teapot (much like the ORR), partly because they are hugely under-resourced for the task they have. They generally don't investigate breaches unless they are extremely serious or lots of people report them.

 

[43066]

I would argue as long as your complying with the national rail conditions of travel and the relevant bylaws /Health and safety rules that creates a contractual obligation for the railway to make all reasonable endeavours to carry you. Asking you to leave because they don't personally like what you are doing or who you are is a breach of contract and a potential breach of the law.

It might be a breach of contract but it isn’t a “breach of the law” for someone to be asked to leave the railway and denied travel because they’re acting in a way that is distracting/unsafe. Ultimately the staff member can always fall back on saying they feel intimidated by the person and they will be backed by management. Obviously if someone was regularly denying travel to people they simply didn’t like that would be a completely different matter, and they’d fairly rapidly find themselves out of a job!

I agree it’s highly likely that most of these cases will overlap with a bylaw breach of some sort.

 

[matt_world2004]

It might be a breach of contract but it isn’t a “breach of the law” for someone to be asked to leave the railway and denied travel because they’re acting in a way that is distracting/unsafe. Ultimately the staff member can always fall back on saying they feel intimidated by the person and they will be backed by management. Obviously if someone was regularly denying travel to people they simply didn’t like that would be a different matter!

I agree it’s highly likely that most of these cases will overlap with a bylaw breach of some sort

Filming in itself is not distracting or unsafe . . Its the way you go about it.

Likewise standing up or sitting down is not illegal or unsafe but if I chose to sit down on a platform with my legs hanging over the side that would be unsafe and illegal.

Denying someone travel because of a protected characteristic is against the law.

Feeling intimidated needs to be reasonable as well. For example If a railway staff member was feeling intimidated by all people wearing white trainers or shorts in the winter that would not be reasonable.

 

[43066]

Filming in itself is not distracting or unsafe . . Its the way you go about it.

That’s true, but it might be if you’re (say) standing too close to a RA indicator or shining a spotlight into the driver’s cab! Or if you’re filming a staff member at close quarters when they’re trying to go about their work.

I think we’re possibly violently agreeing here. The vast majority of private filming on the railway is undertaken by enthusiasts and is no issue at all.

 

[matt_world2004]

That’s true, but it might be if you’re (say) standing too close to a RA indicator or shining a spotlight into the driver’s cab!

I think we’re possibly violently agreeing here. The vast majority of private filming on the railway is undertaken by enthusiasts and is no issue at all.

Yes but it's not the filming itself that causing the problem it's the manner in which you are choosing to do it

Staff who have powers granted in law over the general public should expect to be filmed in the course of their duties it reinforces accountability and ensures that their powers are used appropriately

 

[43066]

It most certainly is! Lots of places are public areas, even if privately owned.

It’s private property to which the public has an implied permission to access (or express permission if they hold a ticket) and don’t act in a way that leads to that permission being revoked.

 

[bob007]

Railway property isn't and never has been a public space.

It usually isn't reasonable to whip out your phone.

If someone is going off on one, then I wouldn't object to you recording this. Provided that the recording is purely used as evidence for submission to the authorities (employer/BTP/elected representative etc.) rather than uploaded to social media for the 'likes'.

Such a situation is vanishingly rare though.

what is your authority with which you write? You don’t sound like you’re presenting opinion

 

[43066]

Staff who have powers granted in law over the general public should expect to be filmed in the course of their duties it reinforces accountability and ensures that their powers are used appropriately

Not if they find the filming distracting/intimidating, and it’s being done to deliberately provoke, as per the auditor scenario.

 

[matt_world2004]

---

Not if they find the filming distracting/intimidating, and it’s being done to deliberately provoke, as per the auditor scenario.

There is a bit of a difference between auditors and someone who is choosing to film an encounter with a revenue inspector because they believe they are wrong or behaving inappropriately

There is a big difference between approaching someone and then filming them and someone approaching you and then you filming them

Also with auditors the best solution is to just ignore them. Do not give them material for their channel . Do not drive their advertising revenue

 

[43066]

There is a bit of a difference between auditors and someone who is choosing to film an encounter with a revenue inspector because they believe they are wrong or behaving inappropriately

Yes, albeit it’s likely to inflame the situation, as noted above, so perhaps not always an advisable course of action.

Also with auditors the best solution is to just ignore them. Do not give them material for their channel . Do not drive their advertising revenue

Agreed.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes, albeit it’s likely to inflame the situation, as noted above, so perhaps not always an advisable course of action.

let's take another situation. If you were stopped and searched by the police. Do you think it would be inappropriate to film them conducting the stop and search? Incase it inflames them or provokes them. ? Or is it important for the process of accountability that these things are filmed to ensure the police are using their powers appropriately?

If you as an RPI or other bylaw enforcement role for the railway find being filmed intimidating you are in the wrong job as it is a vital to ensure there is accountability in the way you use the powers conferred in law over other people

 

[43066]

let's take another situation. If you were stopped and searched by the police. Do you think it would be inappropriate to film them conducting the stop and search? Incase it inflames them or provokes them. ? Or is it important for the process of accountability that these things are filmed to ensure the police are using their powers appropriately?

Accountability is important, but I think CCTV and indeed body cam cover this to a large extent. Especially on the railway where you’re surrounded by witnesses.

There has to be an element of trust: ultimately the police have the power to arrest/detain/cease your mobile as evidence so it’s unlikely it will help you much in practice.

If you as an RPI or other bylaw enforcement role for the railway find being filmed intimidating you are in the wrong job as it is a vital to ensure there is accountability in the way you use the powers conferred in law over other people

I disagree. People were doing these roles long before camera phones existed.

 

[matt_world2004]

Accountability is important, but I think CCTV and indeed body cam cover this to a large extent. Especially on the railway where you’re surrounded by witnesses.

There has to be an element of trust: ultimately the police have the power to arrest/detain/cease your mobile as evidence so it’s unlikely it will help you much in practice.



I disagree. People were doing these roles long before camera phones existed.

And technology , its portability and minutrisation can improve accountability

Police were catching criminals before DNA could be taken from a crime scene and linked to a criminal. It just means that technology has improved criminal detection

I am still waiting for the bodycam footage from the metropolitan police of them stopping and searching me 14 months after making a subject access request for it.

If the police cease your phone with little to no evidential value to try and cover up wrongdoing that's a misuse of police power

 

[43066]

I am still waiting for the bodycam footage from the metropolitan police of them stopping and searching me 14 months after making a subject access request for it.

Not an expert on this at all, but did you make an official complaint re. the search?

If the police cease your phone with little to no evidential value to try and cover up wrongdoing that's a misuse of police power

Yes I know, but that’s why there has to be an element of trust. Clearly there isn’t much in the police at the moment for various reasons, which is very worrying.

 

[matt_world2004]

Not an expert on this at all, but did you make an official complaint re. the search?

Yes and so did my employer as I was on duty at the time I have phoned 101 20 times and 999 a few times to make a more serious complaint also filled out the mets subject access request form. Each time they have claimed the met has lost the complaint

Here is an example of people with policing like powers misusing their powers on the railway in a manner that is illegal https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-man-told-he-drunk-26568551

 

[43066]

Yes and so did my employer as I was on duty at the time I have phoned 101 20 times and 999 a few times to make a more serious complaint also filled out the mets subject access request form. Each time they have claimed the met has lost the complaint

Were you working on a station at the time (appreciate you might not wish to disclose)?

That is very poor form from the met, especially at the moment.

 

[matt_world2004]

Were you working on a station at the time (appreciate you might not wish to disclose)?

That is very poor form from the met, especially at the moment.

It happened in march 2022 working at a bus stop some Americans accused me of stealing their phone. Americans found their phone while the police were searching me. Police continued searching me while being aware of the Americans misplacing their phone. I asked for the police to arrest the two Americans for assault because they grabbed the back of my neck police refused.

Police went through my wallet looking for their phone and declined to phone my employer to tell them why I had done no work for an hour and half.

Also took identification despite me declining to be identified during the stop and

Suspended from work for 90 days..during which I went around various police stations in London trying to get a copy of their stop and search form to prove I had done nothing wrong . Eventually got a police station to issue it in elephant and Castle none of the police stations would issue it near where the incident happened

Still waiting for the bodycam footage

 

[AlterEgo]

I haven't tied myself in any knot. You're free to record if you feel like it and also free not to. Find the knots.

What a tedious way to retreat from our discussion about whether or not I gave a worthwhile example of staff members behaving differently - and by the book - when being recorded by a passenger. I'll assume by your unwillingness to expound that you've no argument to make.

 

[43066]

It happened in march 2022 working at a bus stop some Americans accused me of stealing their phone. Americans found their phone while the police were searching me. Police continued searching me while being aware of the Americans misplacing their phone. I asked for the police to arrest the two Americans for assault because they grabbed the back of my neck police refused.

Police went through my wallet looking for their phone and declined to phone my employer to tell them why I had done no work for an hour and half.

Also took identification despite me declining to be identified during the stop and

Suspended from work for 90 days..during which I went around various police stations in London trying to get a copy of their stop and search form to prove I had done nothing wrong . Eventually got a police station to issue it in elephant and Castle none of the police stations would issue it near where the incident happened

Still waiting for the bodycam footage

Sorry to hear that. That kind of thing in nutshell is why the police are having issues.

I hope the Americans were very apologetic!

Here is an example of people with policing like powers misusing their powers on the railway in a manner that is illegal https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/disabled-man-told-he-drunk-26568551

Also appalling. TOCs really should be giving better training on how to recognise disabilities.