Is there enough safeguarding/vetting checks being carried out in the rail industry?

[PLY2AYS]

To be honest perhaps most jobs should require enhanced DBS?

This is something I wholeheartedly support… but as the Lucy Letby’s of the world illustrate; it isn’t infallible… and no-one is going around saying the healthcare service or the nursing profession has similar issues…

I don’t think it’s fair to start casting aspersions on rail staff as a whole, as others on this thread have done.

 

[Horizon22]

To be honest perhaps most jobs should require enhanced DBS?

This is something I wholeheartedly support… but as the Lucy Letby’s of the world illustrate; it isn’t infallible… and no-one is going around saying the healthcare service or the nursing profession has similar issues…

I don’t think it’s fair to start casting aspersions on rail staff as a whole, as others on this thread have done.

If most jobs would "require enhanced DBS", then that somewhat negates the impact of having an enhanced DBS in the first place.

There are some real leaps in this thread based on one incident in the news. Of course one is still too many, but when you consider how many thousands of rail staff there are and compared the ratio to any other industry, I am certain it would not be statistically significant.

 

[LowLevel]

I’ve only been aware of that for Santa train staff.

HIT entertainment went through a period of having it a condition of operating Thomas and Friends, I remember doing mine years ago before they gave it up as a dead loss.

 

[Pete_uk]

There's a first time for everything

 

[Bevan Price]

What do you mean IF, he has been found guilty and sentenced to a spell in jail.

No comment on this particular case, but being found guilty and sentenced to a spell in jail does not always mean you are guilty - as rather too many subpostmasters found out.

 

[Ghostbus]

This is one of the most bizarre threads/posts I have read posted on these boards.

Your forced false equivocation between the Rail industry and the Met police, based on zero evidence, is extremely disconcerting.

What's extremely disconcerting is seeing the belief that institutions with a power dynamic, particularly over vulnerable women and children, being innocent until proven guilty, is alive and well for some. Institutions are not people for the purposes of assessing risk and preventing harm.

We only have one incident, sure. So it's doubly disconcerting that all the things about that incident that don't even remotely fit the nice neat one bad apple random tragic unavoidable incident everyone move on explanation, have been seemingly overlooked in the haste to apparently defend the honour of the railway.

The man is 38. I'd be amazed if that's anywhere close to the average age of a first time offender, especially for a crime like rape.

The man was so consumed by his "sexual hunger", to quote the judge, he neither knew or cared that he was under the watchful eye of CCTV. On his own train. A rare case of a rape being almost certain of a conviction. That's not a man smart enough to hide his true nature for very long.

The man offered no defence at trial that suggested this was an aberration. A temporary break from reality or incident prompted by extremely stress. He did what rapists do. Blamed the victim and lied. And kept lying. No remorse. No accountability.

We know an awful lot about rape and rapists these days. Many things we used to say have been debunked as lazy and indeed entirely harmful myths. In large part due to scandals like the Met and the wider conversations it has triggered. Institutions don't magically adapt to such things. It takes effort.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Quite a few of the responses are of the 'something must be done, even if it achieves nothing' type.

There is no reason to assume that the disgusting actions reported here are anything other than very rare - if this sort of thing happened regularly there would definitely be reports of it. And as regards the obsession with DBS checks - the news reports note that this bloke was involved in coaching young people in football. That sort of thing definitely WOULD require an enhanced DBS check, and anything of a sexual nature would almost certainly be a disqualification from being accepted - so it can reasonably be assumed that he did not have a previous record of any inappropriate or unacceptable sexual behaviour.

It would be disproportionate to carry out highly intrusive checks on all staff because of one bad apple, especially as even if the checks which some here are clamouring for had been carried out, they are unlikely to have shown anything. How many other cases have you heard of involving on-duty railway staff carrying out sexual assaults? I've never heard of any prior to this.

And in response to the post above, the conviction wasn't for rape - it was sexual assault and assault by penetration. He'd probably have got a longer sentence if charged and convicted of rape.

This isn't 'defending the honour of the railway' - I don't work on the railway and have no interest in defending it, but I really don't see what the railway could reasonably have done to prevent the vile actions of this warped individual. Making everyone suspicious of everyone else is extremely corrosive to any society, and frequently won't stop those determined to carry out bad acts anyway.

 

[Krokodil]

Given that taxi drivers are essentially in a private car in charge of people who may well be vulnerable (even if it's purely self-inflicted through intoxication), I'd say they probably should be too.

They are almost always alone with their passengers and may not have CCTV so have significantly more opportunity to offend than any railway guard. John Worboys was a particularly prolific offender, and in many provincial towns minicabs were heavily implicated in grooming gangs - and their reputation was well known locally. But DBS checks are useless if someone hasn't previously been caught.

HIT entertainment went through a period of having it a condition of operating Thomas and Friends, I remember doing mine years ago before they gave it up as a dead loss.

It was still a "CRB check" back when I used to be involved in these events. Not sure whether "enhanced" was a thing in those days. It would have caught the Mid Hants fireman who touched a girl as he had a prior record. It wouldn't however have caught the Fat Controller (and Santa) who was later found to have been abusing his grandson.

 

[Gostav]

The man was so consumed by his "sexual hunger", to quote the judge, he neither knew or cared that he was under the watchful eye of CCTV. On his own train. A rare case of a rape being almost certain of a conviction. That's not a man smart enough to hide his true nature for very long.

I remember similar incidents in Japan that led to a huge public outrage, that was during the economic crisis and accompanied with a series of vicious cases. This forced the government to do some preliminary research, which concluded that there were over a million "high-risk people" in the country - mostly single men, and that any effective prevention measures would have to cost a huge amount of funding and social resources. I think this was in the 1990s, and Japan's population was 126 million at the time.

Quite a few of the responses are of the 'something must be done, even if it achieves nothing' type.

No doubt, just say true, they may silent after seeing the possible huge bill.

For example, an absolutely safe check may be multi-faceted, such as a comprehensive assessment - whether you are single, whether you have sex, your online records, your life trajectory, etc. A person may have to pay a large sum of money for such a check and wait for many weeks to get the results, and the results may also be biased. In this case, I doubt whether many positions with average income can recruit people who meet the requirements.

 

[Horizon22]

What's extremely disconcerting is seeing the belief that institutions with a power dynamic, particularly over vulnerable women and children, being innocent until proven guilty, is alive and well for some. Institutions are not people for the purposes of assessing risk and preventing harm.

We only have one incident, sure. So it's doubly disconcerting that all the things about that incident that don't even remotely fit the nice neat one bad apple random tragic unavoidable incident everyone move on explanation, have been seemingly overlooked in the haste to apparently defend the honour of the railway.

Sorry but this simple doesn't make any sense. You don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

You then seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy because in your eyes it doesn't fit the "one bad apple", but what evidence do you have to the contrary? What endemic reason is being "overlooked" so that posters can "defend the railway"?

The thread started off with this question:

...or is it like the Met Police and there is a underlying problem which isn't being sufficiently being addressed?

There's literally no evidence to this and I am sure you could find evidence in similarly sized industries of people convicted of similar crimes. I would suggest the onus is on those who suggest that the railway industry has an underlying problem with safeguarding to provide some sort of evidence or at the very least examples that may suggest it. Other it's just tarring perfectly decent people with a brush for one person's warped actions. And I would say the same for the retail or the airline industries (as examples) too.

 

[styles]

It was still a "CRB check" back when I used to be involved in these events. Not sure whether "enhanced" was a thing in those days. It would have caught the Mid Hants fireman who touched a girl as he had a prior record. It wouldn't however have caught the Fat Controller (and Santa) who was later found to have been abusing his grandson.

CRB came in basic/standard/enhanced also, albeit with some slight differences. The barring list check was conducted by a separate body though, ISA, independent safeguarding authority (iirc?). DBS was mainly about the merger of these two.

I've got copies of all my CRBs, DBS', and Disclosure Scotland disclosures and they really haven't changed much. I once worked in a role where I had to process Disclosure Scotland checks and decide what to do if anything came back. I see their value more in cases where someone has e.g. a past conviction for theft, as we can potentially have them in our organisation, but we might say they're not to be given any financial responsibilities for example; or someone with a past history of being banned from driving we might say ok come aboard but you're not to drive anybody as part of your role. I assume that there is some value in the more serious offences like sexual offences effectively just putting people off applying to begin with. I've yet to receive an application from somebody with a sexual offence allegation, let alone conviction, but it makes you wonder if they would apply if they didn't have to do a disclosure check.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Sorry but this simple doesn't make any sense. You don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

You then seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy because in your eyes it doesn't fit the "one bad apple", but what evidence do you have to the contrary? What endemic reason is being "overlooked" so that posters can "defend the railway"?

Agreed.

Comments like this taint and undermine public perception an industry, as well as impling some form of personal crusade, as opposed to offering any solid evidence of sinister conspirators, let alone it being a regular occurrence.

Additionally, you can’t arrest people for crimes they haven’t committed yet… pretty sure there was a film about this; Minority report maybe? Although I’m not sure that’s particularly railway related.

 

[WAB]

I remember similar incidents in Japan that led to a huge public outrage, that was during the economic crisis and accompanied with a series of vicious cases. This forced the government to do some preliminary research, which concluded that there were over a million "high-risk people" in the country - mostly single men, and that any effective prevention measures would have to cost a huge amount of funding and social resources. I think this was in the 1990s, and Japan's population was 126 million at the time.

Artificial intelligence could further fuel an epidemic of child sexual abuse, Britain’s top law enforcement agency has warned, as it said that one in every 50 men pose a risk to children.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) estimates that up to 830,000 adults – 1.6% of the adult population – represent some degree of sexual danger to children, a figure labelled “extraordinary” by its director general, Graeme Biggar.

AI could worsen epidemic of child sexual abuse, warns UK crime agency

NCA estimates one in 50 men poses risk to children as AI threatens to exacerbate radicalising effect of internet

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ghostbus]

Sorry but this simple doesn't make any sense. You don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

I don't know what you're talking about either. I'm discussing being proactive rather than reactive, when it comes to assessing the risk an organisation might be posing to individuals in light of even a single disturbing incident that's hard to rationalise as an isolated occurrence.

The nature of the risk might be different, the risk of life changing sexual assault, not life changing loss of limbs or brain function, but the principle certainly isn't.

You then seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy because in your eyes it doesn't fit the "one bad apple", but what evidence do you have to the contrary? What endemic reason is being "overlooked" so that posters can "defend the railway"?

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself here too. No conspiracy is being alleged.

The evidence it doesn't easily fit a one bad apple couldn't have been predicted or prevented random one time incident attempted explanation is in the very details of the incident (and trial) that were given upthread.

You may well believe the onus still lies on those with concerns to wait and be reactive, not the organisation itself to be proactive. But that's a pretty outdated view that seems to fly in the face of recent events and the infamous lessons learned. If that at all matters to the railway as a soon to be public body like the police and post office. Perhaps they really do think they're different somehow. I did ask for clarification upthread, and got nowhere.

Lessons like not having to even endlessly debate the fact that people can work for years in an organisation and genuinely, with or without willful ignorance of events elsewhere or the general themes, be entirely unaware of issues occuring so close under their nose as to be incomprehensible to outsiders to even understand how they didn't know. But it happens, been proven to happen, analysed, explained, even challenged, before finally being accepted as a factor, so you better have a plan for it.

A realistic achievable plan. Not Minority Report Pre-Crime Division. Not mass suspicion. Not a witch hunt. Not 100% safety. I'm pretty sure that was all already established on my part, but if not, I'm always happy to clarify.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I don't know what you're talking about either. I'm discussing being proactive rather than reactive, when it comes to assessing the risk an organisation might be posing to individuals in light of even a single disturbing incident that's hard to rationalise as an isolated occurrence.

How is it hard to rationalise as an isolated occurrence? One person did a bad thing. To suggest that it is not an isolated occurrence would be to suggest that guards (and other railway employees) are committing sexual assaults on a relatively regular basis? Is this the allegation you are making?

Lessons like not having to even endlessly debate the fact that people can work for years in an organisation and genuinely, with or without willful ignorance of events elsewhere or the general themes, be entirely unaware of issues occuring so close under their nose as to be incomprehensible to outsiders to even understand how they didn't know. But it happens, been proven to happen, analysed, explained, even challenged, before finally being accepted as a factor, so you better have a plan for it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. "How did they miss the signs that he was going to go out and stab all those people"? "How did they miss the signs about the doctor carrying out unnecessary procedures"? "How did they miss the signs about the airline pilot deliberately crashing the plane full of people"? "How did they miss the 70s/80s TV/radio personality"....

Please do share your copy of "How to tell which one of my colleagues, who I see for perhaps 10/15 minutes per week, is planning to go out and sexually assault someone whilst at work"

A realistic achievable plan. Not Minority Report Pre-Crime Division. Not mass suspicion. Not a witch hunt. Not 100% safety. I'm pretty sure that was all already established on my part, but if not, I'm always happy to clarify.

What is your "reasonably achievable plan"? You've already demonstrated "mass suspicion" by suggesting that the actions of one man mean that the industry must have a deep rooted problem re: employees carrying out sexual assaults.

 

[Iskra]

Quite a few of the responses are of the 'something must be done, even if it achieves nothing' type.

There is no reason to assume that the disgusting actions reported here are anything other than very rare - if this sort of thing happened regularly there would definitely be reports of it. And as regards the obsession with DBS checks - the news reports note that this bloke was involved in coaching young people in football. That sort of thing definitely WOULD require an enhanced DBS check, and anything of a sexual nature would almost certainly be a disqualification from being accepted - so it can reasonably be assumed that he did not have a previous record of any inappropriate or unacceptable sexual behaviour.

It would be disproportionate to carry out highly intrusive checks on all staff because of one bad apple, especially as even if the checks which some here are clamouring for had been carried out, they are unlikely to have shown anything. How many other cases have you heard of involving on-duty railway staff carrying out sexual assaults? I've never heard of any prior to this.

And in response to the post above, the conviction wasn't for rape - it was sexual assault and assault by penetration. He'd probably have got a longer sentence if charged and convicted of rape.

This isn't 'defending the honour of the railway' - I don't work on the railway and have no interest in defending it, but I really don't see what the railway could reasonably have done to prevent the vile actions of this warped individual. Making everyone suspicious of everyone else is extremely corrosive to any society, and frequently won't stop those determined to carry out bad acts anyway.

There was a famous serial example in Berlin during World War 2 who used black out conditions and the Nazi’s own racism as cover for their crimes on the railway.

Other than that, I’ve never heard of it. I fully agree that we don’t need a knee-jerk reaction to an incredibly isolated incident.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was still a "CRB check" back when I used to be involved in these events. Not sure whether "enhanced" was a thing in those days. It would have caught the Mid Hants fireman who touched a girl as he had a prior record. It wouldn't however have caught the Fat Controller (and Santa) who was later found to have been abusing his grandson.

As someone who is involved in Scouting, there have always been Standard and Enhanced checks, with the latter potentially revealing a lot more and even including the option for a "Chief Constable's letter" where they write directly to the organisation and let them know of police intelligence currently under investigation even where there has been no conviction (yet or at all). The latter is allegedly rare though. It's a matter for some debate as the intelligence might be wrong or misinformed, and if it hasn't been tested in Court there's effectively no means of challenging it, so it's not unknown for people to be rejected from Scouting roles because of something another organisation has said but that isn't actually true and was caused by a falling out (because Scouting is naturally quite paranoid when it comes to certain offences, though you don't have to be totally unblemished, there is a list of acceptable/unacceptable offences somewhere, and in some cases you might get a conditional acceptance e.g. with serious driving offences you might be allowed in on the condition you never transport young people in your car nor drive a minibus containing them).

The Basic check (just unspent convictions) that anyone can carry out on themselves (and is very commonly asked for by employers) came later.

 

[PLY2AYS]

How is it hard to rationalise as an isolated occurrence? One person did a bad thing. To suggest that it is not an isolated occurrence would be to suggest that guards (and other railway employees) are committing sexual assaults on a relatively regular basis? Is this the allegation you are making?

Agreed.

If anything it should be passengers who are enhanced DBS checked for assaults on railway staff.

Far more incidences of that occurring than the other way around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed.

If anything it should be passengers who are enhanced DBS checked for assaults on railway staff.

Far more incidences of that occurring than the other way around.

Certainly true. I think we can go too far down the rabbit hole of wanting to check everyone which does cause issues in terms of rehabilitation of offenders. One can understand why a sex offence should be a bar to roles involving unsupervised/overnight contact with children "just in case", but should a reformed sex offender be banned from ALL jobs? It doesn't seem fair that they aren't given the chance to reform with appropriate help once the offence is spent.

 

[superkopite]

What's extremely disconcerting is seeing the belief that institutions with a power dynamic, particularly over vulnerable women and children, being innocent until proven guilty, is alive and well for some. Institutions are not people for the purposes of assessing risk and preventing harm.

We only have one incident, sure. So it's doubly disconcerting that all the things about that incident that don't even remotely fit the nice neat one bad apple random tragic unavoidable incident everyone move on explanation, have been seemingly overlooked in the haste to apparently defend the honour of the railway.

The man is 38. I'd be amazed if that's anywhere close to the average age of a first time offender, especially for a crime like rape.

The man was so consumed by his "sexual hunger", to quote the judge, he neither knew or cared that he was under the watchful eye of CCTV. On his own train. A rare case of a rape being almost certain of a conviction. That's not a man smart enough to hide his true nature for very long.

The man offered no defence at trial that suggested this was an aberration. A temporary break from reality or incident prompted by extremely stress. He did what rapists do. Blamed the victim and lied. And kept lying. No remorse. No accountability.

We know an awful lot about rape and rapists these days. Many things we used to say have been debunked as lazy and indeed entirely harmful myths. In large part due to scandals like the Met and the wider conversations it has triggered. Institutions don't magically adapt to such things. It takes effort.

I am certain that you are just trolling now. These are not the thoughts of a serious person

 

[styles]

As someone who is involved in Scouting, there have always been Standard and Enhanced checks, with the latter potentially revealing a lot more and even including the option for a "Chief Constable's letter" where they write directly to the organisation and let them know of police intelligence currently under investigation even where there has been no conviction (yet or at all). The latter is allegedly rare though. It's a matter for some debate as the intelligence might be wrong or misinformed, and if it hasn't been tested in Court there's effectively no means of challenging it, so it's not unknown for people to be rejected from Scouting roles because of something another organisation has said but that isn't actually true and was caused by a falling out (because Scouting is naturally quite paranoid when it comes to certain offences, though you don't have to be totally unblemished, there is a list of acceptable/unacceptable offences somewhere, and in some cases you might get a conditional acceptance e.g. with serious driving offences you might be allowed in on the condition you never transport young people in your car nor drive a minibus containing them).

The Basic check (just unspent convictions) that anyone can carry out on themselves (and is very commonly asked for by employers) came later.

There's a fairly comprehensive framework for police forces to follow when determining whether to release local intel on Enhanced DBS' now. Not sure what guidance was in place under CRBs, but my understanding is the current framework is the result of a fair few cases of people taking issue with local intel coming back on their DBS when they don't believe it's relevant. Just one part of a detailed manual on it: https://assets.publishing.service.g...isclosure_Rationale_and_Method_March_2014.pdf

According to Unlock, in 2013/2014 (latest data unfortunately), out of 3,715,222 Enhanced DBS', 1,153,353 had some form of local intel hit, of which just 9,626 were approved for release on the DBS certificate. So that's 0.8% of applications with local intel hits actually have it disclosed, and 0.25% of applications overall.

Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced checks (approved information) - Unlock

Aim of this information Each Police Force maintains a local record of information, which can be used to disclose information […]

unlock.org.uk

In scouting, there is a 'RAG' system; the guidance is publicly available - see the last section of this page: https://www.scouts.org.uk/por/16-adult-roles/. Some stuff is an outright bar, some is a district commissioner lead volunteer decision, some requires a referral to HQ (except Scotland where the certificates go to HQ before the district lead volunteer so HQ do some of the filtering). I think the scouts guidance is pretty decent.

Course, keeping it on-topic - if this train guard didn't have anything on local police intel, then even an Enhanced DBS wouldn't have picked anything up. There's only so much you can do to background check people, particularly given personal data is more protected than ever in legislation.

 

[island]

I can see the argument that they should be; in that case, the same presumably ought to apply to bus drivers, taxi drivers and the likes, which would add a considerable burden to the disclosure bodies.

As it is, only bus drivers and taxi drivers who are specifically working with vulnerable groups who are eligible for disclosure.

Taxi/PHV drivers are eligible for an enhanced DBS with a check of both adults and children barred lists, the most stringent check there is. Regardless who they are specifically working with.

(source)

 

[styles]

Certainly true. I think we can go too far down the rabbit hole of wanting to check everyone which does cause issues in terms of rehabilitation of offenders. One can understand why a sex offence should be a bar to roles involving unsupervised/overnight contact with children "just in case", but should a reformed sex offender be banned from ALL jobs? It doesn't seem fair that they aren't given the chance to reform with appropriate help once the offence is spent.

Most sex offenders will have a "clean" DBS at some point as their conviction becomes spent. The exception are the most serious offences which are schedule 18 where the sentence was 4+ years custodial. I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, but I think the current system is reasonably fair. This driver won't be able to volunteer with scouts, and I think if we apply the 'Daily Mail test', if he were to volunteer with scouts and someone found his past, there would be uproar. But he will be able to work like 95% of jobs.

The bigger issue imo isn't the rules on what gets disclosed, it's society's response to ex-offenders, particularly for sexual offences, working or even living nearby.

For a particularly relevant example, Vale of Rheidol Railway employer a registered sex offender; they say they've got safeguards in place and he doesn't have contact with children, but this story didn't go down well: https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/convicted-paedophile-hired-at-vale-of-rheidol-railway-751378

A convicted paedophile and registered sex offender has been hired by the Vale of Rheidol railway who say he has no contact with children in his current role.

But despite the railway's claim, Cambrian News is aware that Simon Reeves, who was convicted in Scotland of sexually assaulting five children, has driven a toy train meant for kiddies and has been a guard and driver on the main narrow-gauge trains.

The Vale of Rheidol had heavily promoted its Polar Bear Express trains as family entertainment for the festive season.

Reeves who previously worked as a music teacher at primary schools in Scotland was convicted of sexually assaulting five girls.

In 2018 Reeves was convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl after admitting to engaging in sexual activity.

He was placed on the sex offenders register for two years and sentenced to 120 hours of unpaid work.

In 2019 he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting four other girls aged 10 at a school, and was sentenced to 300 hours of unpaid work and placed on the sex offenders register for another two years.

He was also placed on a two-year supervision order barring him from being alone with children.

Published reports say the railway was aware of his past when he was hired.

“We are aware of our employee’s previous history, which relates to a conviction that was spent prior to the start of their employment with us," the railway said.

“Their role at the railway has been assessed thoroughly to ensure it does not place them in situations that could be a cause for concern. Throughout their time with us, they have been a diligent and valued member of staff, adhering to all company policies and safeguarding measures. They are not involved in the Polar Express event. We remain committed to providing a safe and welcoming environment for all our visitors and staff."

A regular user of the railway said they were “horrified” and that the railway “should know better” than to have Reeves working around children, stating that they had seen Reeves driving a car park train ride with children on a one-to-one basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taxi/PHV drivers are eligible for an enhanced DBS with a check of both adults and children barred lists, the most stringent check there is. Regardless who they are specifically working with.

That'll be because people call taxis for others - putting a child/vulnerable adult in a taxi and not going with them is very common practice, and having a situation where some taxis are checked and some are not could be confusing.

 

[island]

That'll be because people call taxis for others - putting a child/vulnerable adult in a taxi and not going with them is very common practice, and having a situation where some taxis are checked and some are not could be confusing.

Agreed. I was simply correcting the incorrect assertion made in post 52.

 

[Tetchytyke]

highly intrusive checks

An Enhanced DBS is not a "highly intrusive check". I've had to have one in every job I've had for the last fifteen years. It's just a form- the only difference is the level of detail that comes back from Darlington.

If you want to see what a "highly intrusive check" looks like, you should see what getting government security clearance involves.

And in response to the post above, the conviction wasn't for rape - it was sexual assault and assault by penetration. He'd probably have got a longer sentence if charged and convicted of rape.

That's a legal technicality, nothing more.

For something to be rape, a penis has to be used to penetrate the victim's vagina or anus.

If something else is used to penetrate the victim it is "assault by penetration".

The two offences are, therefore, largely analogous in terms of sentencing. One is not more serious than the other.

How is it hard to rationalise as an isolated occurrence? One person did a bad thing. To suggest that it is not an isolated occurrence would be to suggest that guards (and other railway employees) are committing sexual assaults on a relatively regular basis? Is this the allegation you are making?

I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Of course nobody is saying that the railways are a hotbed of sexual abuse. But that's not really the point.

99.99% of teachers are not going to sexually abuse their pupils, but they still have to do an Enhanced DBS. And rightly so- they're in a position of trust and in a position of power. It's an important vetting tool.

And- it should be said- not just for sexual offences. Many government staff have to go through Enhanced DBS to make sure there are no skeletons in the closet such as fraud or dishonesty convictions.

Anyone who says that a train guard/OBS/RPI is not also in a position of trust and power is being disingenuous (or trying to make the case for more DOO!).

Maybe it's because I've had to go through the Enhanced DBS for fifteen years- since before it even was DBS- but I don't see the issue. I'm amazed that on-board staff such as guards and RPIs aren't already covered by the legislation.

Taxi/PHV drivers are eligible for an enhanced DBS with a check of both adults and children barred lists, the most stringent check there is. Regardless who they are specifically working with.

Thanks, I thought taxi drivers already had to, but I hadn't checked so deferred to the other poster.

Taxis are obviously a little bit different as they're secluded (by their very nature). But the same principles should apply to on-board railway staff for similar reasons. I'm quite frankly amazed they don't.

 

[Jim the Jim]

CCTV is very important here, the high level of CCTV coverage on trains is going to be an important deterrent. Even ignoring that, the number of opportunities to be alone in a carriage with a vulnerable person isn't going to be particularly high, though it is certainly non-zero.

On the other hand a moving train is a very difficult place to escape from. Even if you can stop the train and open the doors you're still going to be stuck on fenced-off tracks, potentially in the middle of nowhere. In this regard I think being assaulted on a train is really quite different from being assaulted in a shop.

Safety is obviously the key role for guards and it's not much good if they themselves are unsafe. This kind of incident appears to be extremely rare, but nevertheless enhanced DBS checks (which are not onerous) would I think be a reasonable minimum measure.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Where would the railway be if this woman's case couldn't benefit from presumably pretty damning CCTV evidence against an employee who did something that you can totally understand every other employee would react to being told of with incredulity that it would even happen even once, had they not got the ability to (via the court) realise that, as crazy as it sounds, he really did do that

And even after conviction, the BTP seemed to downplay the incident by referring to him “adjusting her dress” in their press release. He didn’t “adjust her dress”, he pinned her against a wall and forced his fingers into her vagina.

https://www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/in-the-courts/a-train-manager-who-preyed-on-a-young-woman-has-been-sentenced-to-__/

The court heard how on Saturday 22 June last year, at around 8.45pm, McMurray approached the victim in his capacity as train manager for Great Western Railway and asked to check her ticket.

As he passed her seat he then adjusted the dress she was wearing.

Shortly before the train arrived in Swansea while the victim was standing in the vestibule talking on her mobile phone McMurray approached her and sexually assaulted her.

He continued to hold the victim until the train pulled into the station and made sexually explicit comments to her before touching her again as she got off the train.

It is worth noting that touching someone’s bottom or breasts (without consent) through their clothing is sexual assault. So for the BTP to phrase it in this way in their press release really does downplay the serious and invasive assault that he actually committed.

They don’t even use the word serious once in the press release.

If the police AFTER CONVICTION still seek to downplay what he did, you can see why most victims of sexual abuse never go to the authorities. Not all trains have much in the way of CCTV and you’d assume a guard would be well aware of the blind spots.

People don’t just wake up one morning and decide to do that. They build up to it. I bet dollars to donuts that he had a reputation in his depot for being “handsy”, or a bit too interested in the young women passengers. And we are where we are, his victim has had her life ruined and- to be quite honest- so has he.

 

[Krokodil]

I bet dollars to donuts that he had a reputation in his depot for being “handsy”, or a bit too interested in the young women passengers.

Bearing in mind that TMs generally work alone how would anyone in the messroom know what he was like on a train?

 

[greatkingrat]

People don’t just wake up one morning and decide to do that. They build up to it. I bet dollars to donuts that he had a reputation in his depot for being “handsy”, or a bit too interested in the young women passengers. And we are where we are, his victim has had her life ruined and- to be quite honest- so has he.

Let's say his colleagues did think there was something a bit odd about him. What exactly do you expect the TOC to do about it? You can't sack someone just because you have a funny feeling about them.