Incident at Banbury

Flamingo · 17 Sep 2014

swj99 said:
I asked this question on a previous topic in which the subject of detraining was discussed, but no-one came up with any cases.

If you want to know that badly, do a FoI request to BTP. Do let us know the result...

RailUK Forums

455driver · 17 Sep 2014

alastair said:
As a matter of interest,are you aware of any known cases where a passenger has abandoned a stranded train and then been prosecuted by the BTP,and if so what happened to them?

The obvious answer is 'not enough'!

jon91 · 17 Sep 2014

So its ok for you to generalise me as an armchair railway expert, I can't seem to recall any incident where I've come close to purporting to know anything about how to run a railway.

What sort of middle ground can there be when someone is acting in an estranged manner on a station, considering how litigious this country is now?

meridian2 · 17 Sep 2014

Phil H said:
Are the people on this thread for real. Mental illness is still quite taboo in this country. When you have depression, you can do things that are quite irrational and often you don't realise you have it until the symptoms are quite advanced. Some people may want to quietly commit suicide, but something like this is clearly a plea for help.
So you've had inconvenience and missed the trains you wanted to see or whatever you were travelling to. Were any of those things ore important than someone's life.
The need to collect train numbers could be classed as OCD which is a type of mental illness....
So long as the train operator is doing all it reasonably can and updating you in a timely manner, then what more can be done.

It's like the train hitting cars / people threads where there is always some twonk saying things like why in the newspaper photo isn't the policeman wearing an orange high viz instead of his yellow, yet someone has died or whatever.

The trouble is, in any of those cases you've mentioned above, mental illness isn't the issue, since the person was clearly compos mentis and complicit in their actions. The issue is that they've suddenly taken something which is very personal and turned into something very public, as demonstrated by this person's decision to scale the signal gantry and then jump down. If we start saying that mental illness somehow gives them carte blanche to commit such disruptive behavour in public, we're essentially no longer classing them as being mentally ill, as clearly they see what they're doing as acceptable. That is illogical.
People who are depressed have options, and when I used to suffer from depression it was very hard to think straight about what options I had available, so I asked for help. This person may not have asked for help, we don't know that. They may already be receiving psychiatric care, we don't know that. They may have asked but their local government can't oblige, we don't know that. There are so many possibilities to explain something so irrational, but the point is it becomes immaterial when they choose to make their personal problems public. That's not an 'armchair criticism', that's basic common sense.

midlandred · 17 Sep 2014

Isn't claustrophobia a state of mental illness? Hence my previous post about any passenger suffering from this needing, not to detrain but, an open door to aid stabilisation of their condition, to the benefit, not only of themselves but, of all fellow passengers, and staff
I note there has been no response to me previous post!

Cherry_Picker · 17 Sep 2014

Well, if anybody was wondering the ladder which led up to the gantry on signal BN4 now has a metal plate covering it.

sutty · 17 Sep 2014

Jonny said:
I can think of a few - some ECHR-based, some not.

Necessity - being held on a train is tantamount to kidnapping? OK this one could be counteracted but poor communication could count in the defence's favour.

Serious adverse conditions on board the train - article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of torture), especially for susceptible individuals and/or if conditions have deteriorated to the point of being a public nuisance (English Common Law).

Also, there might be a case for at least opening the doors on a hot day with the train standing still with no air conditioning or an air-con failure, when it reaches the point of being a threat to health and life, or a point at which a reasonable person would perceive such a risk. It would be harder to argue regarding non-station disembarkment though.

Similar issues could also apply if extremes of cold represented a risk of hypothermia and civilisation was nearby. This would be couched in Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the ECHR, with the other option being necessity and/or self defence (depending on the perceived level of threat to life and health).

In other words, it is actually a defensible situation. Personally though I would rather not be the test case.

Jesus - is there anything that people won't bend human rights laws to fit their situation? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

Edit: by the way. This isn't an attack on you, just a shocked response that a bunch of laws put in place to protect people can be potentially abused like that.

455driver · 17 Sep 2014

jon91 said:
So its ok for you to generalise me as an armchair railway expert, I can't seem to recall any incident where I've come close to purporting to know anything about how to run a railway.

Where have I said you are?
If it is the post I think it is then you will note that I was actually agreeing with you about armchair experts (on every subject) and nowhere that I can see am I calling you one of them!

jon91 said:
What sort of middle ground can there be when someone is acting in an estranged manner on a station, considering how litigious this country is now?

At Banbury there are obviously issues with this chap so there wasnt any 'middle ground' to take as I have posted on this very thread several times, but dont let that get in the way of a moan or dig at me will you! :roll:

Llanigraham · 17 Sep 2014

midlandred said:
Isn't claustrophobia a state of mental illness? Hence my previous post about any passenger suffering from this needing, not to detrain but, an open door to aid stabilisation of their condition, to the benefit, not only of themselves but, of all fellow passengers, and staff
I note there has been no response to me previous post!

No it is not an mental illness, it is a psychological condition.
There is a great deal of difference.

GB · 17 Sep 2014

I'm not quite sure its that easy to state that "there is a great deal of difference" between mental illness and a psychological condition. Its going to depend on the condition and illness isn't it?

Schizophrenia is obviously and mental illness but I don't think it would be out of place also calling it a psychological condition.

But then I am not a doctor or mental health professional.

jon91 · 17 Sep 2014

455driver said:
Where have I said you are?
If it is the post I think it is then you will note that I was actually agreeing with you about armchair experts (on every subject) and nowhere that I can see am I calling you one of them!

At Banbury there are obviously issues with this chap so there wasnt any 'middle ground' to take as I have posted on this very thread several times, but dont let that get in the way of a moan or dig at me will you! :roll:

Ah oh, I must have read your comments in the wrong context. Apologies for the rant. :oops:

455driver · 17 Sep 2014

jon91 said:
Ah oh, I must have read your comments in the wrong context. Apologies for the rant.

One of the joys of the written word (losing its context) over the spoken word!

Apology accepted, hugs all round! :lol:

swj99 · 17 Sep 2014

Flamingo said:
If you want to know that badly, do a FoI request to BTP. Do let us know the result...

People occasionally claim to know the legal position on a particular matter, but when asked to provide references to legal cases to back up their assertions, they often don't respond.

In a previous thread, someone said they thought passengers who got off trains other than at a station should be prosecuted. I said I doubted that a person would be convicted of trespassing on the railway simply because they had got off a broken down train, and that I hadn't heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. I then said as a general point that I would be interested to hear if anyone knew of any cases where someone was in fact prosecuted and / or convicted.

Tio Terry · 17 Sep 2014

Cherry_Picker said:
Well, if anybody was wondering the ladder which led up to the gantry on signal BN4 now has a metal plate covering it.

Glad to hear it.

I suggested back on Monday that all signals at or close to platforms should be fitted with ladder guards as a standard policy, fits in with the policy on dissuading suicides and trespass. I hope all new schemes - like Oxford Corridor - adopt this as standard procedure. It's not terribly costly when compared to the cost of the disruption to the train services.

Flamingo · 17 Sep 2014

swj99 said:
People occasionally claim to know the legal position on a particular matter, but when asked to provide references to legal cases to back up their assertions, they often don't respond.

In a previous thread, someone said they thought passengers who got off trains other than at a station should be prosecuted. I said I doubted that a person would be convicted of trespassing on the railway simply because they had got off a broken down train, and that I hadn't heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. I then said as a general point that I would be interested to hear if anyone knew of any cases where someone was in fact prosecuted and / or convicted.

I know of a few cases where BTP have arrested people who have done just that. I don't know what the final disposal was.

Metrailway · 17 Sep 2014

swj99 said:
People occasionally claim to know the legal position on a particular matter, but when asked to provide references to legal cases to back up their assertions, they often don't respond.

In a previous thread, someone said they thought passengers who got off trains other than at a station should be prosecuted. I said I doubted that a person would be convicted of trespassing on the railway simply because they had got off a broken down train, and that I hadn't heard of anyone being prosecuted for it. I then said as a general point that I would be interested to hear if anyone knew of any cases where someone was in fact prosecuted and / or convicted.

This won't answer your particular question but there certainly has been successful prosecution against people who intend to commit suicide under trespassing laws. There was at least one successful prosecution this year: http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/south_essex_news/11255386.Man_in_rail_death_leap_bid_is_charged_with_trespass/

EM2 · 17 Sep 2014

swj99 said:
People occasionally claim to know the legal position on a particular matter, but when asked to provide references to legal cases to back up their assertions, they often don't respond.

The legal position on forcibly exiting a train without permission, or under direction, of staff is that it is an offence of trespass.
Whether anyone has been convicted of that does not stop it being true.

Cherry_Picker · 17 Sep 2014

Tio Terry said:
Glad to hear it.

I suggested back on Monday that all signals at or close to platforms should be fitted with ladder guards as a standard policy, fits in with the policy on dissuading suicides and trespass. I hope all new schemes - like Oxford Corridor - adopt this as standard procedure. It's not terribly costly when compared to the cost of the disruption to the train services.

They are on newly erected signals as a matter of course, I think that one wasn't fitted with a plate simply because it has been on the platform for longer than any of us have been alive without any problems. It is due to be replaced next year too, so I guess Network Rail were going to leave it untouched until then before Monday happened.

Trog · 17 Sep 2014

EM2 said:
The legal position on forcibly exiting a train without permission, or under direction, of staff is that it is an offence of trespass.
Whether anyone has been convicted of that does not stop it being true.

Keeping people locked up against their will indefinitely is also illegal, so there is going to be a point where the peoples right to freedom trumps the railways right to hold them for safety and trespass reasons. The question is at what point do the two lines of right cross. How long can you keep people in the train combined with how little must you do to rescue them before the law decides your actions in holding them have become unreasonable, and keeping people safe becomes false imprisonment.

EM2 · 17 Sep 2014

Well, a gentleman took legal action against Eurostar after being 'falsely imprisoned' (his words) for five hours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rapped-in-Channel-Tunnel-to-sue-Eurostar.html

Willy Risi was one of around 100,000 train passengers caught up in Eurostar's black weekend when five trains broke down in the Channel tunnel during two days of disruption to the service.

Now Mr Risi, a Frenchman, has launched legal action against Eurostar.

"We had no water, no food and the doors were closed. It was impossible to leave the train. Five hours without any information and without any member of Eurostar staff to give us information. That's called false imprisonment, pure and simple," said Mr Risi.

"I have consulted with my lawyer and we are putting the relevant documents together to put before the court."

Yet I can find no record of his being successful...

Trog · 17 Sep 2014

It is going to be a matter of time hours is probably OK, unless for example the front doors of the train are on a platform, and there is no reason not to allow people to filter down the train and out of that door. Days would almost certainly not be OK. Somewhere between regulated by the amount of danger, effort required to rescue and rescue effort made is going to be the point where one situation changes into the other, and the guard finds that he has changed in the eyes of the law from protector to gaoler.

swj99 · 18 Sep 2014

EM2 said:
The legal position on forcibly exiting a train without permission, or under direction, of staff is that it is an offence of trespass.
Whether anyone has been convicted of that does not stop it being true.

The legal position is that it is an offence only if a person is prosecuted and either found guilty in court, or pleads guilty. Anything else is just theoretical.

Clip · 18 Sep 2014

Trog said:
Keeping people locked up against their will indefinitely is also illegal, .

4 hours is not indefinitely though is it?

bb21 · 18 Sep 2014

swj99 said:
The legal position is that it is an offence only if a person is prosecuted and either found guilty in court, or pleads guilty. Anything else is just theoretical.

You two are talking about two very different things. Both correct but subtlely different.

PermitToTravel · 18 Sep 2014

Clip said:
4 hours is not indefinitely though is it?

I don't think you know what indefinitely means.

Flamingo · 19 Sep 2014

I wonder why all those who posted on this thread about their intention to set off cross-country if delayed were not on this train?

After all, the only difference is that it was dark and a bit wet...
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1918000#post1918000

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29273833

jon91 · 19 Sep 2014

Flamingo said:
I wonder why all those who posted on this thread about their intention to set off cross-country if delayed were not on this train?

After all, the only difference is that it was dark and a bit wet...
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1918000#post1918000

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29273833

I hope they know how to swim! :lol:

Incident at Banbury

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Member