Man who'd drunk six pints couldn't get the train home

Llanigraham · 27 Sep 2018

AlterEgo said:
Good luck trying to ban all drunks from the railway. If they're not causing a problem (and it seems this guy wasn't hence the police's refusal to arrest him), I don't see why they shouldn't be carried.

The whole point the guy was raising is that the rules aren't enforced consistently. There are tens of thousands of intoxicated or drunk people on trains every Friday night.

Err?
Doesn't the article state that they did arrest him and then de-arrested him later?

He was arrested on suspicion of breach of the peace but was later de-arrested and given words of advice by officers.

James was taken to St Annes Street police station and released shortly after.

You cannot insist on being arrested:

But, I had to insist on being arrested because I had to stand up for the people as it's not right if it's a lottery as to if you are able to get home.

And to be honest the article is full of inaccuracies; the company that is mentioned that he owns has been registered as a dormant company for some time.

RailUK Forums

70014IronDuke · 27 Sep 2018

Let's look at this from the opposite pov.

Let's suppose the man did have trouble picking up his ticket - and so appeared to be inebriated. The guard (or whoever it was prevented him from boarding) saw this, but feeling lax/sorry or whatever, let the guy onto the train anyway. At his destination - Inebriated man promptly falls on track/through the gap and is injured or worse.

There then is, naturally, an enquiry. And the guard will undoubtedly be asked for a full report. So guard says, in evidence; "Yes, he did drop his ticket," and when questioned further (as he would be) "he did have some trouble picking it up"

Well, we all know what the next question would be then, don't we?

I wouldn't fancy being the guard in that situation, and I don't think anyone in her would either.

yorksrob · 27 Sep 2018

70014IronDuke said:
Let's look at this from the opposite pov.

Let's suppose the man did have trouble picking up his ticket - and so appeared to be inebriated. The guard (or whoever it was prevented him from boarding) saw this, but feeling lax/sorry or whatever, let the guy onto the train anyway. At his destination - Inebriated man promptly falls on track/through the gap and is injured or worse.

There then is, naturally, an enquiry. And the guard will undoubtedly be asked for a full report. So guard says, in evidence; "Yes, he did drop his ticket," and when questioned further (as he would be) "he did have some trouble picking it up"

Well, we all know what the next question would be then, don't we?

I wouldn't fancy being the guard in that situation, and I don't think anyone in her would either.

In such a situation, how could any tribunal or court prove that a guard had been in a position to see the passenger and assess whether he was inebriated or not ?

70014IronDuke · 27 Sep 2018

yorksrob said:
In such a situation, how could any tribunal or court prove that a guard had been in a position to see the passenger and assess whether he's inebriated or not ?

People have to use their heads and judge. The guard may have been wrong. The guy may not have been legless, may have got home safely and not peed in the carriage en route. But the guard thought otherwise. It wasn't worth the risk. Sorry, drunk man, don't get so drunk next time.

yorksrob · 27 Sep 2018

70014IronDuke said:
People have to use their heads and judge. The guard may have been wrong. The guy may not have been legless, may have got home safely and not peed in the carriage en route. But the guard thought otherwise. It wasn't worth the risk. Sorry, drunk man, don't get so drunk next time.

You may hold that view. I'm just saying that I don't see from a technical point of view that a court or tribunal could prove that a guard had been in a position to check whether the man was inebriated.

As far as my limited knowledge goes, guards have an duty to check that passengers are clear of the train when it leaves. They have no such duty to check and assess whether each passenger that boards the train is inebriated or not.

Adlington · 27 Sep 2018

70014IronDuke said:
Let's suppose the man did have trouble picking up his ticket - and so appeared to be inebriated. The guard [...] saw this, but feeling lax/sorry or whatever, let the guy onto the train anyway. At his destination - Inebriated man promptly falls on track/through the gap and is injured or worse.

There then is, naturally, an enquiry. And the guard will undoubtedly be asked for a full report.

Why a guard @Liverpool be asked to give evidence in an enquiry concerning an accident @Chester?

And if the passenger falls under the bus walking home from the station in Chester? Is the guard still responsible?

70014IronDuke · 27 Sep 2018

yorksrob said:
You may hold that view. I'm just saying that I don't see from a technical point of view that a court or tribunal could prove that a guard had been in a position to check whether the man was inebriated.

OK, the tribunal may not be able to "prove" it - but I still wouldn't want to be the guard under questioning - most certainlyi not in a court of law, where the opposing counsel will do anything to make the defendent look bad. (Perhaps the RAIB tribunals are less adversorial, and so not quite the same pressure, I don't know.)

yorksrob said:
As far as my limited knowledge goes, guards have an duty to check that passengers are clear of the train when it leaves. They have no such duty to check and assess whether each passenger that boards the train is inebriated or not.

I would agree. But in this case, happenstance has created the opportunity for the guard to see that allowing the guy on the train is a potential safety threat (if only to himself). I'm sure there must be a legal word (or words - surely in Latin) to describe this kind of situation. This puts an extra onus on the guard.

Edders23 · 27 Sep 2018

nedchester said:
It’s the kebab that gave him away.

No one has a kebab unless they’ve had a skin full!

One of my drivers regularly has a kebab for his tea and he has to be stone cold sober to work !!

Mikey C · 27 Sep 2018

Strange story

As he was going to Chester, no doubt he would have got on the train, slept in a quiet corner and woke up at his destination slightly more sober than when he set off. I can't see a justification for preventing him boarding unless he was REALLY drunk, and would have struggled to reach the train safely

Mikey C · 27 Sep 2018

Class 172 Fan said:
I willingly have a kebab at work whenever I forget to do my packed lunch. So based on that I'm obviously breaching my employers alcohol policy as I would have had a "skin full"

A shish or chicken kebab I would certainly eat sober, but not a doner! I've only eaten one sober, never again

Edders23 · 27 Sep 2018

In my line of work dealing with drunks is part of the job but we have a golden rule and that is if you think the person looks like they are going to cause a problem either because they look so drunk there is a risk of them throwing up passing out unconscious or they are exhibiting too much aggression and sadly on average two or three a year die or are hospitalised with severe injuries by not getting that judgement call right then we can refuse

This guard made a similar judgement call. it might have been OK or we might have been reading a very different headline he decided not to take the risk

AlterEgo · 27 Sep 2018

Clip said:
I never mentioned anything about banning all drunks just merely pointing out to you, of which you should have known, that the bylaws state different to what you claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

I did not claim that the bylaws said anything. In any case, why does it matter what they say here?

Did you not read my post whereby I said that unless he was completely incapable (intoxicated), then he was entitled to go for a drink and expect to be transported home?

Very dull point-scoring as usual.

EastisECML · 27 Sep 2018

rg177 said:
There must be more to this otherwise Saturday evening York to Newcastle services would be running decidedly empty

I've been on that train a few too many times. I'm surprised at what levels of drunkenness people can get to whilst still being allowed to board. From experience people can get away with a lot. The easy answer is if airline staff wouldn't let you board a plane, you probably shouldn't be allowed on a train either. Or indeed anywhere else other than a bed somewhere. If you're going out on a liver defying bender, book yourself a hotel room to sleep it off before you travel. Nobody owes anyone else tolerance for over the top drunken behaviour. No matter how many others will stand by and claim they're being dealt with harshly because they're just enjoying themselves.

Ambient Sheep · 27 Sep 2018

Bletchleyite said:
One thing worthy of note is that taking several attempts to pick up a ticket is not necessarily an indication of drunkenness, it could be an indication of severe dyspraxia. Merseyrail do need to be careful here, as I believe discrimination cases have succeeded in such instances.

I was also thinking this very same thing.

Their attitude is understandable following the Zee case, though.

B&I · 27 Sep 2018

jamesst said:
Two sides to every story, the (printed in Manchester) Liverpool Echo is well known for its sensationalism and obligatory sad/stern faced accompanying pictures!

The Echo is one of the worst things about living in Liverpool

Bletchleyite · 27 Sep 2018

Mikey C said:
A shish or chicken kebab I would certainly eat sober, but not a doner! I've only eaten one sober, never again

The "German Doner Kebab" chain appears to be trying to push the humble doner into normal lunchtime food with a not unreasonable amount of success.

Bletchleyite · 27 Sep 2018

B&I said:
The Echo is one of the worst things about living in Liverpool

I really don't mind it, but it does seem to love plastering the big yellow M all over the front page with a good bit of scandal.

NoOnesFool · 28 Sep 2018

I really find it hard to believe that six pints would intoxicate a man of his age and build, it's more likely that he was just clumsy - assuming he drank average percentage pints at 2 units, that's 12 units - soaked up with a kebab. There are other factors to consider though, such as medication that may affect the way alcohol affects him, I know of a friend who can get drunk on one glass of winewine, because of her tablets.

If dropping something or being clumsy is a sole way to judge drunken impairment then I'm screwed, as I can be completely sober and drop/trip over things.

NoOnesFool · 28 Sep 2018

reb0118 said:
Just a wee point. The article and certain above posters mention a "guard" and e.g. proximity to the third rail (whatever monstrosity that is?), however, it is my reading that he never made it to the platform, never mind the train, but was stopped at the ticket gates. Have I got that correct?

The third rail is a rail that provides an electrical current to power the train, commonly found on London commuter lines and the London Under Ground.

jon0844 · 28 Sep 2018

Bletchleyite said:
The "German Doner Kebab" chain appears to be trying to push the humble doner into normal lunchtime food with a not unreasonable amount of success.

Having been to Berlin recently (and going again next month), I can imagine why one of their doner kebabs could be eaten at any time. The quality/taste is almost nothing like here and the crisper bread and sauces made it taste really nice. It's easy to imagine having one sober!

I do have the odd doner wrap here when sober and they're okay but you can really see how greasy they are.

Intermodal · 28 Sep 2018

NoOnesFool said:
The third rail is a rail that provides an electrical current to power the train, commonly found on London commuter lines and the London Under Ground.

I think you may have missed the joke from our Fares Advisor there.

reb0118 · 28 Sep 2018

Intermodal said:
I think you may have missed the joke from our Fares Advisor there.

Correct, I'm purely a 25kV AC overhead man myself. Not to mention the time a junior scally tried to get me electrocuted on the third rail at Fazakerley.

Pakenhamtrain · 29 Sep 2018

Adlington said:
And what do they do if they spot somebody inebriated but not aggressive/abusive?

They'll keep an eye of them and intervene if they have to. It is illegal to be drunk in a public place so more than likely they'll arrest them and get the police to pick them up.

Jurg · 29 Sep 2018

As someone with dyspraxia who often travels by train after a few beers, I've read this thread with interest There are times when I would struggle to pick up a ticket off the floor when stone cold sober. I've also been turned away from pubs and nightclubs for being "drunk" (when I've been sober) in the past. Thankfully I've never been prevented from boarding a train even when I've been legless.

Anyway this thread has been useful for me, I'll definitely think twice about visiting Liverpool any time soon.

whhistle · 29 Sep 2018

Nobody should feel they are entitled to travel by public transport.

The world we live in now of the "it's not my fault" culture does more harm than good and this is a good example of it on Mersyrail.

On a similar subject, no wonder many people despite banks who make it difficult to get access to their own money. But when the banks are now having to impliment procedures to stop people making authorised payments (IE, customer has been tricked into making an authorised payment to someone) - that's not right. Where's the personal responsibility in that?

Jurg · 29 Sep 2018

whhistle said:
Nobody should feel they are entitled to travel by public transport.

Somebody who has not broken any laws and who is fully in compliance with the conditions of carriage absolutely should feel that they are entitled to travel by public transport. Note, I am not saying that the person referred to in the OP necessarily meets those criteria, just responding to your general point.

yorksrob · 29 Sep 2018

whhistle said:
Nobody should feel they are entitled to travel by public transport.

The world we live in now of the "it's not my fault" culture does more harm than good and this is a good example of it on Mersyrail.

On a similar subject, no wonder many people despite banks who make it difficult to get access to their own money. But when the banks are now having to impliment procedures to stop people making authorised payments (IE, customer has been tricked into making an authorised payment to someone) - that's not right. Where's the personal responsibility in that?

People who have bought their fare and complied with the conditions of carriage are entitled to travel by public transport, otherwise you would have individuals in positions of authority denying access to whomever they feel because they don't like the look of them.

On your general point regarding fraud, it is the perpetrator who has committed the fraud, and who should face the full force of the law and suffer from their actions, not the victim. If this is an increasing problem, perhaps society isn't punishing fraudsters severely enough.

Dore & Totley · 29 Sep 2018

I recall a night in the early 90s at Uni. I left the bar and tortured down to Hendon to get the train to Borehamwood. I must have been tottering too much as a kind Policeman enquired where I was going and when I said to the station he asked whether I thought that was a good idea and would I like to sleep it off at the station? I really just wanted to get home so he stood on the footbridge until my train came and made sure I got on. I felt bad the next day as I had wasted his time. On Monday I dropped a thank you note in at the Police Station. This was an unmanned station and think that station staff should err on the side of caution and refuse entry.

Birkonian · 3 Oct 2018

This is not an isolated incident on Merseyrail. I know of a perfectly respectable lady who slipped slightly on high heels recently and was refused entry to the station for being drunk and have regularly seen others refused. There is a big difference between being drunk and having consumed alcohol. This attitude is causing a lot of friction on Merseyside. If you are denied access to trains to Wirral in the late evening there is no option other than a very expensive taxi ride through the tunnel. I live in Spital and the cost would be at least £15. It's not as if you can walk home from Liverpool - it isn't possible to those who don't know the area.

AntoniC · 4 Oct 2018

In my drinking days (now been teetotal for 7 years through choice) I used to go for a few bevvies after work ( I work in Liverpool city centre and Moorfields is the nearest station) I used to get the train home to Southport.
I would find a seat and fall asleep and be no bother to no-one, although I remember on one occasion vomiting out of the windows between Hillside & Birkdale and redecorating the outside of the train . (Not something I am proud about now).
But if you go to any of the city centre stations (Liverpool Central/Moorfields/Liverpool Lime St/James St) there are promiment posters which state if you are under the influence of alcohol Merseyrail have the right to refuse you access to the stations and trains.
As others have said , imagine if he had suffered an accident on the train/station it would all be over the local media, and so Merseyrail are in a no-win situation and perhaps the travelling public should exert some self restraint in their drinking habits.

Man who'd drunk six pints couldn't get the train home

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member