I've seen posters saying filming maybe in progress, but do the people filmed have to give permission for their faces and speech to go on? Just thought that bloke trying to get on the packed commuter train and wasn't allowed was acting like a bit of a nob (though he had a point), so if I was him I wouldn't want that shown on national TV.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Paddington Station 24/7 - Channel 5
- Thread starter GodAtum
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,351
I've seen the same people shown acting like nobs in the title sequences of shows like this week after week. I'm sure they'd have objected if they weren't happy about it. I've also seen faces blurred out.
I imagine people are given the choice of being identified, not being identified or not appearing at all.
bearhugger
Member
The signs that are up at Grosmont on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway for the filming of their second series say something along the lines of "Filming is in progress, if you don't wish to be in the footage please speak to a member of the produuuction staff". So i assume that they would make appropriate notes and blur you out.
Trainfan344
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,306
Yet another engineering work doesn't have the right equipment. Not helping those commuters..
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It does give a very mixed portrayal - certainly some staff come across as very good, but others (and some parts of the operation) come across as utterly incompetent. It's to GWR's credit that they are willing to be so open about things.
I have lost all confidence in GWR/NR to be able to manage an incident or engineering fault safely and effectively, especially after the power fiasco at the beginning. The incompetence is staggering, imagine if it was the other way round and power was turned back on without authorisation!
Last edited:
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
There was a bit of a synchronisation blunder as well... even though I am deaf, I noticed the Flying Scotsman sounding like it was pulling away a good few seconds before anything emerged from the chimney and the wheels began turning! The producers also showed several departure clips from Victoria while talking about it arriving there at the end of the charter, and also managed to include one clip of a Black 5 in the same segment...
alxndr
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 1,474
I suspect it's an unpopular opinion, particularly with commuter-types, but I wasn't keen on the attitude towards the power being switched off. There were concerns about the danger posed by the overheads and those concerns were dealt with by removing the risk. It appeared that they were trying to explain the situation via a third party and we all know how Chinese whispers turns out. With a presumably badly injured person involved it appears that there wasn't time to argue the point or fully educate regarding the dangers and mitigations in place, so the quickest and safest option seemed to be the most appropriate one in my eyes despite the additional delay incurred. I will always put safety above delay minutes, and won't apologise for that.
I am however, very aware, that with the editing it's probable that we're not getting the full story captured on film and that my knowledge regarding the degree of training that emergency services receive regarding electrification and risks is very limited.
I am however, very aware, that with the editing it's probable that we're not getting the full story captured on film and that my knowledge regarding the degree of training that emergency services receive regarding electrification and risks is very limited.
silverfoxcc
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 439
I am still trying to figure out what PCSO Al Gore actually meant following the incident with the bag going on the tracks
I had to run this a few time to make sure i got it right
He said the man would be charged under a bylaw offence of
A malicious obstruction without intent
Now malicious CANNOT be without intent impossible either is is or is isn't
Now i am not an English Language professor but the dictionary definition of malicious is
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
"he was found guilty of malicious damage"
synonyms: spiteful, malevolent, hostile, bitter, venomous, poisonous, evil-intentioned, ill-natured, evil, baleful, vindictive, vengeful, vitriolic, rancorous, malign, malignant, pernicious, mean, nasty, harmful, hurtful, mischievous, destructive, wounding, cruel, unkind, defamatory
Now this chap could be done for lack of common sense 'hmm i will place my bag against a door that opens outwards,,that should be ok',.... and then for it to happen again with consequences.
But in no way can i see that it was malicious,,,stupid yes but not malicious
so learned friends of the by laws .what is the actual offence using those exact words by the PCSO?
Now if said chap had done a DELIBERATE of throwning the bag onto the track..yes bang to rights..but you cannot do someone for being an idiot. the judicial system would grind to a halt
Perhaps a bit pedantic but i just cannot get my head around the charge
I had to run this a few time to make sure i got it right
He said the man would be charged under a bylaw offence of
A malicious obstruction without intent
Now malicious CANNOT be without intent impossible either is is or is isn't
Now i am not an English Language professor but the dictionary definition of malicious is
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
"he was found guilty of malicious damage"
synonyms: spiteful, malevolent, hostile, bitter, venomous, poisonous, evil-intentioned, ill-natured, evil, baleful, vindictive, vengeful, vitriolic, rancorous, malign, malignant, pernicious, mean, nasty, harmful, hurtful, mischievous, destructive, wounding, cruel, unkind, defamatory
Now this chap could be done for lack of common sense 'hmm i will place my bag against a door that opens outwards,,that should be ok',.... and then for it to happen again with consequences.
But in no way can i see that it was malicious,,,stupid yes but not malicious
so learned friends of the by laws .what is the actual offence using those exact words by the PCSO?
Now if said chap had done a DELIBERATE of throwning the bag onto the track..yes bang to rights..but you cannot do someone for being an idiot. the judicial system would grind to a halt
Perhaps a bit pedantic but i just cannot get my head around the charge
hexagon789
Veteran Member
It looked as though she was slipping away bit starting off mind you. Perhaps that's why one could hear it before it actually moved-off.
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 279
I think it was just heat of the moment stuff. I bet he wasn't charged.
The intent in question is not the intent to obstruct. The intent refers to the intent to derail a train etc. by doing the obstructing.
The legislation is not in the Bye-Laws, it's in the Malicious Damage Act 1861. The lesser offence (no intent to derail) only requires willful omission or neglect, not intent, as regards the obstructing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Re the BTP, I suspect the charge related to the railway being obstructed (as they had to close the line as there was a significant risk he intended to go onto the line) but he did not intend to cause that obstruction, rather to commit the lesser offence of simple "trespass on the railway" - it was just a byproduct of the thing that was his intention.
A bit like you have manslaughter (killing someone when you took a dangerous action against them but where you didn't intend to kill nor had reasonable expectation that it might) vs murder (killing someone intentionally or by doing something that could reasonably be expected to kill).
A bit like you have manslaughter (killing someone when you took a dangerous action against them but where you didn't intend to kill nor had reasonable expectation that it might) vs murder (killing someone intentionally or by doing something that could reasonably be expected to kill).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Intent to derail a train? I doubt a rucksack (which wasn't there on purpose, just through negligence) would have achieved that even if it had gone onto the running rail, it'd just have ended up in two pieces.
Last edited by a moderator:
Intent to commit an offence isn’t based upon the likelihood of that action succeeding.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It was stated as without intent in any case.
silverfoxcc
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 439
But my pint was pc plod said it was malicious ( and that means with intent) then says it wasnt intended.
I am charging you for intending to obstruct that train although it was not intended#
I would like to see that play out back at the station..perhaps a chat without tea and biscuits
I am charging you for intending to obstruct that train although it was not intended#
I would like to see that play out back at the station..perhaps a chat without tea and biscuits
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
The rods were not moving, though.
I wonder if the delay putting it up on the website is to allow them to hastily re-edit the synchronisation?
hexagon789
Veteran Member
I think I'll have to watch that bit again, and look more closely.
The_Train
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 4,358
I thought the offence was in relation to the guy threatening to jump onto the track to retrieve his bag himself?
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Have you got it recorded in case it gets re-edited before going on the website?
hexagon789
Veteran Member
No, I watched it live
Not sure what device you are using, but for some reason, Monday's episode has been labelled episode 6. On my device I had to scroll back through to the last series and I found there to be two episode 6s, one dating from April and one that was broadcast earlier this week.
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 279
OK. I'll try again. The malicious refers to the dropping of the bag. The lack of intent refers to the lack of an intent to derail a train by dropping the bag.
Chris Butler
Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2010
- Messages
- 279
Exactly. That's why the offence was "without intent".
I think you may have read my reply to the OP too quickly.
Merthyr Imp
Member
That's what I heard him say. Nothing to do with dropping or putting the bag on the line.
londonbridge
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,468
Not on next week. Not in the listings and series link hasn't even dropped in a 'next episode' link.
Trainfan344
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,306
Making the guy who jumped onto the tracks to retrieve his bag miss his train was poor, a quick don't do it again lecture and let him be should've really been enough I feel.
- Status