Asked to remove retro railway attire

[tspaul26]

There probably is an argument that the staff member's statement was accurate, the Railway Byelaws state:



Now the title including the word 'dangerous' perhaps has had some readers skip over this section, however:



So we can disregard the word 'dangerous'.

It is then not that far of a jump to say that an authorised person had the opinion that said item (the Virgin Trains coat) may annoy any person (by causing confusion), and that as they had asked the OP to removed it and should the OP have failed to do so immediately that it may be removed by or under the direction of an authorised person (although the fate of said item isn't mentioned, confiscation does not seem to be an unreasonable choice of words for these actions).

In the OP it isn't exactly clear what language the 'dispatcher' used however I think its reasonable to suggest their statement went up to and including 'we' (the railway) and that this terminology would include the BTP, who in any case would in all probability have been called upon should the OP not have followed the instruction to remove the coat.

Railway byelaws

www.gov.uk

Nice try, but not really arguable. Such would give the word annoy a meaning broader than it can reasonably bear.

The Byelaw is clearly aimed at, for example, ghetto-blasters, laser pens, open containers of bleach/paint and so on.

The ability to remove in para. 2 must also be read by reference to para. 1 which relates to an article being brought onto or remaining on the railway.

I see no authority for an article of clothing that is not in itself threatening or annoying to be forcibly removed from a person’s body, but not then removed from the railway. There is also no provision for outright confiscation.

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm surprised given the powers they have that impersonation of an authorized person is not a bylaw offence.

Alrhough given how zealous railway officials can be in enforcing bylaws I wonder how long it would be before someone was nabbed coming home from work in uniform of such a law existed

 

[zwk500]

I'm surprised given the powers they have that impersonation of an authorized person is not a bylaw offence.

Alrhough given how zealous railway officials can be in enforcing bylaws I wonder how long it would be before someone was nabbed coming home from work in uniform of such a law existed

If they were an authorised person who just happened to be off-duty, they wouldn't be impersonating one would they? And if they were a Staff member on the way home, they'd have their ID badge which would be fairly quick in settling the matter.

 

[matt_world2004]

If they were an authorised person who just happened to be off-duty, they wouldn't be impersonating one would they? And if they were a Staff member on the way home, they'd have their ID badge which would be fairly quick in settling the matter.

But they may not be authorized person they may be an individual who works for a related company for example virgin trains /virgin airlines) or London underground /London buses (etc etc)

 

[zwk500]

But they may not be authorized person they may be an individual who works for a related company for example virgin trains /virgin airlines) or London underground /London buses (etc etc)

In which case, they'd still have an ID badge, which would demonstrate they are authorised to wear that particular uniform.

 

[bramling]

I'm surprised given the powers they have that impersonation of an authorized person is not a bylaw offence.

Alrhough given how zealous railway officials can be in enforcing bylaws I wonder how long it would be before someone was nabbed coming home from work in uniform of such a law existed

I suspect it’s because it’s something which hasn’t ever really caused an issue. If it ever does cause a high-profile incident, then expect this to change.

The industry does make a bit of a thing about selling uniform, but I’ve always got the feeling this is more sour grapes over staff making a few pounds off it, rather than security.

Perhaps the most dubious hands for having old uniform is perhaps a disgruntled former employee, but they are probably the least likely to have it recovered.

Staff ID is key. This isn’t to say people should wear uniform when not meant to, there’s a number of reasons why it’s undesirable (including for the person wearing it), but that’s as far as it goes.

 

[matt_world2004]

In which case, they'd still have an ID badge, which would demonstrate they are authorised to wear that particular uniform.

I work for London buses and I don't have an Id badge even if I did and someone from a train operating company demanded to see it . I wouldn't show it as it's outside working hours.

 

[43066]

I'm surprised given the powers they have that impersonation of an authorized person is not a bylaw offence.

Alrhough given how zealous railway officials can be in enforcing bylaws I wonder how long it would be before someone was nabbed coming home from work in uniform of such a law existed

As pointed out above someone wearing a uniform isn’t necessarily impersonating someone, someone not wearing an official uniform but coming onto a platform in a standard hi-vi vest, blowing a whistle and ordering passengers around might be.

There’s no need for it to be a specific bylaw offence as it can be dealt with simply by asking the person to leave, at which point their continued presence becomes trespass. If someone was to actually affect safety/impede the operation of the railway there are various other endangerment/obstruction offences they could be charged with.

Something a lot of people on here seem not to appreciate is that the railway (including the publicly accessible bits) is private property, and any implied or express right of access can be revoked.

 

[bb21]

I work for London buses and I don't have an Id badge even if I did and someone from a train operating company demanded to see it . I wouldn't show it as it's outside working hours.

I can't care less whether you wore a bus company uniform legitimately or not, and neither do I suspect any other railway staff.

Which rail operator is your uniform likely to be mistaken for?

 

[matt_world2004]

I can't care less whether you wore a bus company uniform legitimately or not, and neither do I suspect any other railway staff.

Which rail operator is your uniform likely to be mistaken for?

London underground. I think your missing some context here I was speaking if I was hypothetically asked to provide ID outside working hours to prove my employment and thus justification for wearing uniform

 

[bb21]

But context is important. If you are wearing a bus company uniform then railway staff generally have no jurisdiction over you on that matter on the railway network, but if you were in a bus station for example, then I would expect staff to be able to challenge you, although in either case unless you are doing something suspicious or fraudulent I don't expect you to be hassled.

I don't know what London Underground uniform you are thinking of, as around my neck of the woods they generally wear their own company uniform, which would have identifiable logos to show the issuing company.

 

[matt_world2004]

I don't know what London Underground uniform you are thinking of, as around my neck of the woods they generally wear their own company uniform, which would have identifiable logos to show the issuing company.

I work for London bus services limited whose uniform is identical to some London underground uniforms

 

[43066]

I work for London bus services limited whose uniform is identical to some London underground uniforms

And nobody will have a problem with that at all. But if you start ordering passengers around on a station platform you’ll be asked to leave pretty quickly!

 

[bb21]

I work for London bus services limited whose uniform is identical to some London underground uniforms

If you were a TfL employee (as opposed to being employed by the individual operators) wearing a TfL uniform and acting suspiciously around a TfL/LU-run station, I don't see why you would be unwilling to produce any company ID (or even just your staff Oyster card) when challenged by your colleagues, on or off duty.

If they had no concern they wouldn't be asking to check your ID in a public area such as on a platform or on a train.

At non TfL stations people generally won't care if you wear a TfL or LU uniform, and if they asked to see your work ID, you could well tell them to mind their own business. You are just dealt with as any other member of public, eg. invited to leave.

 

[Master29]

Let’s review the information provided:





So, we have:

• a “Virgin Trains” jacket
• described as “very old”
• at least 10 years old
• for a TOC that ceased to operate 18 months ago

Since Virgin Trains East Coast ceased operations three years ago, this leads us to the inexorable conclusion that the item of clothing is from Virgin Trains [West Coast] and, as such, nothing to do with LNER.

You are correct. I missed the emphasis on the "east" and of course confused the branding. My bad.

 

[matt_world2004]

Because I

And nobody will have a problem with that at all. But if you start ordering passengers around on a station platform you’ll be asked to leave pretty quickly!

Yes of course, I was speaking in the context of if an bylaw existed forbidding "inpersonation" of a authorised person and an over zealous interpretation of it being used to target people travelling home.

 

[IanXC]

Nice try, but not really arguable. Such would give the word annoy a meaning broader than it can reasonably bear.

The Byelaw is clearly aimed at, for example, ghetto-blasters, laser pens, open containers of bleach/paint and so on.

The ability to remove in para. 2 must also be read by reference to para. 1 which relates to an article being brought onto or remaining on the railway.

I see no authority for an article of clothing that is not in itself threatening or annoying to be forcibly removed from a person’s body, but not then removed from the railway. There is also no provision for outright confiscation.

You won't be surprised that I can't agreed. Annoy has the definition "make (someone) a little angry; irritate" which seems eminently the case in the circumstances I described.

In every day language usage I see very little difference between "it may be removed by or under the direction of an authorised person" and "it will be confiscated". Yes there is a difference in ultimate legal meaning but in every day use of language I don't see it as in any way problematic given that it would be the BTP that would do the 'removing'.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

A hundred and plenty posts later and there's still not that many on here thinking it was a good idea for the OP to have worn an old railway uniform jacket in a busy station environment.

 

[Journeyman]

A hundred and plenty posts later and there's still not that many on here thinking it was a good idea for the OP to have worn an old railway uniform jacket in a busy station environment.

That's ultimately all that matters. It was clearly asking for trouble, and all that trouble could easily have been avoided.

For many years I had a London Underground fleece, which was not actually operational staff uniform but was issued to engineering staff and others who occasionally had to work outside. It was very comfortable and warm, but I never wore it anywhere near a station or on a train, for obvious reasons.

 

[Llanigraham]

When I left Network Rail I had 2 fleece jackets, several polo shirts and a hi-vis. No one ever asked for any of it back and the only time any of it now gets used is when I go to the Corris on a Tuesday volunteering, not because I want to be seen wearing NR clothing, but more that I couldn't care less what state it gets in, and when it is irrepairable or unwashable it can go straight in the bin. The hi-vis is in the car for an emergency.
The only exclusion is one of the fleeces which was unworn and now the NR logo is covered by a MG badge.

 

[warwickshire]

It appeals to some people on the autistic spectrum who desperately want to work on the railway, but can't because their autism prevents it. This has often occurred, and there's mention of it in this thread.

Then again sometimes not always the case. However sometimes ie employees sacked from the railway but still hang onto stuff and go elsewhere due to interest in trains still.
Or even enthusiasts sometimes who also wannabe staff or pretend to be for the same reason interest in trains or a free ride but despite all efforts sadly cannot get on railways.
Many interesting reasons.
Also at Henley in Arden and lapworth there is a reqular commuter on my local services and lines who wears a red very old with the logo off but quite worn.
Wales and boarders railway. Ie the old Wales and boarders franchise ie red and white logo. Long big overcoat.
Even passengers enjoy the uniform sometimes.
Whatever drives you or spurs you on I suppose.

 

[MikeWh]

A hundred and plenty posts later and there's still not that many on here thinking it was a good idea for the OP to have worn an old railway uniform jacket in a busy station environment.

Agreed. Most posts seem now to be offering anecdotal stories rather than advice, so I think the thread has run it's course.