Disabled passenger claims Northern guard's behaviour gave her panic attack.

[Richard1960]

Taking a minute to clearly explain the situation in this case could have gone a long way and the guard ensuring he wasn't in her earshot when he said to a fellow staff member something like "I want her removed from my train." I'm sure those with disabilities can understand why provision on a train built in the 1980s with single narrow doors is different to on newer trains, if it's explained clearly. Although, if she was sold a ticket by the ticket office at Chester it's less easy to explain why someone would sell a ticket to Bolton without explaining that there are no trains to Bolton which convey mobility scooters.

Spot on .

 

[Richard1960]

Nobody said anything about "on purpose".

They did not but acting inappropriately as a disabled person myself I find the term offensive because to me that would be normal.

 

[Bantamzen]

He was causing significant distress to someone clearly in a vulnerable position, who had been boarded by other members of staff. She was within her rights to record and publish what occurred. It is the responsibility of the employer to fully investigate the matter and take any relevant disciplinary matters, training or compensation in to account.

Actually there is no given right per say, more a lack of defined rights and limitations. However once a person publishes any video onto a public platform, they could fall under the definition of filmmaker and theoretically at least find themselves being required to observe the rights of others, make available full videos & potentially be asked to remove content. Although made for filmmakers, this guidance gives a reasonable idea of the code of practice and what people should consider before reaching for YouTube or Twitter et al to film an individual:

http://development.secret-source.eu.../Film-London-guidelines-on-filming-people.pdf

There have been cases where people have used video uploads to target individuals, even harass them where the authorities have got involved & even prosecutions brought. So this "right" to film isn't a cover all to post up what you want, careful consideration needs to be made of the rights of the individual(s) being filmed, keeping the film in context and any possible legal ramifications that might arise in the event of a dispute.

 

[northwichcat]

It isn't a reasonable adjustment for a disability to allow someone to do something that is not permitted for safety reasons[1] because their disability could cause them to have a panic attack in the event of refusal.

...

Now, it seems the guard's attitude was a bit wrong here, but beyond that? There was still no way the passenger would be being carried.

It's how the guard dealt with the passenger that was the issue, not the fact that mobility scooters can't be conveyed

How is a member of staff to know if someone has a hidden disability since by definition its hidden?

Simple solution is to offer first class customer service to every passenger. You'll notice signs of hidden disabilities while communicating with the passenger but if you've started off by being polite and explaining things clearly then it won't cause any major issues that you didn't know they had one to start with.

 

[AlterEgo]

They did not but acting inappropriately as a disabled person myself I find the term offensive because to me that would be normal.

It's not "normal" or "appropriate" behaviour - that is exactly why it is a disability and is treated as such.

 

[Richard1960]

It's not "normal" or "appropriate" behaviour - that is exactly why it is a disability and is treated as such.

Correct but to me the term is offensive ,I would rather people be more polite but hey perhaps its just me, when dealing with people with mental health issues the language used is everything ,including the guard saying with in earshot "Want this passenger off my train" ,its all about sensitivity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Correct but to me the term is offensive ,I would rather people be more polite but hey perhaps its just me, when dealing with people with mental health issues the language used is everything ,including the guard saying with in earshot "Want this passenger off my train" ,its all about sensitivity.

You don't have a right not to be offended. I see and hear things every day - including on this forum - that offend me (including, on occasion, things about disability, and I have a DSB railcard!), but that's part of the rich tapestry of life.

It's a simple fact that people with some hidden disabilities act inappropriately when they are faced with sudden changes in their routine or a sudden disappointment.

Saying "I want this passenger off my train" shouldn't have been done within the earshot of anyone, not because it's "offensive", but it's just not necessary or tactful in a heated situation.

 

[Richard1960]

Correct but to me the term is offensive ,I would rather people be more polite but hey perhaps its just me, when dealing with people with mental health issues the language used is everything ,including the guard saying with in earshot "I Want this passenger off my train" ,its all about sensitivity. I can tell people how I want to be spoken about or treated

You don't have a right not to be offended. I see and hear things every day - including on this forum - that offend me (including, on occasion, things about disability, and I have a DSB railcard!), but that's part of the rich tapestry of life.

It's a simple fact that people with some hidden disabilities act inappropriately when they are faced with sudden changes in their routine or a sudden disappointment.

Saying "I want this passenger off my train" shouldn't have been done within the earshot of anyone, not because it's "offensive", but it's just not necessary or tactful in a heated situation.

Indeed and also would have ramped the situation up somewhat ,causing even more problems like pouring petrol onto a fire.

 

[daikilo]

I certainly think the time has come for DfT or ORR to review mobility scooters and non-folding prams. It is not currently a legal requirement to provision space to carry either of these but they are both used by a portion of the population. Obviously, the first are motorised (electric) whilst the latter are not (yet).

I think this because space is provided on some trains for non-folding bicycles and as far as I know, nothing prevents them being electric. It is generally considered that a bicycle rider uses it to enhance what is already a perfectly normal mobility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No I agree a reasonable adjustment is a very loose term if it was for safety reasons the scooter could not remain on ,allowing it to stay would not have ben reasonable , I think scooter manufacturers need to take account of this and warn customers their scooter does not fit the requirements to travel on trains.

I'm not sure why the manufacturers should have that requirement any more than the manufacturers of a tandem or bike trailer should have to say you can't take it on a train. Though equally they may make a commercial decision to state it in order to increase sales.

When purchasing a mobility aid (you don't get these for free on the NHS) it is necessary to research if it is suitable for your needs, either yourself or in conjunction with others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is a member of staff to know if someone has a hidden disability since by definition its hidden?

It probably isn't appropriate to say "I want this passenger off my train" in earshot of anyone. There are ways to do this kind of thing correctly, even if the correct outcome is (and I don't doubt that bit) that the passenger must leave.

If scooters are banned, other staff shouldn't be letting people get away with it, either. Like selling tickets on board when there was a ticket office at the origin, the inconsistency doesn't help.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

P
icture the following scenario, if you will.

You're a guard. You have to get up at 04.00 to start your shift, but your extremely inconsiderate neighbours kept you awake for hours by playing loud music until 01.00. Your shift has been a difficult one - lots of delayed trains and a major event keep you on your toes all day. Still, you get towards the end feeling a bit knackered but generally OK. Things could have been worse.

Then, someone comes along who decides to blame you for them missing a connection and being delayed for two hours despite it not being your fault. You try your best to help. You come up with an alternative route that will save them some time. You politely explain about Delay Repay. You apologise, you empathise, you do all the things you're supposed to do. You even offer to carry their bag over the footbridge for them. You then get ranted at for getting on for half an hour, despite busting a gut to keep the customer happy, and in the process the customer misses the connection you'd suggested. They get even angrier, and throw in an extremely rude personal insult.

Despite holding it together until this point, eventually your tiredness and frustration get the better of you, and you lose your rag. Before you know it, you've snapped and sworn at the customer, and it's all over in seconds. The customer storms off.

It all comes down to professionalism and a good grasp of conflict management/resolution. I work with "all sorts" in my profession and have to bite my tongue on many occasions....

 

[al78]

You don't have a right not to be offended.

Irrelevant. It is not about legal rights, it is about being polite and civilised. This is how we get along in ever more crowded societies, by applying thought and consideration for others. This, of course, requires empathy, which a minority of the population do not posess (e.g. narcissists), so inevitably, in the real world, conflict does happen that could be avoided with a bit of thought.

Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it right to do it. Some people need to learn the difference between legal and moral.

 

[farleigh]

Irrelevant. It is not about legal rights, it is about being polite and civilised. This is how we get along in ever more crowded societies, by applying thought and consideration for others. This, of course, requires empathy, which a minority of the population do not posess (e.g. narcissists), so inevitably, in the real world, conflict does happen that could be avoided with a bit of thought.

Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it right to do it. Some people need to learn the difference between legal and moral.

Like filming someone and putting it on social media you mean?

 

[AlterEgo]

Irrelevant. It is not about legal rights, it is about being polite and civilised. This is how we get along in ever more crowded societies, by applying thought and consideration for others. This, of course, requires empathy, which a minority of the population do not posess (e.g. narcissists), so inevitably, in the real world, conflict does happen that could be avoided with a bit of thought.

Having a legal right to do something doesn't make it right to do it. Some people need to learn the difference between legal and moral.

It’s completely relevant. You don’t have a moral right not to be offended. That isn’t an invitation for people to be purposely uncivil for no good reason, but it also means people should be free to speak the truth as they see it. Part of having a civil society as developed as ours is the freedom to offend people’s sensibilities.

 

[otomous]

If you don't want your actions becoming public then don't work in a public facing role.

Easy to say. I'm a driver, I chose to be a driver because I want minimal public contact, and I've had ZERO customer facing training, so obviously my TOC doesn't intend me to interact with the public very much either. The other day I was told at the last second leaving Victoria that I had a person needing assistance, they were going to an unmanned station, and so far, they did not know if anyone would be there to meet them. Great. I have to worry about no one turning up, that person being stranded and me being vilified by people who won't listen or understand my position, even though they must realise I don't run the outfit. None of this is my fault. Is it fair that I should be put through that because the TOC is deficient? Or plastered all over twitter and then possibly a newspaper?

 

[Richard1960]

It’s completely relevant. You don’t have a moral right not to be offended. That isn’t an invitation for people to be purposely uncivil for no good reason, but it also means people should be free to speak the truth as they see it. Part of having a civil society as developed as ours is the freedom to offend people’s sensibilities.

People do have a right to offend others sensibilities , but when travelling on trains that’s possiby not the route to an amicable resolution , in fact from expierience I know it’s not .!

Easy to say. I'm a driver, I chose to be a driver because I want minimal public contact, and I've had ZERO customer facing training, so obviously my TOC doesn't intend me to interact with the public very much either. The other day I was told at the last second leaving Victoria that I had a person needing assistance, they were going to an unmanned station, and so far, they did not know if anyone would be there to meet them. Great. I have to worry about no one turning up, that person being stranded and me being vilified by people who won't listen or understand my position, even though they must realise I don't run the outfit. None of this is my fault. Is it fair that I should be put through that because the TOC is deficient? Or plastered all over twitter and then possibly a newspaper?

No it’s definitely not fair on you , and if I was that person I would hopefully see your point of view .

As a driver that is your role and it’s non customer facing , no way should you be responsible for a deficient TOC , the blame lies with them , however ultimate blame lies with the DFT.

I'm not sure why the manufacturers should have that requirement any more than the manufacturers of a tandem or bike trailer should have to say you can't take it on a train. Though equally they may make a commercial decision to state it in order to increase sales.

When purchasing a mobility aid (you don't get these for free on the NHS) it is necessary to research if it is suitable for your needs, either yourself or in conjunction with others.

Yes that’s fair enough but on the other hand if a person buys a ticket at the station , and that particular TOC does not carry said scooter , should the person selling the ticket warn the customer of this .

If training is needed surely bit should be provided .?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Filming someone in the course of their work has GDPR implications. GDPR can apply to individuals as well as organisations. GDPR would certainly apply to the social media platform.

I have no issue with someone going to the media, but vilifying someone carrying out their duties in accordance with that organisation’s policy is unfair. Even if said policy is legally dubious (and there is reason for thinking this one could be based on comments in the recent GWR incident)

 

[Darandio]

No but only chairs / scooters within certain parameters and it should be down to the manufacturer to fit a plate to show the compliance status.

Isn’t there a standardised definition/measurement for wheelchairs? I don’t know.

Something needs to be done on this, if only for the reason of the increasing number of custom mobility scooters. There is someone near here running around on a custom Harley Trike scooter, it's around 2ft longer than your average scooter and a 1ft wider. I'm sure the manufacturers are dreaming up grander designs right now.

I'm sure most people wouldn't dream of trying to take something of comparable size on train, but as it's a scooter i'm sure someone would find reason to complain or film the process if refused. I'd also wager some here would also defend their right to take it on the train as well.

 

[daikilo]

Easy to say. I'm a driver, I chose to be a driver because I want minimal public contact, and I've had ZERO customer facing training, so obviously my TOC doesn't intend me to interact with the public very much either. The other day I was told at the last second leaving Victoria that I had a person needing assistance, they were going to an unmanned station, and so far, they did not know if anyone would be there to meet them. Great. I have to worry about no one turning up, that person being stranded and me being vilified by people who won't listen or understand my position, even though they must realise I don't run the outfit. None of this is my fault. Is it fair that I should be put through that because the TOC is deficient? Or plastered all over twitter and then possibly a newspaper?

This is a very interesting test case. Can you say how you resolved the obvious potential safety problem (passenger attempting to leave train at destination without required assistance means). Was it a member of staff or public who advised you (notionally, it doesn't matter as you were advised therefore you became complicit). Clearly, it is an issue for DOO where by definition you are responsible for more than just driving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Filming someone in the course of their work has GDPR implications. GDPR can apply to individuals as well as organisations. GDPR would certainly apply to the social media platform.

I have no issue with someone going to the media, but vilifying someone carrying out their duties in accordance with that organisation’s policy is unfair. Even if said policy is legally dubious (and there is reason for thinking this one could be based on comments in the recent GWR incident)

GDPR has no application at all to personal use.

 

[cjmillsnun]

GDPR has no application at all to personal use.

I would argue that the social media platform is a commercial organisation as it would most definitely apply to them. Also going to the media with said footage where they may pay for it is not personal use.

 

[Geezertronic]

GDPR has no application at all to personal use.

However the publishing of "personal" use media on Social Media means the media is no longer personal so GDPR does apply in that instance

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Then, someone comes along who decides to blame you for them missing a connection and being delayed for two hours despite it not being your fault. You try your best to help. You come up with an alternative route that will save them some time. You politely explain about Delay Repay. You apologise, you empathise, you do all the things you're supposed to do. You even offer to carry their bag over the footbridge for them. You then get ranted at for getting on for half an hour, despite busting a gut to keep the customer happy, and in the process the customer misses the connection you'd suggested. They get even angrier, and throw in an extremely rude personal insult.

Despite holding it together until this point, eventually your tiredness and frustration get the better of you, and you lose your rag. Before you know it, you've snapped and sworn at the customer, and it's all over in seconds. The customer storms off.

Unbeknown to you, they've filmed the whole thing, and decide to post it on social media, but not before they've edited it to show just the introductory bit where the customer was polite, immediately followed by you swearing, with nothing in between - none of the bits where you've done everything you could to help. Your name badge shows up prominently in the video.

Perhaps a partial (albeit somewhat expensive) solution would be for all customer-facing staff permanently wear inconspicuous video cameras, in the same way that I believe is starting to happen for police officers. Obviously you would need some rules to govern when it's OK for footage from those cameras to be released, but it would seem reasonable that if someone uploads a partial video that shows only part of an incident, then the staff affected should be able to request that the footage from their cameras of the incident is also released. And perhaps a principle that, if any member of the public becomes abusive or disobeys any railway bye-law, then that is automatically taken as implicit permission for any footage of their behaviour to be released.

(Yes I know in practice there would be some awkward legal difficulties in actually implementing something like that, but it would seem fair in principle to me).

In practice, I would suspect that just the knowledge that staff may be wearing video cameras would be enough to incentivise at least some people to behave more reasonably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would argue that the social media platform is a commercial organisation as it would most definitely apply to them. Also going to the media with said footage where they may pay for it is not personal use.

Publication may well be covered, but filming in and of itself is not, no more than a holiday snap with some other people in the background. As that example will explain it would be ridiculous if it was.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps a partial (albeit somewhat expensive) solution would be for all customer-facing staff permanently wear inconspicuous video cameras, in the same way that I believe is starting to happen for police officers. Obviously you would need some rules to govern when it's OK for footage from those cameras to be released, but it would seem reasonable that if someone uploads a partial video that shows only part of an incident, then the staff affected should be able to request that the footage from their cameras of the incident is also released. And perhaps a principle that, if any member of the public becomes abusive or disobeys any railway bye-law, then that is automatically taken as implicit permission for any footage of their behaviour to be released.

(Yes I know in practice there would be some awkward legal difficulties in actually implementing something like that, but it would seem fair in principle to me).

I see no reason they should not be overt in the way the present generation of bodycams are. Covert filming is an entirely different kettle of fish, particularly if audio is to be recorded.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I see no reason they should not be overt in the way the present generation of bodycams are. Covert filming is an entirely different kettle of fish, particularly if audio is to be recorded.

Agreed. By 'inconspicuous' I didn't mean that any attempt should be made to hide them, simply that they shouldn't be so obvious or big that that you'd be massively aware of them when interacting with the staff. I was replying in the context of a hypothetical example of a member of the public sticking a camera in someone's face, so I meant that the cameras shouldn't be like that

 

[underbank]

I have no issue with someone going to the media, but vilifying someone carrying out their duties in accordance with that organisation’s policy is unfair.

Only if the "person carrying out their duties" is doing so in the proper manner. The moment they step out of line, i.e. by losing their cool, being abusive, being unhelpful, etc., is the moment they lose the moral high ground. Another employee could have handled this issue far more sensitively and with a better outcome. Customer facing employees need to have excellent personal skills - it's what their job is! People without the highest standard of personal skills shouldn't be working in a public facing role.

 

[Bantamzen]

Publication may well be covered, but filming in and of itself is not, no more than a holiday snap with some other people in the background. As that example will explain it would be ridiculous if it was.

Filming itself is not covered, but the moment it goes onto a publically viewable site you can then start to run into things like GDPR and other legislation. And its always worth remembering that most social media platforms that allow free hosting & viewing effectively own the material, and are free to use it as they see fit (which for the most part they don't of course).

 

[daikilo]

Moderators, any chance you could split out the comments on photoraphy from the latter part of this thread please?