'Enthusiasts' beyond the end of platforms

[ralphchadkirk]

I fail to see what offence the staff member could have been arrested under? Especially given this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

 

[furnessvale]

Ah, so you were a train proof policeman were you with one of those Warrant cards which protects you from high voltage electricity and trains.

And of course being a policeman means you don't have to listen to rail staff asking you to move away from places you are not authorised to be.

Thankfully most police officers are respectful to staff and see the advantages of working together and not looking down on them as 'uniformed jobsworths'.

I'm also going to guess that the staff member didn't shout the 'f' word at you as few members of staff are stupid enough to risk their job by swearing in front of passengers. But your story sounds better and more favourable to you if it sounds like the staff were swearing at you rather than asking you to move back into the authorised area of the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



"You are under arrest for doing your job and asking me to move out of a restricted area, despite the fact that I'm the one clearly in the wrong as I've walked past a no entry sign. But I'm a policeman so very important and I'll do whatever I want and if you try to tell me to do anything I'll threaten you with abuse of my powers".

Would love to see how long that 'arrest' lasted for!

I was fully on the platform in full compliance with the displayed notice.

If the railway did not want me to go past a particular notice it would be helpful if they displayed such a notice and not one telling me I should not do something different. I have never passed a "Passengers must not pass this point" notice even if it is 10 yards from the platform end.

So far as the arrest goes, if I had witnessed him abusing a member of the public in the same manner, it would have taken a VERY swift retraction to stop me arresting him for breace of the peace.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I fail to see what offence the staff member could have been arrested under? Especially given this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

That perverse decision post dates the incident by at least 10 years.

 

[A-driver]

I was fully on the platform in full compliance with the displayed notice.

If the railway did not want me to go past a particular notice it would be helpful if they displayed such a notice and not one telling me I should not do something different. I have never passed a "Passengers must not pass this point notice" even if it is 10 yards from the platform end.

So far as the arrest goes, if I had witnessed him abusing a member of the public in the same manner, it would have taken a VERY swift retraction to stop me arresting him for breace of the peace.

So which side of the notice were you standing? If you were standing the correct side of the notice then your post makes no sense at all (and is irrelevant to the thread). I don't belive for a second staff would tell you to move (or swear at you) for standing the correct side of the notice. If you were the wrong side of it (weather still on the platform or not) then you were in the wrong, policeman or not.

Any staff member swearing at passengers would be dealt with in the most severe of ways-which is why I don't believe for a second that your story is actually accurate-sounds like you are very much exaggerating what actually happened.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know if it is still there, but there was a "Passengers must not cross the line" sign on the last lamppost on one of the platforms.

I was beyond this sign but still fully on the platform when I heard the irate bellowing of some uniformed jobsworth "can't you f*****g read!" I ignored the bellow until it was in my ear when I politely informed him I could read and asked him to read the sign.

Only the production of my warrant card (before retirement) and informing him of his imminent arrest calmed him down. He went off muttering but I can well imagine that others would have been ordered off the station under the loitering bylaw.

Ah, your post says you were beyond the sign. Therefore you had walked past a sign telling you not to pass. Regardless of how far from the end of the platform you were you had still passed the sign telling you not to pass...

 

[furnessvale]

Ah, your post says you were beyond the sign. Therefore you had walked past a sign telling you not to pass. Regardless of how far from the end of the platform you were you had still passed the sign telling you not to pass...

I will repeat one last time.

The notice said "Passengers must not cross the line"

The notice did not say "Passengers must not pass this point"

I was fully on the platform and had no intention of crossing the line.

Please stop digging that hole.

 

[A-driver]

I will repeat one last time.

The notice said "Passengers must not cross the line"

The notice did not say "Passengers must not pass this point"

I was fully on the platform and had no intention of crossing the line.

Please stop digging that hole.

So you are arguing a technicality of the sign. But regardless of the sign, it's wording and positioning, if a staff member asks you to move from where you are you need to do as they ask. Not threaten to arrest them. I fail to see why you got so worked up about being asked to move a few steps along the platform. I'm sure the staff had reason to ask you to move.

And you havnt done yourself any favours by calling them a "uniformed jobsworth" and suggesting you could use your warrant card to prevent them doing their job. Pretty much sums up the attitude you have and makes it very hard to believe he actually used the "F" word to you.

 

[A-driver]

Keep digging!

Not a helpful post-why am I digging? You are the one alleging that a member of staff swore at you. You are also the one claiming you threatened what you describe as a 'uniformed jobsworth' with arrest for asking you to move the other side of a sign. I'm just trying to work out why you have such a problem being asked to move, I'm not digging a hole for myself at all, I'm just waiting for you to clarify what actually happened as your initial post is far from believable. It just appears that you have an attitude problem as you believe you are above following instructions due to you being a policeman.

 

[DaleCooper]

I hardly know what to add to this discussion other than I have a lot more sympathy with A-driver's position than that of furnessvale who has the kind of attitude that gives police a bad name, I'm glad he has retired and is no longer a threat to railway staff or members of the public.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I was wondering, what was the general consensus about this behaviour on the forum, without wanting to start a riot.

Unfortunately, OP, it seems that's what happens here when topics like this are discussed...

 

[bramling]

I hardly know what to add to this discussion other than I have a lot more sympathy with A-driver's position than that of furnessvale who has the kind of attitude that gives police a bad name, I'm glad he has retired and is no longer a threat to railway staff or members of the public.

Seems the root of the problem is the wording "passengers must not cross the line" is either outdated, or plain wrong.

If it's being assumed this is a de-facto "do not pass this point" sign, then this is what the sign should say.

Assuming the facts are as reported, the member of staff shouldn't have started admonishing the passenger for passing a sign that wasn't prohibiting him from passing it, especially unhelpfully if (as reported) he said "can you read?", with or without the f word this is still not a professional way of dealing with a situation.

I can see the potential for right and wrong on both sides and it's impossible to form a judgement without having witnessed the incident, however railway staff don't have the authority to make up their own rules, you can't just go around telling people not to stand in a selected location just because you feel like it. On the other hand, if there is a good reason then that's different.

 

[ComUtoR]

Seems the root of the problem is the wording "passengers must not cross the line" is either outdated, or plain wrong.

If it's being assumed this is a de-facto "do not pass this point" sign, then this is what the sign should say.

The root cause is the attitude of people who believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason. Does the presence of a sign really need to dictate whether of not someone should be using the ramp.

It's not even just a ramp that is the issue. No one said I couldn't seems to be the default excuse when you have knowingly done something wrong.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Do not some countryside stations have a gated off piece of fence at the end of platforms with the legend TRESPASS SITE IDENTIFIED?

 

[D6975]

Newport (South Wales) has a 'do not pass this point' sign on the main down platform at the east end. HSTs pull up with the last FC coach beyond the sign!!

York used to have such signage on the platform at the far side (near where they sometimes stable locos) that were well before the platform end, but I didn't notice them last time I was there, they may have been removed. I know someone who received a fine a few years ago for venturing beyond it.

 

[bramling]

The root cause is the attitude of people who believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason. Does the presence of a sign really need to dictate whether of not someone should be using the ramp.

It's not even just a ramp that is the issue. No one said I couldn't seems to be the default excuse when you have knowingly done something wrong.

I thought the issue was the poster was *not* on the ramp, but was on the platform?

In answer to your question, I'd say the answer is yes. You can't expect to enforce rules if you don't make these clear to your users. It's obviously going to cause conflict if you start having a go at someone and accusing them of having done something wrong if they were unaware that they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, and have nothing to back up your position.

No driver would be happy if a manager 'did' them for a SPAD without being able to produce the company's SPAD policy to back up their decision. The same should apply with passengers and others with business on the railway. If for no other reason than it avoids the potential for conflicts to escalate, which benefits no one. The railway doesn't (or shouldn't!) do grey areas, that's why we have things like the Rule Book.

 

[NSEFAN]

In the case of steam trains, the general public can be worse than enthusiasts. Most spotters know to respect the railway boundaries, whilst the "normals" don't really understand how much trouble they cause by going down the ramp and onto the ballast.

 

[bramling]

In the case of steam trains, the general public can be worse than enthusiasts. Most spotters know to respect the railway boundaries, whilst the "normals" don't really understand how much trouble they cause by going down the ramp and onto the ballast.

I'd say the general public are worse than enthusiasts full stop. If I made a list of how many passengers have potentially ****ed me off whilst at work over the years, it would be a very long list, but I can't readily think of any incidents involving enthusiasts.

To be fair, I'm not saying for one moment it doesn't happen, and I've seen a fair share of poor behaviour whilst visiting preserved railways, but I'd say generally enthusiasts are more likely to **** off other passengers than railway staff. Most staff adopt a "don't care as long as they don't affect me" attitude to enthusiasts, whilst some openly welcome the interest they take in their industry.

 

[furnessvale]

The root cause is the attitude of people who believe they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason. Does the presence of a sign really need to dictate whether of not someone should be using the ramp.

It's not even just a ramp that is the issue. No one said I couldn't seems to be the default excuse when you have knowingly done something wrong.

I specifically stated I was on the platform. Where does the ramp come into it?

Edited to add. I have been criticised for using the term "uniformed jobsworth" in this thread. To me, that is what someone shouting obscenities half way along the platform is. No doubt he thought I was just another of those bloody nuisance trainspotters whom he could abuse with impunity.

 

[bramling]

In the real world it's not the big issue that this forum sometimes makes out that it is.

Were it so, the industry could quite easily make rules banning various enthusiast activities, in particular taking photographs. The fact that they don't suggests no one feels a need. (Except Tyne & Wear Metro for a reason no one seems to be able to explain!).

 

[AM9]

I specifically stated I was on the platform. Where does the ramp come into it?

Edited to add. I have been criticised for using the term "uniformed jobsworth" in this thread. To me, that is what someone shouting obscenities half way along the platform is. No doubt he thought I was just another of those bloody nuisance trainspotters whom he could abuse with impunity.

Just as an aside,

were you BTP or some other force?
were you on duty
and
was it necessary for you to stand specifically where you were when the incident occurred?​

 

[furnessvale]

Just as an aside,

were you BTP or some other force?
were you on duty
and
was it necessary for you to stand specifically where you were when the incident occurred?​

I was BTP at the time, I was in plain clothes off duty waiting for a train, standing on a public platform beyond a notice which informed me that I should not cross the line but which did not say I should not go beyond it.

Incidentally a quieter approach from the railwayman would have elicited quite a different response from me, but I would still have quietly pointed out to him the actual wording of the sign, not what he thought it said.

 

[WestRiding]

Coppers are often the worst offenders, wondering around on the railway lines willy-nilly, without the signal box knowing. In 13 years of signalling trains (not long I know) I can honestly say I have had to caution trains a lot more because police are on the line without letting anyone know, than I have had to with enthusiasts. Of course, a black police uniform entitles them to do what they want in the pitch dark!

 

[GatwickDepress]

If there is a nice little sign stating quite clearly that you are not allowed beyond a certain point then you have no right to be there.

There is no if, and or but.

To be fair, the sign at the end of York P10 is pretty ambiguous. It says something like "do not cross the lines except by use of the footbridge" and nothing about venturing beyond that point.

 

[A-driver]

To be fair, the sign at the end of York P10 is pretty ambiguous. It says something like "do not cross the lines except by use of the footbridge" and nothing about venturing beyond that point.

Regardless, if a staff member asks you to move then you do it, you don't argue with them. This is a big issue now a days. You ask a passenger to do something and they refuse demanding that they have a right to be there etc. I'd have thought a policeman would be especially understanding as it something the police face aswell.

And I also don't believe for a second that the staff swore at him. No one is that stupid. If he did then there is a lot more to this than the poster describes. Any swearing would no doubt be contributed by this policeman continuously arguing and winding him up.

 

[bramling]

Regardless, if a staff member asks you to move then you do it, you don't argue with them. This is a big issue now a days. You ask a passenger to do something and they refuse demanding that they have a right to be there etc. I'd have thought a policeman would be especially understanding as it something the police face aswell.

And I also don't believe for a second that the staff swore at him. No one is that stupid. If he did then there is a lot more to this than the poster describes. Any swearing would no doubt be contributed by this policeman continuously arguing and winding him up.

I agree to a point, however it helps when asking someone to do something if you are able to provide an explanation as to why you need them to do it. Referencing a sign which basically reads irrelevant to what you are asking is not likely to help the situation.

One of the first lessons in conflict avoidance.

 

[furnessvale]

Regardless, if a staff member asks you to move then you do it, you don't argue with them. This is a big issue now a days. You ask a passenger to do something and they refuse demanding that they have a right to be there etc. I'd have thought a policeman would be especially understanding as it something the police face aswell.

And I also don't believe for a second that the staff swore at him. No one is that stupid. If he did then there is a lot more to this than the poster describes. Any swearing would no doubt be contributed by this policeman continuously arguing and winding him up.

You have now called me a liar on several occasions without a shred of evidence.

 

[A-driver]

You have now called me a liar on several occasions without a shred of evidence.

No I havnt called you a liar. I have just strongly suggested that what you say is rather exaggerated or that you have missed a large chunk of the actual events out to try and strengthen your story. The evidence I have it didn't happen is a strong as yours tht it did-I base my claims on the fact that no member of staff would ever swear at a passenger and if they did it would be as a result of a big altercation in which both sides were strongly to blame.

 

[AM9]

I was BTP at the time, I was in plain clothes off duty waiting for a train, standing on a public platform beyond a notice which informed me that I should not cross the line but which did not say I should not go beyond it.

Incidentally a quieter approach from the railwayman would have elicited quite a different response from me, but I would still have quietly pointed out to him the actual wording of the sign, not what he thought it said.

The only point that I would make is that it may have been inappropriate for you to use your warrant card if you were off duty. Your presence on the platform would be as a member of the general public and not as any sort of officer. If of course, the employee was breaking any railway laws, it may be appropriate for you to take steps, as a BTP officer, although off-duty, to prevent a dangerous situation developing.
Your right to be offended (or not) when sworn at by railway employee is not such a situation, and your position at the time wouold be the same as anybody else. If you wanted to take it further, you should have reported him through normal channels whereupon established disciplinary procedures would deal with the issue. Using a warrant card to influence/intimidate/placate or whatever would be an abuse of your occupation.

 

[the sniper]

Someone on a ramp is not going to get hit by a train, unless it has derailed! Beyond it is a different matter. If the ramp is so dangerous, then surely 'the railway' should remove it?

The points about risk assessments and if ramps are so dangerous, why they have not been removed (or fenced off in some way) - if it is, they should be asap, not just when platforms are extended. A lot of stations don't even have a sign advising you not to go down the ramp. And yes, some will argue that "it's obvious" people shouldn't - but is this really the case, when there are still some stations where you actually have to go down the ramp to get out, and it was considered perfectly acceptable in the past.

I realise though that as a driver that removing ramps isn't your responsibility!

Around the Midlands at least, most station now have half hight metal palisade fences and plastic 'tank trap' like pads on the floor to block off the ramps. Probably coming to a station near you soon...

EDIT: Having now read the rest of the thread...

I fail to see what offence the staff member could have been arrested under? Especially given this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

Only applicable to S5 POA. Someone on the railway could be done under 6.1 of the Byelaws.

And I also don't believe for a second that the staff swore at him. No one is that stupid. If he did then there is a lot more to this than the poster describes. Any swearing would no doubt be contributed by this policeman continuously arguing and winding him up.

You must be a smarter bunch down south! I honestly don't find it that hard to believe furnessvale's version of events, at all. I know a couple of people who'd do something like that, having witnessed a few similar incidents over the years while at work.

I can't see what furnessvale has done to attract all the brothers ire anyway...

 

[ComUtoR]

I specifically stated I was on the platform. Where does the ramp come into it?

My post wasn't directed specifically at your incident.

Edited to add. I have been criticised for using the term "uniformed jobsworth" in this thread. To me, that is what someone shouting obscenities half way along the platform is. No doubt he thought I was just another of those bloody nuisance trainspotters whom he could abuse with impunity.

No doubt that when he saw you flip out your warrant card he realized the kind of person he was dealing with.

 

[mbreckers]

IMO an OFF-DUTY copper threatening to arrest someone for swearing is the definition of the power-crazed arrogance the public has come to expect of the United Kingdom's police force.

 

[RPM]

https://flic.kr/p/7KasF8

Train spotters must not pass this point

How does one react to this?