Anyone who has mental capacity will always have a “purpose” - even if that is simply “killing time”. Possible exceptions are when blind drunk or sleepwalking, I suppose.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Euston visited by a self-appointed “auditor”
- Thread starter gray1404
- 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
My approval or otherwise is irrelevant to the fact that they're idiots and losers, correct. The two things aren't linked.
Surely there is a reasonable obligation to state that purpose if asked, or leave, and not refuse and reply with not answering personal questions?
It's down the same lines of refusing to show a valid ticket/pass/permit to a guard onboard a train, or if station staff asked if you had one, and saying I don't answer personal questions. Or asking for the exact law which says someone has to show a ticket if staff working for the railway asked if they had one.
Just totally unreasonable imo.
I don't agree, there is no reasonable belief get out caveat in the bye law. Where have you got that from?. They must be loitering. No reasonable belief.
As far as I can see if they are arrested of force is used against them they will have a claim if it is not established that the person was there "Without purpose" there is no reasonable belief get out as there are in PACE and some other specific acts.
Where have you got the reasonable belief caveat, is it case law?
Well if the police can't have their own reasonable belief, and the person won't explain their intentions, how would an arrest ever be made for loitering? Or any person ever removed?
What is it that prevents the homeless from entering the platforms for safe refuge, rest and shelter? Couldn't they just do that and refuse to answer any questions by saying they are personal?
Any suggestion that this person was somehow acting reasonably would discredit significant amounts of the security training and policies in use at stations.
'If you see something which doesn't feel right, speak to staff, or text the British Transport Police'. And it's reasonable for someone suspicious to refuse to answer any question by saying they don't answer personal questions, and refuse to leave once they've refused to give any explanation at all?
It is what people will accept as a purpose. Killing time can be done anywhere even railway stations but is it a purpose?
I think it is a purpose but when taking the circumstance of each event into consideration it may well fall foul of the section 13 rule of loitering. If a person is on a railway station killing time to meet a train in or some other reason to railway related it would be OK.
But if someone just said I am here to kill time, just to kill time I think that would be loitering.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Normal trespass law doesn't have that caveat even though I don't think @falcon is interpreting it correctly. It's enough that you don't want that person there. It only isn't OK if you, for instance, didn't want them there because they were female, black, gay or disabled, for instance.
Meanwhile Avanti's "gateline dragons" (to borrow a phrase from Flyertalk which I've not used in years) have enough trouble letting people through with valid tickets, they aren't going to let these muppets through.
I think this is how a Judge would interpret it (I have no idea if there's precedent or not). That is, having purpose means having purpose in terms of the intended use of the facility by its owner/operator. That is, something to do with the use of a train, taking someone to/from the use of a train, or the use of other businesses within the station, but not just because you feel like it or want to make an annoying YouTube video. Though Network Rail have extended that to photography provided you have signed in or if it's commercial have a pre-obtained licence and providing you adhere to all the guidelines; if you fail to do so (e.g. you start antagonising staff or trespassing on the track) that permission would be withdrawn and the purpose ceases to exist.
Yes I think that's it. People have to explain whey they are there. If not then it can be construed as loitering.
The auditor did explain what he was doing in the video and train spotters would be able to explain. So they would be OK.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Assuming they have signed in and comply to the stated guidelines, yes. I'm betting the "auditor" didn't.
The thing is with all this Auditing it is done to make money and is not auditing at all. It causes a lot of trouble and time wasted for police ect.
I like people to have rights, we all want them but this auditing does not seem to benefit society and cause untold stress and discomfort for many people.
I do wonder if there are new laws needed to combat it.
It's the section 13 rule I have been concentrating on.
The Auditor got it completely wrong.
I like people to have rights, we all want them but this auditing does not seem to benefit society and cause untold stress and discomfort for many people.
I do wonder if there are new laws needed to combat it.
Possibly. But that would be the civil trespass rules broken.
It's the section 13 rule I have been concentrating on.
The Auditor got it completely wrong.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Existing common law on trespass would certainly seem to deal with it in places like the railway or a shopping centre. It's a bit difficult, with regard to those antagonising coppers outside and not in cars*, to really do anything about it, you can hardly make "causing mild annoyance to a Police Officer" an offence.
* If you're going to "cause mild annoyance to a Police Officer" while driving a car, you'd best be sure there's nothing wrong with it e.g. bald tyres, as if there is you'll be being done for that.
It's this... peoples right to photograph and film freely v peoples right not to be harassed (not the legal definition it's to high a bar) in play here.
I worry that these auditors will get photography/filming banned unless permission is first obtained.
There used to be public order offences that contained offences of causing alarm and distress IIRC, but I think they got dumbed down.
Edsmith
Member
Anything but idiots, they're generally pretty clued up and in some cases know the law better than police officers do.
Yeah this guy in the clip looked and sounded really intelligent (!)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You don't have a right to photograph and film freely other than when on the public highway and common land. On land to which the public has access by permission, e.g. any part of the railway, photography can be banned or regulated. In this case it's regulated and not banned.
I'm pretty sure a good argument that these "audits" are commercial works is possible - especially since they are produced specifically to put on YouTube and profit from the advertising. There are numerous cases of YouTube creators having their work declared as commercial / for-profit and accidentally getting themselves into hot water because they inadvertantly start breaking rules / laws.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I was just thinking that given that YouTubers make profit from it it could be argued that this is commercial. Now I doubt Network Rail would say no to one of the YouTubers who paint a largely positive picture of the railway like the various "all the stations" ones, but if someone was making money out of deliberately winding staff up, as these "auditors"* do, then I can just see them using that as another decent ground to remove them from the premises or even issue a ban.
* I think it should always be in quotes; an auditor is a (usually financial) profession, not someone who has such poor self-worth that they feel the need to go around deliberately annoying** people and filming it.
** Obviously the likes of disability campaigners and similar are different. They aren't setting out to annoy people; while some need a bit of pragamatism at times they generally wouldn't have anything to report if the railway provided their assistance as per their policy.
There is a general theory of permissiveness around this sort of filming based on the non-legal idea of "fair game". It's endemic so it's tolerated, but yes, anyone who is routinely winding people up might find the bigger and nastier weapons like civil claims come out of the closet.
Again, the golden rule of don't be a d*** applies, something most people understand but which a few don't.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed.
A while back I did have a pub chat with a mate who contended that the only law actually needed was exactly that - don't be a ****. (Plus, on the road, he contended the only thing that needed to be illegal was causing, or contributing to the cause of, an accident).
Not realistic, of course, but most of the law is set up on the premise of not doing Bad Stuff to others.
Obviously what some people consider that to mean is different than others, but there's no possible way to construe wilfully winding someone up who is just trying to do their job as anything else.
Whilst your interpretation of loitering might exclude the behaviour of the "auditor", Byelaw 24 merely requires the member of staff to "reasonably believe" that the person is loitering. That is a much lower bar - reasonable beliefs later can quite legitimately turn out to be legally or factually incorrect. That wouldn't render any removal (and force used in the process) unlawful.
That's only the first offence it creates. Read on and you'll see the trespass offence - the long run-on sentences frequently used in laws of that era aren't easy to decipher!
Edited to remove the irrelevant parts, section 16 reads:
Essentially the only evidence needed for a conviction under this section would be that the person refused to leave the railway when asked. Which is not a high bar to pass.
Byelaw 24 refers:
Byelaw 24(2)(i) is also relevant:
Both of these powers and offences are created based on the reasonable belief of the authorised person. They don't require there to actually be a breach of the Byelaws - merely the reasonable belief on the part of the authorised person. I think it would be entirely plausible for an authorised person to claim that they reasonably believed that this auditor was loitering.
This is arguably a very harsh situation, but it's how the law stands.
As above, it's not about whether the person was actually loitering, but whether the authorised person reasonably believed them to be loitering.
See above.
An auditor is anybody who conducts an audit of something, an audit being an official inspection, usually financial but the word has seen its use expand to mean generally any sort of quality/competence inspection. I have no problem with Police Officers being audited whilst on duty, but I have a massive problem with people appointing themselves as auditors. The whole point of the profession is that you have to study and gain experience to be awarded a qualification to audit people.
A financial auditor has specific and extensive knowledge of accounting practices, regulations and laws, and therefore is qualified to pass the accounts or not. A camera and an attitude do not give people the same knowledge of police training, powers and legal knowledge.
Indeed. Although I would shy away from a law banning being mean to people, as there's a wide scope for misuse in there.
It's important to not lose sight of the fact that there does need to be effective oversight of the police in order for the public to trust them, an inherent part of policing by consent. Part of that is allowing individuals to film the police whilst performing their duties. However, going out of your way to goad the police into potential misconduct is not about accountability or auditing and should be part of the laws around obstructing the police in the execution of their duties, and dealt with as such.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed. People wouldn't be happy with Police engaging in entrapment (even though I recall this isn't illegal in the UK) so they shouldn't be doing that the other way, which is what this basically is.
ChewChewTrain
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 355
They would say it’s because they’re “public servants” (a term which they use pejoratively and clearly misunderstand, probably on purpose).
I have seen many of these people featured on channels which criticise them. Here are some of the “activities” they’ve engaged in:
- Shining torches into people’s houses at night and then playing the innocent when police attend.
- Haranguing police who are looking for an armed and dangerous suspect and then refusing to leave or even step back.
- Calling the police on themselves because no-one else had done it like they were hoping.
- Reaching for what seemed like a weapon when police had them at gunpoint, then claiming they were just scratching their back.
A Transatlantic cultural import that we can well do without. The person in this case was using the usual “script” and the officer was extremely patient, possibly more than he should have been. If these people continue to proliferate then it will be used as a reason to curtail our freedoms, in stark contrast to what they claim they want.
Deepgreen
Established Member
Where is "heuston" anyway? It certainly seems as if we have a problem...
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,346
I have nothing against them doing it in a public place. There are a lot of videos showing how aggressive staff/security guards start verbally attacking people for doing something that they're legally allowed to do, and you'll find that a uniform often goes straight to people's heads. It can be quite entertaining watching people throw things around like "The GDPR applies here and you can't film me", showing their ignorance and stupidity. Or they'll threaten to have people arrested and so on, all of which is just fantasy. I've also seen people make ridiculous claims about where the private property starts, such as claiming that the pavement is part of the building when it's clearly (not) maintained by the council. Then there are cases where security guards have physically touched people or their equipment for filming in public places, which is quite unacceptable.
There are also plenty of examples where security guards (who should be SIA licenced) refuse to display their badges when asked to do so, and they get quite upset when they get filmed and informed that they'll be reported to the SIA. All of this is perfectly fair game, especially in a public place.
In this specific case, they have no right to be hanging around there, and they should have been told to clear off or else. It's the same with filming inside buildings or other non-public areas: it's just not amusing. Train stations are not public places, and as others have mentioned, there is no explicit right to film there.
It all depends on who is filming and where they're filming.
Dublin, isn't it?
Agree with this. There's no public interest in this clip, just somebody getting a kick out of supposedly getting one up on authority.
I think any staff you may be describing there would certainly be the exception rather than the rule. And no staff of that description can be seen in this clip from what I can see.
Odd jobsworths could probably be seen in any industry that exists, that does not excuse setups like this whatsoever.
Edsmith
Member
Indeed, there's good and bad examples of auditing. Whilst some are just out looking for an argument there are others who behave in a perfectly reasonable way and bring things to the public attention that most people would never believe unless it was there on film.
So I suspect the CTA comment was likely a simple and easy attempt to diffuse a conflict, or perhaps a misunderstanding on the police officers behalf. In any case, the police officer was entirely within his rights to ask the gentleman to leave private property.
Much ado is being made about the law (and there clearly is atleast one byelaw offence as quoted above - and likely more, there really is a railway byelaw for most occasions and they almost always favour the staff), but I'd imagine whatever law door staff have at your typical pub/club would also cover this. If you've not bought a ticket, you have no right to the rail service and your presence on private property is at the sole discretion of the owner/manager/door staff. I think the quoted byelaws more or less codify this.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,346
I haven't watched this, but that's partially because I refuse to give them the time of day. It's not a public place, train stations have their own processes for allowing people to film, and there is absolutely no right to do anything there without the permission of the property owner.
But this is a good example here of someone who *could* have done some good, but ruined it by being a mouthy fool to the police.
He had every right to film the guy who was illegally parked on the pavement, he could wind the guy up as much as he wanted in the van, and he should have simply stuck to the two key points: he's filming in a public place and that the van owner was parked illegally on the pavement. The police also messed up here, because the van driver should have received a hefty fine for parking where he was.
Yes, I agree. It's a shame that many good videos get ruined by the person filming being cocky/obnoxious: it would be far better to simply stay calm, but they often struggle with their own emotions too.
- Status