Filming interaction with on board staff

[zwk500]

If you have been assaulted, it is the polices job to turn up. If they fail to do so you submit a complaint to the iopc.

That's what's supposed to happen. However the police haven't got the finest record for always doing only what they're supposed to do.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That's what's supposed to happen. However the police haven't got the finest record for always doing only what they're supposed to do.

Of course.

 

[zwk500]

Of course.

As such, I would avoid any escalation where I was relying on the other person being afraid of being caught to prevent me being assaulted. My sense is that people generally won't bat an eyelid about being a random passerby in the background of somebody's video - they would only get aggressive if you were clearly trying to video them specifically. If the compensation for a bloody nose is a court case that on balance won't happen, then I'd rather not take the punch in the first place.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A reminder is perhaps needed here that the railway is something of a grey area in that it is technically private property to which the public have a right of access for the conduct of legitimate railway related business. As such railway staff have the right to require that members of the public desist from certain actions if those might interfere with railway operations. In practice this right is seldom necessary and the right of privacy could hardly be extended to staff/passenger interactions.

OTOH staff wearing body mounted cameras are required to inform a member of the public if they decide to commence recording their interaction with them and TOCs should brief staff on how to communicate that. And as stated upthread there are strict rules as to when this may occur, what happens to that footage and how it is controlled.

The idea that members of the public are free to film whatever they like is not accurate. Major indoor shopping malls have signs by their public entrances informing visitors that filming is not allowed on their premises and security staff may well seek to enforce this. Even on the street you would not be permitted for example to point a camera at the window of a private building with the intent to film events taking place inside. That's not to say that train passengers absolutely cannot film inside a train but should consider the possible repercussions of doing so. In short failing to respect someone's request to stop filming them is quite likely to provoke a negative reaction.

A point to consider about posting videos to YouTube is that if the channel to which footage is uploaded has been monetised then such footage can be considered to to have been obtained for commercial purposes and as such anyone portrayed and clearly indentifiable in that footage could reasonably expect to be paid for the appearance. Alternatively the recorder should obtain a signed filming release. Many YouTubers are clearly oblivious to this requirement but the absence of a release would certainly make YouTube more likely to block a video on privacy grounds. Sensible vloggers ensure that random participants are recorded agreeing to take part.

Not strictly comparable to the bulk of this discussion but many airlines have policies that passengers are not allowed to film on board an aircraft without prior permission. Public transport is not necessarily as public as people think!

 

[matt_world2004]

Any individual who has powers conferred upon them in law over other citizens should expect to be filmed so there is accountability in how those powers are used.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Not strictly comparable to the bulk of this discussion but many airlines have policies that passengers are not allowed to film on board an aircraft without prior permission. Public transport is not necessarily as public as people think!

Indeed, Aer Lingus have recently-ish started announcing that passengers may not film any of their crew members.

 

[Watershed]

On the other hand it would be nice when I know that a member of staff is wrongly preventing me from using a valid ticket to be able to have some evidence as otherwise it's just my word against theirs if I somehow manage to get a complaint to be taken seriously.

An audio recording can be taken discreetly and would, in most cases, provide substantially the same evidence as a video recording - whilst avoiding any possible conflict caused by the act of recording.

The idea that members of the public are free to film whatever they like is not accurate.

It's the default legal position, and the few exceptions are almost certainly not going to be engaged for a private individual in the circumstances described in this thread.

Even on the street you would not be permitted for example to point a camera at the window of a private building with the intent to film events taking place inside.

Err, yes, you would.

That's not to say that train passengers absolutely cannot film inside a train but should consider the possible repercussions of doing so. In short failing to respect someone's request to stop filming them is quite likely to provoke a negative reaction.

I think if a ticketing or other on-train dispute has reached that stage, any negative reaction to filming is probably the least of the passenger's concerns.

 

[AdamWW]

As if that happens all the time. You must be incredibly unlucky….

I don't think I said that it happens all the time.

But you can't reasonably deny that it does happen, and I've been the victim on a few occasions. (And not because I was attempting to exploit an obscure ticketing rule, unless you think that trying to use an off peak ticket on a train where some off peak tickets aren't valid counts).

One one occasion when I managed to get a complaint listened to the staff member just said that I was lying - it was my word against theirs so there wasn't anything I could do.

Indeed it isn’t. Staff are faced with needing to remain professional, often while the person filming them tries to provoke them, knowing that they can’t react. Really it’s a form of bullying.

Are you arguing that any attempt to film an interaction with a member of staff is bullying? Or just if it's done to provoke?

And, although you might not want to accept this. some staff do not remain professional - even when unprovoked.

 

[Watershed]

Indeed it isn’t. Staff are faced with needing to remain professional, often while the person filming them tries to provoke them, knowing that they can’t react. Really it’s a form of bullying.

Bullying? Come off it. It's no more so than it is if the roles are reversed! Yes, the person being filmed may be uncomfortable, but that's life.

I once made a strategic PA announcement which led to the idiot filming me through my cab window (while ranting incoherently) being frogmarched away by some off duty policemen. Incredibly satisfying!

You do seem to get a rather worrying amount of satisfaction from this kind of stuff. Put yourself in that person's shoes - how do you think they felt?

 

[RPI]

It doesn't happen (to me anyway) that often, I just smile and carry on regardless, I find if you dont rise to it they just get bored and stop

 

[Feuillesmortes]

Staff probably need training on this because there are too many people manufacturing situations so as to gain views, eg USA post offices where apparently city police have no jurisdiction.

 

[XAM2175]

A point to consider about posting videos to YouTube is that if the channel to which footage is uploaded has been monetised then such footage can be considered to to have been obtained for commercial purposes and as such anyone portrayed and clearly indentifiable in that footage could reasonably expect to be paid for the appearance. Alternatively the recorder should obtain a signed filming release.

This is also untrue. The fact that video or audio material has been obtained for "commercial purposes" creates no legal expectation of compensation for people who appear in it. The consent of the subject - whether financially encouraged or not - only becomes legally necessary when the material is to be used in advertising or other such applications where the subject's appearance without consent could possibly lead to them being associated with views or beliefs they don't actually hold (and as such the provisions are intended primarily as protections against defamation).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Even on the street you would not be permitted for example to point a camera at the window of a private building with the intent to film events taking place inside.

Err, yes, you would.

The following is from the Institute of Photography's advice page with reference to awkward questions:

“You are invading my privacy.”

There are no specific privacy laws prohibiting you from taking photographs apart from a location where your subject might reasonably expect privacy. It would not be reasonable to take a photo of an unwilling subject through their living room window, obviously.

Perhaps I should have clarified my post about private buildings with a rider regarding occupants' reasonable expectation of privacy. This would clearly apply to a private residential dwelling.

The whole subject is somewhat of a legal minefield. Unless you want to have absolutist regulations it is always going to be difficult to maintain a suitable balance between freedom of expression and privacy. I believe the French laws are rather more prescriptive in this area.

 

[LowLevel]

Bullying? Come off it. It's no more so than it is if the roles are reversed! Yes, the person being filmed may be uncomfortable, but that's life.


You do seem to get a rather worrying amount of satisfaction from this kind of stuff. Put yourself in that person's shoes - how do you think they felt?

Why would anyone give a toot about someone filming them through a cab window while they're at work suddenly being made to stop in a satisfying way, and quite specifically how they felt? I'm not the kind of plank who would decide it was a good idea to film a train driver through a cab window, and therefore I can't imagine how they would feel in any situation. Probably irate in a simple kind of way.

I also quite enjoy objectionable people getting messed around. As you say, that's life. I don't revel in it but given I'm very rarely unpleasant to anyone by any definition then I can't say I'm bothered by someone acting the fool getting caught out.

 

[Lloyds siding]

It's worth pointing out that, whilst the criminal law does not prevent this sort of filming in, or from public areas, the civil law can certainly apply, especially if human rights are infringed.
I know of someone who obtained an injunction against a 'journalist' (but not one recognised by the NUJ), the 'journalist' was not allowed to go within 50m of him, or his family. Nor could he make any defamatory, libellous or slanderous statements about him or his family. He could however make those sort of statements about the organisation employing him (Because organisations can't be libelled, etc. unless serious financial harm may result).

 

[occone]

on more than one occasion the result has been the idiot following me around whilst rabbiting on camera trying to provoke me being marched off by the police.

That sucks - you shouldn't have to deal with that but it sounds like you have the right approach.

A lot of people with nothing better to do seem to enjoy being bullies with a thin veneer of some ideology like "protecting rights". The best thing having seen some videos is to be as boring as possible, broken record technique, etc as it makes an unsatisfying video which is really what they're after.

If they ever actually cared about the matters they claim they care about, they wouldn't be hassling staff on the ground but promoting and advocating for better training to the companies themselves

 

[43066]

But you can't reasonably deny that it does happen, and I've been the victim on a few occasions. (And not because I was attempting to exploit an obscure ticketing rule, unless you think that trying to use an off peak ticket on a train where some off peak tickets aren't valid counts).

Based on around twenty years of travelling extensively around the network and never experiencing it, I don’t believe it happens anything like as much as is suggested on here.

Are you arguing that any attempt to film an interaction with a member of staff is bullying? Or just if it's done to provoke?

It’s unnecessarily provocative, and (as we regularly see on here) is often used to make public accusations on social media based on a heavily edited version of events.

If you shove a camera in my face while I’m at work, I will react in a way that remains professional, but ensures a bad outcome for you.

And, although you might not want to accept this. some staff do not remain professional - even when unprovoked.

Just like staff anywhere, then.

Bullying? Come off it. It's no more so than it is if the roles are reversed! Yes, the person being filmed may be uncomfortable, but that's life.

Nonsense. It obviously isn’t the same as if the roles were reversed. The individual filming can do or say whatever they want, and do as they wish with the footage, while the staff member has to remain professional or face criticism from their employers.

I regularly see passengers abusing railway staff and speaking to them as if they’re something they’ve stepped in. Those same people wouldn’t dare speak to anyone not in uniform like that because they’d likely get a smack on the mouth. They know the person isn’t in a position to answer back and take the opportunity to use them as a punchbag. That’s bullying in my book.

You do seem to get a rather worrying amount of satisfaction from this kind of stuff. Put yourself in that person's shoes - how do you think they felt?

This was someone who was clearly drunk/on drugs ranting and swearing and preventing me moving the train safely. No surprise you jump straight to taking their side, of course.

As always, it’s easy to criticise and sit in judgement when you aren’t exposed to the travelling public yourself.

 

[AdamWW]

If you shove a camera in my face while I’m at work, I will react in a way that remains professional, but ensures a bad outcome for you.

I can't tell here if you consider any attempt to film you as having a camera shoved in your face or if you think being filmed in a non agressive manner (just as a body cam does) is something different.

But either way, are you saying that despite there being no law or regulations prohibiting anyone from filming you, you would nevertheless ensure that someone doing so was punished?

Based on around twenty years of travelling extensively around the network and never experiencing it, I don’t believe it happens anything like as much as is suggested on here.

So far as I can see nobody on this thread has made any suggestion as to how frequent it is, just that it does happen.

However I have perhaps had less luck than you. let me give you an example.

I was at a suburban London ticket office and wanted to buy a ticket to travel into London and change onto a long distance train. The peak restrictions were based on when that train left London and it was valid for the local train I wanted to catch, as confirmed by travel planners.

But I was refused the ticket because it was before 9:30 and therefore off peak tickets aren't valid.

On my journey into and across London I asked every staff member I could what the rules were and EVERY SINGLE ONE told me that there is a blanket ban on off peak tickets before 9:30. The final person I asked (ticket office at the station for the long distance train) didn't know but actually had the time and courtesy to look it up and found out that I was right.

Perhaps you can see why, never mind what I have read here, I'm a bit sceptical about staff training?

And that's not the only time I've had hassle because staff don't understand peak restrictions or indeed been told absolute rubbish with great confidence by staff.

Our experiences clearly vary - and as I said before when I've run into trouble it's not been because I was doing anything obscure.

Nonsense. It obviously isn’t the same as if the roles were reversed. The individual filming can do or say whatever they want, and do as they wish with the footage, while the staff member has to remain professional

As you agreed above, staff do not always act professionally.

This was someone who was clearly drunk/on drugs ranting and swearing and preventing me moving the train safely. No surprise you jump straight to taking their side, of course.

So the fact that they were filming wasn't in fact the important point then.

 

[43066]

I can't tell here if you consider any attempt to film you as having a camera shoved in your face or if you think being filmed in a non agressive manner (just as a body cam does) is something different.

If someone comes up and starts filming me I will simply not engage with them. It’s not normal behaviour and just smacks of troublemaker/auditor/nutter.

I disagree with your statement in the OP that staff having body cams is somehow equivalent because the staff (AIUI) cannot access the footage, it is strictly controlled and there is no risk of it being splashed all over social media. It’s broadly equivalent to CCTV.

But either way, are you saying that despite there being no law or regulations prohibiting anyone from filming you, you would nevertheless ensure that someone doing so was punished?

Not punished, but if anyone acts in manner I consider threatening/distracting, or in any way makes me feel unable to undertake my job, I am going to take appropriate action.

Where someone acts in a way that is calculated to he deliberately unpleasant/abusive, and thinks they can hide behind a phone camera, they are likely to find themselves being asked to leave/on the wrong end of the BTP/revenue or whomever - that’s just human nature!

So far as I can see nobody on this thread has made any suggestion as to how frequent it is, just that it does happen.

However I have perhaps had less luck than you. let me give you an example.

I was at a suburban London ticket office and wanted to buy a ticket to travel into London and change onto a long distance train. The peak restrictions were based on when that train left London and it was valid for the local train I wanted to catch, as confirmed by travel planners.

But I was refused the ticket because it was before 9:30 and therefore off peak tickets aren't valid.

On my journey into and across London I asked every staff member I could what the rules were and EVERY SINGLE ONE told me that there is a blanket ban on off peak tickets before 9:30. The final person I asked (ticket office at the station for the long distance train) didn't know but actually had the time and courtesy to look it up and found out that I was right.

Perhaps you can see why, never mind what I have read here, I'm a bit sceptical about staff training?

And that's not the only time I've had hassle because staff don't understand peak restrictions or indeed been told absolute rubbish with great confidence by staff.

Our experiences clearly vary - and as I said before when I've run into trouble it's not been because I was doing anything obscure.

If staff are giving incorrect information then of course that’s wrong, but the correct way to deal with it is simply making a complaint in the normal way. Shoving a phone in someone’s face isn’t going to get a better outcome.

For balance - I did encounter an RPI recently who argued that my railway staff travel smart card wasn’t valid for travel (and was quite arsey about it!) so I realise it can happen. However these situations can be dealt with in a way that doesn’t needlessly escalate things.

I do notice that some posters on here seem to have rather more than their fair share of negative interactions with staff. I can’t help but look at the way some enthusiasts behave, and strongly suspect that the two are linked…

As you agreed above, staff do not always act professionally.

Just as in every walk of life. I’m sure you don’t go around filming every person you encounter who is dealing with you as part of their job, just in case their behaviour is unprofessional? As I say, it is not normal behaviour, and you will find yourself regarded with a lot more suspicion.

So the fact that they were filming wasn't in fact the important point then.

It completely depends on context. Drivers are filmed all the time (or rather their trains are, while they happen to be visible in the cab). It isn’t an issue. Someone coming up and shoving a camera in my face to try and goad me into reacting is clearly different.

In the example I gave above, my objection wasn’t just to the filming, it was to the accompanying behaviour.

 

[bramling]

If someone comes up and starts filming me I will simply not engage with them. It’s not normal behaviour and just smacks of troublemaker/auditor/nutter.

Staff having body cams is not equivalent because the staff (AIUI) cannot access the footage, it is strictly controlled and there is no risk of it being splashed all over social media. It’s broadly equivalent to CCTV.

My issue with all this is that, as I see it, the spread of staff wearing body cams encourages people to do the same. Whether or not the footage is tightly controlled (and as an aside I know how tightly CCTV is controlled at my place, and in practice that is not very) isn’t really of relevance to the average Joe Public, they just see it as a camera shoved in their face, and if they can do it then why can’t I?

To be honest I hope body cams are a craze which will come and go once the novelty wears off. My only exception is for revenue staff, where there is a need to collect specific evidence.

However I do notice that some posters on here seem to have rather more than their fair share of negative interactions with staff. I can’t help but look at the way some enthusiasts behave and conclude that the two are linked…

I finally got pulled up for taking photos on the T&W Metro last night, as it happened the control room were viewing a particular camera for an unrelated reason and happened to notice. Ended up having a good laugh with the staff concerned who essentially said wait five minutes and carry on doing whatever you want, and we both agreed that the control should be more interested in the people smoking at pretty much every station, the 45-minute gap in the service last night, or the stairs at Monument station showered in bottle glass!

 

[43066]

My issue with all this is that, as I see it, the spread of staff wearing body cams encourages people to do the same. Whether or not the footage is tightly controlled (and as an aside I know how tightly CCTV is controlled at my place, and in practice that is not very) isn’t really of relevance to the average Joe Public, they just see it as a camera shoved in their face, and if they can do it then why can’t I?

To be honest I hope body cams are a craze which will come and go once the novelty wears off. My only exception is for revenue staff, where there is a need to collect specific evidence.

I’m sort of agnostic on it as many on train staff do anecdotally seem think it has reduced the level of abuse they receive. I certainly wouldn’t want one personally because I don’t have anything like enough interaction with passengers to warrant it.

Just as with RPIs these days wearing stab vests and carrying spit kits, it’s a sad sign of the times, and a reflection of the increasingly feral nature of the population of this county.

I finally got pulled up for taking photos on the T&W Metro last night, as it happened the control room were viewing a particular camera for an unrelated reason and happened to notice. Ended up having a good laugh with the staff concerned who essentially said wait five minutes and carry on doing whatever you want, and we both agreed that the control should be more interested in the people smoking at pretty much every station, the 45-minute gap in the service last night, or the stairs at Monument station showered in bottle glass!

There should be no issue with people filming/photting comings and goings and some staff can be overzealous - unfortunately enthusiasts do tend to be regarded with some suspicion based on the behaviour of the significant minority we are all aware of.

However - here is a good example of there being a right way and a wrong way of dealing with these interactions - if you had responded to staff coming up to you by shoving your phone into their face, you would likely have had a different outcome.

 

[AdamWW]

However - here is a good example of there being a right way and a wrong way of dealing with these interactions - if you had responded to staff coming up to you by shoving your phone into their face, you would likely have had a different outcome.

I'm curious to know.

You repeatedly use phrases like "shoving a phone into someones face".

Is that just how you see any incident where a member of staff is deliberately filmed? And if so isn't that what's happening to a passenger when a body cam is turned on?

If, say, a guard is sure my ticket isn't valid, why wouldn't they be happy to repeat their position on camera with me standing at a respectful distance? After all if they're right, what harm will it do?

I take your point that usage of body cam footage is restricted, but if I'mnot allowed to film than it's still saying that the railway can take film of me and use it to incriminate me if they wish, but staff can treat me however they like and if I complain it's just my word against theirs.

I wish I'd been able to film the guard who threatened an elderly couple with prison for not being able to show their railcards.

 

[bramling]

I’m sort of agnostic on it as many on train staff do anecdotally seem think it has reduced the level of abuse they receive. I certainly wouldn’t want one personally because I don’t have anything like enough interaction with passengers to warrant it.

Just as with RPIs these days wearing stab vests and carrying spit kits, it’s a sad sign of the times, and a reflection of the increasingly feral nature of the population of this county.

This is my view. I will reluctantly tolerate it for those in high-risk jobs, but it should be very much a last resort. Not handed out like confetti.

I have one, it’s sat in a drawer and never been used, and I have no intention of ever using it. So much for spending money wisely!

However - here is a good example of there being a right way and a wrong way of dealing with these interactions - if you had responded to staff coming up to you by shoving your phone into their face, you would likely have had a different outcome.

Exactly, have a silly policy on something and don’t be surprised if people don’t take it seriously. I’d have quite happily spoken to the control room by phone and (politely) given some pointers of some rather more important - safety-related - issues going on that should have merited their attention.

It was quite interesting to pick up the same cynicism from “on the ground” staff towards “control” that we see all over the rest of Britain’s rail systems!

I'm curious to know.

You repeatedly use phrases like "shoving a phone into someones face".

Is that just how you see any incident where a member of staff is deliberately filmed? And if so isn't that what's happening to a passenger when a body cam is turned on?

If, say, a guard is sure my ticket isn't valid, why wouldn't they be happy to repeat their position on camera with me standing at a respectful distance? After all if they're right, what harm will it do?

I take your point that usage of body cam footage is restricted, but if I'mnot allowed to film than it's still saying that the railway can take film of me and use it to incriminate me if they wish, but staff can treat me however they like and if I complain it's just my word against theirs.

I wish I'd been able to film the guard who threatened an elderly couple with prison for not being able to show their railcards.

I’d say there’s a distinction between general filming, and filming someone at very close range where the person is the definite subject of the photo.

The latter is an issue, and is something we really want to avoid, not least as it could lead to more of a negative attitude towards photography in general.

 

[43066]

You repeatedly use phrases like "shoving a phone into someones face".

Is that just how you see any incident where a member of staff is deliberately filmed? And if so isn't that what's happening to a passenger when a body cam is turned on?

I’ve already explained why being deliberately filmed at close quarters on a mobile is very different to someone filming general comings and goings at a station. I’ve also given a few reasons why someone wearing a body cam as part of their job (which incidentally is always on, they just save events, and they cannot access or edit the footage) is really a form of CCTV and clearly not equivalent to a member of the public getting their phone out and pointing it at someone.

If, say, a guard is sure my ticket isn't valid, why wouldn't they be happy to repeat their position on camera with me standing at a respectful distance? After all if they're right, what harm will it do?

Because it’s unnecessarily proactive and doesn’t add anything to the situation. The guard is identifiable by the train they’re working, you have the ticket as evidence, and you can complain through the official channels.

Do you think it’s acceptable in any other walk of life to poke your phone at someone while you interact with then because “what harm will it do”? Would you do it in your local supermarket/off license/cafe, or whatever?

Depending on context (imagine a middle aged male filming an attractive young member of staff) you might also find yourself suspected of being some sort of creep.

I take your point that usage of body cam footage is restricted, but if I'mnot allowed to film than it's still saying that the railway can take film of me and use it to incriminate me if they wish, but staff can treat me however they like and if I complain it's just my word against theirs.

Staff cannot use the film to incriminate you “if they wish” any more than CCTV can be use to do so. You can only incriminate yourself! On the other hand you can edit your own footage to your heart’s content (and these days even doctor it) to fit whatever narrative you want, and upload it to social media.

I wish I'd been able to film the guard who threatened an elderly couple with prison for not being able to show their railcards.

It’s not clear what that’s a reference to. Is it based on something on the disputes forum? I would take anything on there as gospel. They might have been warned that a prosecution was possible and its been twisted.

 

[AdamWW]

I’ve already explained why being deliberately filmed at close quarters on a mobile is very different to someone filming general comings and goings at a station. I’ve also given a few reasons why someone wearing a body cam as part of their job (which incidentally is always on, they just save events, and they cannot access or edit the footage) is really a form of CCTV and clearly not equivalent to a member of the public getting their phone out and pointing it at someone.

Because it’s unnecessarily proactive and doesn’t add anything to the situation. The guard is identifiable by the train they’re working, you have the ticket as evidence, and you can complain through the official channels.

OK let's leave this here.

You are clearly of the view that all rail staff are paragons of virtue and would never lie to get themselves out of trouble.
I know from experience that this isn't true.

I don't think we have any common ground to continue this conversation.

It’s not clear what that’s a reference to. Is it based on something on the disputes forum? I would take anything on there as gospel. They might have been warned that a prosecution was possible and its been twisted.

No. Something I saw happen myself a few years ago.

 

[matt_world2004]

CCTV isn't as tightly controlled on trains as people think.it hasn't stopped companies like Virgin trains releasing CCTV to prove a political point.

Or TOCS using camera footage for real crime/reality programmes like all aboard east coast trains, or Paddington Station 24/7 or fare dodgers at war with the law.

 

[43066]

You are clearly of the view that all rail staff are paragons of virtue and would never lie to get themselves out of trouble.
I know from experience that this isn't true.

That’s a complete straw man. I have specifically acknowledged that isn’t the case in post #49 above. I note you haven’t actually engaged with the points I’ve made, so agreed we might as well leave it.

With respect you do appear to regard every aspect of railway operation as somehow “out to get you”. That totally differs from my experience as a passenger, so agreed we have little common ground!

No. Something I saw happen myself a few years ago.

Well perhaps you misinterpreted.

I’d say there’s a distinction between general filming, and filming someone at very close range where the person is the definite subject of the photo.

The latter is an issue, and is something we really want to avoid, not least as it could lead to more of a negative attitude towards photography in general.

This is a very good point.

CCTV isn't as tightly controlled on trains as people think.it hasn't stopped companies like Virgin trains releasing CCTV to prove a political point.

It’s a lot more tightly controlled than some random individual’s mobile phone, to be fair.

Was that where Jeremy Corbyn lied about being unable to find a seat? That was in response to a prominent politician (at least at the time) making his own false political point at the company’s expense.

 

[AdamWW]

With respect you do appear to regard every aspect of railway operation as somehow “out to get you”. That totally differs from my experience as a passenger, so agreed we have little common ground!

While I don't see much to be gained from continuing our discussion I would like to say that that was not the impression I intended to give.

Most staff members I encounter on the ground vary from doing their job competently to going out of their way to be helpful.

But not always and the whole point of this discussion is about the times when things do go wrong.

Just as staff carry body cameras for the occasions where they need them, not - I hope - because of an assumption that all passengers are out to cause trouble.

 

[43066]

Just as staff carry body cameras for the occasions where they need them, not - I hope - because of an assumption that all passengers are out to cause trouble.

It’s the same principle as police/RPIs wearing stab vests. Unfortunately, given the number of passengers they encounter, staff need to prepare to deal with the few bad apples.

 

[Falcon1200]

CCTV isn't as tightly controlled on trains as people think.it hasn't stopped companies like Virgin trains releasing CCTV to prove a political point.

Was that where Jeremy Corbyn lied about being unable to find a seat?

I would presume like you that it was, in which case the footage was not released 'to prove a political point' but to refute an allegation of poor service by a private company (an allegation which was itself made with the sole purpose of proving a political point!)

I do wonder whether those believing railway staff are fair game for being filmed while on duty would be happy for complete strangers to film them at work?