Interesting Merseyrail Dispute Video

[357]

When I was working on stations the decision to refuse travel for drunkenness would be passed on to me by the gateline staff. There wasn't a company "bar", it was purely my decision and mine alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I was working on stations the decision to refuse travel for drunkenness would be passed on to me by the gateline staff. There wasn't a company "bar", it was purely my decision and mine alone.

Wow. There should always be strong and clearly defined policy on this sort of matter. Individual discretion of anyone other than a fully trained Police Officer leads to huge inconsistency and unfairness (and often even then; various Forces seem to have rather a reputation for racism, for instance). Imagine if drink driving law was like that?

The idea of leaving this to the discretion of a poorly trained contract security guard absolutely stinks.

 

[Llanigraham]

Wow. There should always be strong and clearly defined policy on this sort of matter. Individual discretion of anyone other than a fully trained Police Officer leads to huge inconsistency and unfairness (and often even then; various Forces seem to have rather a reputation for racism, for instance). Imagine if drink driving law was like that?

The idea of leaving this to the discretion of a poorly trained contract security guard absolutely stinks.

And yet the same discretion will be seen across many places where the public have access. Try getting into some night clubs or pubs where there are door staff doing exactly this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Taxis are owned by private individuals.

But that doesn’t explain why taxis should refuse and another private enterprise shouldn’t.

It’s not the job of the railway to transport drunk people who are a danger to themselves and others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that doesn’t explain why taxis should refuse and another private enterprise shouldn’t.

It’s not the job of the railway to transport drunk people who are a danger to themselves and others.

As repeatedly pointed out, Merseyrail's bar (or that of the rentathugs) is far, far below that.

 

[AlterEgo]

As repeatedly pointed out, Merseyrail's bar (or that of the rentathugs) is far below that.

It likely is, but the poster was talking about “the railway”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It likely is, but the poster was talking about “the railway”.

People being refused for simple drunkenness on the non-yellow railway are few and far between and would only be if so drunk they were unable to stand, or they assaulted (verbally or physically) staff. Same with the Tube.

I've certainly been very drunk on the 0134 off Euston on several occasions.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As I said they are MUCH stricter than behaviour that could lead to a Drunk & Disorderly charge.

Perhaps worth noting that 'drunk and disorderly' is a rather different test from 'drunk'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps worth noting that 'drunk and disorderly' is a rather different test from 'drunk'

The reason I brought that up is that someone upthread referred to people breaking the law, and simply being drunk isn't breaking the law.

The Railway Byelaws perhaps, though "unfit" is so discretionary that it's worthless, you'd never be able to prosecute that Byelaw.

 

[35B]

People being refused for simple drunkenness on the non-yellow railway are few and far between and would only be if so drunk they were unable to stand, or they assaulted (verbally or physically) staff. Same with the Tube.

I've certainly been very drunk on the 0134 off Euston on several occasions.

Given Byelaws 4 and 5, there's quite a wide margin for discretion by operators about who they would, or would not accept on their premises - discretion that many deterred from travelling at chucking out times might be grateful for. And while interpretations will vary, Byelaw 6 (2) could be applied very broadly to drunks. And while "unfit" is very broad, it doesn't need to be prosecuted as 4(2) allows for refusal of entry or ejection (as appropriate).

 

[spag23]

Inebriated people can indeed be a danger to themselves. I once saw a guy hurl himself through the closing doors of a late night train on platform 2 at SAC; I think he had just woken up. But such was his speed - and lack of control - he kept hurtling towards the edge of platform 3, arms and kegs flailing. Here he teetered, but just about avoided falling onto the fast up line, before staggering up the stairs.

 

[SteveM70]

I’ve seen a few drunks refused boarding onto the last Northern of the night from Manchester to Rochdale and the Calder valley, though I suspect in most if not all cases there were failures of the attitude test as well. In one case, it precipitated a full on row between the guard and the dispatcher on the platform who knew he’d be left to deal with an angry drunk man with no means to get home

 

[185]

I would politely tell them. OK, I will drive instead

I'd reply "Okay sir, Wirral's that way, drive down Mann Island to the Pier Head and keep going. Can't miss it, it's infront of you. Safe journey"

But in fairness, these "rent-a-thugs" as one forum poster calls them every week do a fairly good job controlling what locally was a serious problem for many years on Merseyrail.

Some years ago, if you fell down the side of a train drunk or on drugs, you were a fool. Nowadays, Britain 2023, it's everyone else's fault, and legally the operator must enforce this level of diligence due to our society... and more importantly their insurance.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Is it not a Bylaw offence to be intoxicated on Rail premises?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not a Bylaw offence to be intoxicated on Rail premises?

To be unfit, but that's incredibly vague.

I'd reply "Okay sir, Wirral's that way, drive down Mann Island to the Pier Head and keep going. Can't miss it, it's infront of you. Safe journey"

But in fairness, these "rent-a-thugs" as one forum poster calls them every week do a fairly good job controlling what locally was a serious problem for many years on Merseyrail.

Some years ago, if you fell down the side of a train drunk or on drugs, you were a fool. Nowadays, Britain 2023, it's everyone else's fault, and legally the operator must enforce this level of diligence due to our society... and more importantly their insurance.

One operator. None of the others do.

 

[philthetube]

Wow. There should always be strong and clearly defined policy on this sort of matter. Individual discretion of anyone other than a fully trained Police Officer leads to huge inconsistency and unfairness (and often even then; various Forces seem to have rather a reputation for racism, for instance). Imagine if drink driving law was like that?

The idea of leaving this to the discretion of a poorly trained contract security guard absolutely stinks.

Clearly defined is impossible, there will always be a grey area, both between different staff's opinion and between the level of drunkenness of the individual, which can change quickly, not always after drinking more.

I had a passenger at Uxbridge, drunk, got off the train to a bigger step than expected on an island platform staggered across the platform and took three steps on the white line of the adjacent platform before regaining his balance, very lucky not to have fallen onto a 4th rail electrified track. Should he have been allowed to travel?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly defined is impossible, there will always be a grey area, both between different staff's opinion and between the level of drunkenness of the individual, which can change quickly, not always after drinking more.

I had a passenger at Uxbridge, drunk, got off the train to a bigger step than expected on an island platform staggered across the platform and took three steps on the white line of the adjacent platform before regaining his balance, very lucky not to have fallen onto a 4th rail electrified track. Should he have been allowed to travel?

Quite possibly not. But as I've said repeatedly, Merseyrail seem to be stopping people who are well, well below that bar.

Having used it a bit this weekend, I find Merseyrail increasingly bizarre, it is grossly overstaffed and the staff seem to be forever interfering with something or other or simply standing in the way of passenger flow chatting. The whole thing feels like the kind of oversecurity you get at some music gigs and nightclubs. Yet stations are in a poor state of repair (whacked myself on a broken door guard on the bog at Central, for example), and trains and stations grubby. It wasn't at all like this when I was a kid and teen, it was a friendly little operation, though things were still grubby and unkempt. They have an utterly bizarre set of priorities.

 

[shredder1]

I must admit to having issues with Merseyrail and Carlisle rent a thug staff in the past, all around taking photographs, until I initiated a move to change that by getting the local council involved, you should now have no issues taking photographs on Mersey rail. Being refused entry onto trains and platforms while being drunk, is something else and Id fully support Merseyrail on this, because if anything goes wrong, its Merseyrail that cop for it, you you cant blame them can you, they are only protecting everyones interests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit to having issues with Merseyrail and Carlisle rent a thug staff in the past, all around taking photographs, until I initiated a move to change that by getting the local council involved, you should now have no issues taking photographs on Mersey rail. Being refused entry onto trains and platforms while being drunk, is something else and Id fully support Merseyrail on this, because if anything goes wrong, its Merseyrail that cop for it, you you cant blame them can you, they are only protecting everyones interests.

What level of "drunk" would you consider reasonable to refuse? Why is Merseyrail different from the entire rest of the network including London Underground and Metrolink?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What level of "drunk" would you consider reasonable to refuse? Why is Merseyrail different from the entire rest of the network including London Underground and Metrolink?

Because on Merseyrail, drunk people fall under the train and die, and traincrew are prosecuted as a result.

It's not intuitive to conclude that Merseyrail are overreacting to avoid this happening again. Arguing that they are overreacting needs positive arguments rather than 'no one else does it'.

 

[LowLevel]

Wow. There should always be strong and clearly defined policy on this sort of matter. Individual discretion of anyone other than a fully trained Police Officer leads to huge inconsistency and unfairness (and often even then; various Forces seem to have rather a reputation for racism, for instance). Imagine if drink driving law was like that?

The idea of leaving this to the discretion of a poorly trained contract security guard absolutely stinks.

As an experienced train guard expected to lock myself in a tin can with all sorts of individuals I am quite happy to exercise my own judgement on fitness to travel I've refused people for being too drunk and I probably will do again - if you projectile vomit and then fall down the station stairs only to have your mates attempt to carry you on to the train I have no interest in trying to evacuate you if the thing catches fire.

I once had a very lucky escape where less than 90 seconds after I'd kicked the last passenger out of my vomit comet at midnight the driver and I discovered it was on fire due to a mechanical fault. I've always been very grateful that we subsequently had to deal with a fire under an empty train not a full and standing one!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an experienced train guard expected to lock myself in a tin can with all sorts of individuals I am quite happy to exercise my own judgement on fitness to travel I've refused people for being too drunk and I probably will do again - if you projectile vomit and then fall down the station stairs only to have your mates attempt to carry you on to the train I have no interest in trying to evacuate you if the thing catches fire.

Certainly that level of drunk is such that back in the day of there being enough proper Police rather than hired thugs might see one quite rightly thrown in the cells to sober up. But there is plenty of evidence of Merseyrail applying a far lower bar in the way no other TOC does.

Indeed I think it probably is fair to blame the reduction in in-person Policing for companies seeing a need to hire in cheap, poor quality security staff, but it is a shame they don't see fit to instead hire in high quality professionals, as security guards often are in other European countries.

 

[Meole]

Some late night services have been removed from the timetable in the past due to persistent issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because on Merseyrail, drunk people fall under the train and die, and traincrew are prosecuted as a result.

The member of traincrew in the more recent incident was rightly prosecuted for it. He belled a train off with someone leaning on it. It doesn't matter why they were leaning on it. That incident should only have caused delay but the guard directly caused it to cause death by making a very deliberate decision. I forget what the charge was but I don't think manslaughter would have been far off the mark - an everyday equivalent might be starting to drive a car knowing that someone was stood in front of it. It wasn't an accident, it was gross, wilful negligence by one person alone.

One would hope that that issue was solved by other staff seeing that and deciding that they would never be so utterly negligent just so they got home in time for the chippy or whatever.

I do think the action against Merseyrail in the other one was unfair, but I forget where that ended up in the end.

It's not intuitive to conclude that Merseyrail are overreacting to avoid this happening again. Arguing that they are overreacting needs positive arguments rather than 'no one else does it'.

I think it's fine to argue that a TOC by implementing a policy no other TOC does implement, including operations like London Underground which have far more experience of how to deal with large volumes of revellers, is overreacting. I similarly argue that Northern's policy of not having unstaffed units is overreacting when several other TOCs don't have such a policy.

It's like a micro version of British exceptionalism. If the UK does something no other country does, it's usually the UK that is wrong.

Indeed, misguided exceptionalism characterises Merseyrail as a whole. And possibly the city itself at times?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I’ve seen a few drunks refused boarding onto the last Northern of the night from Manchester to Rochdale and the Calder valley, though I suspect in most if not all cases there were failures of the attitude test as well. In one case, it precipitated a full on row between the guard and the dispatcher on the platform who knew he’d be left to deal with an angry drunk man with no means to get home

We get it the other way round usually, gateline or security let them through and the conductor says they aren't willing to be responsible for/carry them in that state. Station staff get irate as they couldn't pass on the potentially dangerously inebriated passenger to someone else.

It's far easier to deal with drunk passengers within the station, if they medically or mentally deteriorate (be that aggression, vomiting, passing out) I'd rather deal with it whilst not being trapped in a train!

Obviously Merseyrail is somewhat different to this, but it's been this way for a while so shouldn't really be a surprise to people in the area. Not saying it's the right attitude, but antisocial behaviour on our network is far worse in that area so clearly they have a reason for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We get it the other way round usually, gateline or security let them through and the conductor says they aren't willing to be responsible for/carry them in that state. Station staff get irate as they couldn't pass on the potentially dangerously inebriated passenger to someone else.

Really BTP need to be on hand to deal with people who have got to this level of drunk, who need to be placed in the cells for the night to sober up. But as I said it does seem Merseyrail are regularly refusing people who are just a bit tipsy rather than inebriated, largely as a bit of a power trip by cheap, poor quality security staff.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Really BTP need to be on hand to deal with people who have got to this level of drunk, who need to be placed in the cells for the night to sober up. But as I said it does seem Merseyrail are regularly refusing people who are just a bit tipsy rather than inebriated, largely as a bit of a power trip by cheap, poor quality security staff.

Absolutely, do we know when Merseyrail took this decision? Was it simply after the 2011 incident? I don't agree with it, but I'd be interested to know how/why they made the decision to implement it.

We managed to get BTP and our RPIs to start policing Lime St on Friday/Saturday nights but it stopped after about 3 weeks as there were no reports of antisocial or disorderly behaviour (hundreds of bottles and cans of alcohol confiscated though). Some would say the presence of the BTP etc worked in stopping said issues...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely, do we know when Merseyrail took this decision? Was it simply after the 2011 incident? I don't agree with it, but I'd be interested to know how/why they made the decision to implement it.

I think it was, yes. I recall it first becoming prominent in the TV documentary about them a while back, with staff at Southport refusing people from the races who really did not appear that drunk. Though telling someone to go away and get a coffee and come back later in the afternoon is one thing, stranding people or leaving them to walk home at midnight (particularly women) is quite another.

We managed to get BTP and our RPIs to start policing Lime St on Friday/Saturday nights but it stopped after about 3 weeks as there were no reports of antisocial or disorderly behaviour (hundreds of bottles and cans of alcohol confiscated though). Some would say the presence of the BTP etc worked in stopping said issues...

Interesting. The Police aren't of course perfect, and there have been recent controversies, but I'd more trust the judgement of a proper Police Officer than a cheap, poorly trained security guard. Of course this is a symptom of chronic Police underfunding, but even if employing their own staff the railway could and should have done better than just contract to a cheap firm with a very mixed reputation.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Interesting. The Police aren't of course perfect, and there have been recent controversies, but I'd more trust the judgement of a proper Police Officer than a cheap, poorly trained security guard. Of course this is a symptom of chronic Police underfunding, but even if employing their own staff the railway could and should have done better than just contract to a cheap firm with a very mixed reputation.

It's why I'm glad we use our internal RPI team to assist with these things rather than rented security. Much more consistent, and same faces too. I guess my bug bear with this is having their presence work it gets dropped until something happens again which won't be long.

I'm unsure on how the railway can resolve the issues around drunk passengers, passengers seem to think that it doesn't matter what state they're in. Completely oblivious to the train crew being legally obliged to look after them through duty of care.

 

[g492p]

To be unfit, but that's incredibly vague.



One operator. None of the others do.

Having been a station supervisor in my previous TOC and a Guard at my current one, I have and do refuse people travel for being drunk. Both TOCs also hire agency security guards weekends and evenings to control anti social behaviour. So I’m not sure where your getting the impression that it’s only MerseyRail.