It states the assault on the BTP report.
Clearly you’ve only read the paraphrased and watered down BBC article.
-
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!
Is there enough safeguarding/vetting checks being carried out in the rail industry?
- Thread starter Steve Harris
- Start date
- Status
Clearly you’ve only read the paraphrased and watered down BBC article.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If rail staff came under similar Safeguarding type regimes to voluntary youth services and teaching you would certainly be able to* make a report and for that person to be watched very, very carefully as a result. I guess this comes down to the original question.
* In Scouting, reporting any Safeguarding concern you have is actually mandatory, and if you were aware of it and didn't report it and it later comes to light that this is the case you would likely be asked to leave, though in practice how it could be proven that you did have such a concern if you didn't report one (unless you'd talked about it) is a bit unclear. And volunteers have no employment rights, unlike paid staff.
I imagine they did - even in depots people tend to know who is a bit ‘odd’ but a) that could be a result of many things (e.g. neurodiverse) and b) as you say just because you have an odd feeling doesn’t mean you can start disciplinary action.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It also depends what sort of behaviour (if any) is giving you an off feeling about members of staff. I better people in all walks of life feel something is off about their colleagues but it’s a bit of a leap to then consider they might be a potential sexual predator.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Enhanced monitoring.
It doesn't.
FYI, I was the one who posted the additional article that provided the actual detail. The BBC article clearly just regurgitated the BTP press release.
I get that they won't go on about the salacious detail- that's the newspapers' job- but it still reads to me that the BTP are rather downplaying what he actually did. Just as others have by referring to it 'only' being assault by penetration.
If someone gives off the impression that they are a bit "handsy" then experience tells us that there is a remarkably high chance that they will become a sexual predator. Not to this extent, perhaps not. But look how many notable people have long had a reputation for having "disco hands" only for it to come out, years later, that- lo and behold- they were actually a sexual predator all along. Mohammed Fayed, for instance.
Lewisham2221
Established Member
It does. You somehow managed to quote two sentences and proceed to completely ignore the second sentence where it clearly states "McMurray approached her and sexually assaulted her."
It then continues:
It doesn't go into the full, gory details - I wouldn't expect it to - but it certainly doesn't water it down to only "adjusting her dress".
Not in any meaningful way, as has already explained. Their interactions are in public and covered by CCTV. They have no power of detention other than a theoretical one,
which in most cases they’re expressly forbidden from using.
Unfortunately this post shows that you misunderstand the guard role and the RMT’s arguments. The fact is that rail staff have no more interaction with the public than shop workers, so presumably you’re in favour of enhanced DBS checks for them too. Personally I’m not, because I don’t want to live in a “papers please” or police state type society, and I think the current position is about right. There’s also no likelihood of it changing to my knowledge.
Lots of wild supposition and speculation here. As noted above, enhanced DBS checks would have made no difference in this guy’s case. It’s an unfortunate case of a wrong’un who has thankfully now been dealt with, but could easily have committed the same offence had he not been at work.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is a good point - quite a few are in this category on the railway. I don’t think we want to create a culture of suspicion where people who are “different” are seen as ominous or threatening. Especially in an era where workplaces are (rightly) working to reduce barriers for those who are neurodiverse.
Last edited:
Most people will have read the BBC article. Probably not all of the way to the final paragraph. Someone could be forgiven for reading "and adjusted her dress" and thinking "is that all?", not bothering to continue to the very end where the charges are listed. It definitely feels like the gravity of what he did was buried way down in the BBC article.
Indigo Soup
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,449
An honest misreading of the regulations, nothing more!
Even then, Security Check isn't that intrusive, and is the level which applies to most people with security clearances. The number of people who've been subject to the most intrusive Developed Vetting (and Enhanced Developed Vetting) is much smaller than you'd think.
Any employment which calls for background checks is also seen as being barred to anyone with any criminal record whatsoever - see any number of threads in the Disputes & Prosecutions forum about people concerned their careers will be threatened by an unpaid rail fare!
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
A train is not a public place and the CCTV is, to be charitable, 'variable' in quality.
A train guard works, to all intents and purposes, alone.
A train guard is responsible for the safe operation of a piece of machinery which has hundreds of people on it.
A train guard or RPI is also responsible for dealing with those people. Beyond the bog standard 'tickets please', a guard or an RPI is responsible for their safety- particularly where someone may be incapacitated or otherwise vulnerable.
Staff also have the legal right to require someone give their contact details- and don't try and claim you don't routinely exercise this right, because the disputes forum is full of people who demonstrate otherwise.
The autonomy and responsibilities of the chap in Tesco who hands me my 20 B&H and scans my Clubcard is, with respect, absolutely nothing like those afforded to a train guard or RPI.
I have to say I am curious as to why people are so vociferous against the idea of making on-board railway staff subject to an Enhanced DBS. I don't understand; possibly because I've had to have one done for fifteen years and, really, it's no big deal. The DBS really is the best example there is of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.
Except the point is that his work gave him direct access to his victim and gave him direct authority over his victim. It seems that she was only able to escape him because, by a quirk of fate, the doors on an IET are actually released by the driver.
Even the BTP made it clear in their press release that he:
And you're trying to claim that his position was irrelevant to how he was able to commit this offence?
Um, that's literally in the sentence I quoted?
The BTP press release seemed rather more focused on him 'adjusting her dress' and 'touching her' rather than focusing on what was, by any measure, an extremely serious sexual assault. The BTP don't even use the word 'serious' once.
A lot of careers are rightly barred to people with criminal records.
I am subject to Enhanced DBS because of a specific application in the legislation, and not because I have any access whatsoever to vulnerable people. I drive a desk all day. But the law says my employer can ask for Enhanced DBS and so they do.
I don't think all jobs should be subject to Enhanced DBS. The chap in Tesco who hands me my B&H shouldn't be. The lass in the ticket office who sits behind the glass screen all day shouldn't be. But when you look at the rights, responsibilities, and autonomy of a train guard, not to mention their access to vulnerable people, I am quite frankly amazed that the law doesn't seem to mandate the use of at least an Enhanced DBS.
True enough, the form is a pain in the backside to complete, especially the financial stuff. But once it's submitted everything gets vetted in the background.
Last edited:
Falcon1200
Established Member
They are certainly in a position of trust and power but their contact with, and therefore opportunity for abuse, is not at the same level as an educational or health care professional.
For a Guard etc,, how? By a Supervisor or Manager accompanying them for a time and when asked by the subject why, 'it's because your colleagues think you're a bit odd'? Is that the world we are in now?
I wouldn't like to see rail jobs start needing an Enhanced DBS. They really should be only for those with the most direct contact with and power over vulnerable people. The more they're expanded, the more difficult it becomes for people with records - themselves nearly always vulnerable in some way - to have a decent life.
renegademaster
Established Member
The lone vulnerable woman at night situation can happen just as easily in a supermarket
All sexual assault is serious.
If you can’t understand why the details aren’t publicly shared, then clearly you’ve not understood the mentality of victims and their hesitance to approach the authorities.
Explicitly publicising the nature and intimacies of the assault is exactly how those attacked feel alienated and humiliated by the system.
Whilst I’m an advocate for holding criminals accountable legally and publicly; protecting and encouraging victims to come forward, so they can trust the system to keep their details private as to not feel shamed themselves, is a big reason for omitting it from their press releases.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be honest if I was wanting to make an improvement to public safety by doing something to rules for staff on the railway, it'd be that guards and DOO drivers would have mandatory first aid training. It's quite possible for a train to be stranded in the middle of nowhere with a medical emergency on board, and this would save lives - far more than DBS checks when staff assaulting passengers close to never happens, but passengers being taken seriously ill happens rather a lot and often in inconvenient places. Mental health first aider training might also be of benefit, particularly for station staff and security guards.
Of course these aren't mutually exclusive I suppose.
(If I got my way every schoolkid would get a day's worth of first aid training every year, though - I don't think we do nearly enough of it!)
Last edited:
Lewisham2221
Established Member
I've got absolutely nothing against having an enhanced DBS check. I've had one in my previous job, and a basic (or standard?) one for my current role. It does seem like it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to the case in question though.
Some of the other suggestions in this thread (not necessarily from yourself) are utterly ludicrous, however.
Yes, you quoted it whilst claiming that the BTP article didn't make any mention of assault apart from, specifically, "adjusting her dress". I was pointing out that the quote you posted totally contradicted the point you were making.
I'm not sure how much graphic detail you want a press release to go into, or in fact why. Any reasonable person reading the press release can ascertain that it was a serious and somewhat prolonged assault. There's no need for more detail.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The details are publicly available in the link I posted from Wales Online. I don’t expect a press release to go into that level of detail but the BTP media office are simply glossing over the severity of what happened.
Not really.
And certainly not in a moving vehicle where only one person has control of the doors.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I’d definitely agree with that
Considering the press release appears to be post-conviction, I don't know why the BTP would need to go into detail, considering the bulk of the detail is already in the public domain from the trial. They evidently are not "glossing over the severity" as they sought and successfully obtained a conviction, as well as challenging the behaviour (lies) of the train manager. The BTP press release also ends with:
renegademaster
Established Member
Cleaners may have been a better analogy.
Both can enter a room with a long woman or child in it and commit crimes similar to the one in the case quite easily, but they aren't Enhanced DBS checked.
One problem with Enhanced DBSing everyone is that it can be quite slow even if you are British, if you have spent anytime extended abroad it can take months as they chase up the police forces of anywhere you have lived before.
Both can enter a room with a long woman or child in it and commit crimes similar to the one in the case quite easily, but they aren't Enhanced DBS checked.
One problem with Enhanced DBSing everyone is that it can be quite slow even if you are British, if you have spent anytime extended abroad it can take months as they chase up the police forces of anywhere you have lived before.
A train is a place to which the public have access, it is a public place to all intents and purposes.
And the person can ignore the them or tell them to eff off, so it’s a world away from the power the police have, and how does this make them more vulnerable to the sort of assault discussed in this thread? I have no idea who the “you” is you’re referring to here, I am not a guard and don’t routinely interact with passengers as part of my role.
The same reason the police shouldn’t have the right to burst into your house at any time just to check what you’re up to, “because you have nothing to hide, right?”There is a stigma attached to criminal convictions, and society allows those which have been “spent” to be hidden for that reason. The most serious convictions will still be picked up on a basic DBS check.
But he could have done almost exactly the same thing had he not been a guard. The point you are downplaying is that subjecting him to a more rigorous DBS check would have made no difference. I’d be interested to know whether you could point to any offences committed by rail staff in the course of their employment, where the person had a conviction that would have been picked up by a more enhanced DBS check had they been subjected to one when they were hired.
So you keep saying, but the reasoning is clear to others commenting on the thread, myself included.
Last edited:
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
A train guard/conductor spends time on a train with people (vulnerable, lone or whatever) for however long his roster says so
A health care professional spends time in a clinic setting with people (vulnerable, lone or whatever) for however long his shift is booked for
A train guard/conductor can spend seconds with an individual or an hour or 2 on a train full of people he may or not interact with
A health care professional can spends seconds with a patient or an hour or 2 in an Outpatients Department full of patients he may or may not interact with
The health care professional is enhanced DBS-checked, so why not the train guard/conductor?
A health care professional spends time in a clinic setting with people (vulnerable, lone or whatever) for however long his shift is booked for
A train guard/conductor can spend seconds with an individual or an hour or 2 on a train full of people he may or not interact with
A health care professional can spends seconds with a patient or an hour or 2 in an Outpatients Department full of patients he may or may not interact with
The health care professional is enhanced DBS-checked, so why not the train guard/conductor?
This is a completely false equivalence. A train conductor isn’t prescribing medication or conducting intimate physical examinations of their passengers, for starters.
The healthcare professional will work with patients in a state of undress. They will work with patients who are unconcious. They may be performing intimate examinations of the patient.
PyrahnaRanger
Member
Yes, but when you see some of the staff covered in hiviz, stab vests, and police style attire saying "stay there", the difference may be less obvious. Guards uniforms are much less threatening, the "Safety Officers" do look like cops.
Around £80 last time I paid for an enhanced one. Plus they tend to be redone every three years at the moment. People will accept the update service to transfer them between organisations provided the actual check wasn't too long ago, but that costs extra.
Which in reality works out as most drivers being checked, to give maximum flexibility of the workforce. Councils insist on them for any of their work, and will do their own Social Services checks as well as the PoCA/PoVA/Enhanced DBS checks.
Plus, PCV holders can have their vocational licence removed by the Traffic Commissioner for some offences.
The determining factor in if one is needed isn't the time you spend with vulnerable people, it's whether you're ever with vulnerable people - if you are, you need checked. If we applied the same logic to the railway as the council do to home/school transport providers (how many councils move kids by train?) then drivers and guards should both be checked to be equivalent to the road transport providers!
Lewisham2221
Established Member
But bus drivers don't need to be checked if they are on "normal" service work - even if that work includes driving a bus route that passes a school at kicking out time, regardless of how many school kids may board that service, as long as it is open to use by the general public. That scenario would be no different than school kids using the train - unless there's any "closed-door" school-train services that I'm unaware of?
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Lots of health care staff don't prescribe medication or conduct intimate, or any physical examination either
If we get to the point where REOs are regularly detaining people, or otherwise using police like powers, I’d agree that perhaps they should be subject to enhanced checks.
So perhaps the ones they don’t shouldn’t be enhanced DBS checked! However I suspect many will have intimate access to vulnerable/unconscious patients in clinical settings. It simply isn’t a good comparison to railway staff.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
In the same way, guards/conductors have access/interaction with vulnerable adults and children for the duration of their roster. The train could be empty. Who's to stop another bad 'un from dragging somebody to the toilet for their sexual pleasure? Of course, they would lose their job too but doesn't necessarily stop them from carrying out their desires
renegademaster
Established Member
What's to stop a cleaner in an office block or just any random member of the public on a late night train doing the same. Should everyone just require an enhanced DBS it leave the house?
m0ffy
Member
I think a sensible comparison would be airport staff, who typically require CTC or SC vetting dependant on role. Drivers and signallers seem a fairly obvious group which should have national security vetting (NSV) due to their ability to cause harm to large numbers of people. I appreciate this is miles off the safeguarding topic, however.
Nail. Head. On.
I have seen very robust action being taken in the industry when even much lower level concering behaviours are reported (and confirmed to be true, not just a malicious or misguided accusation).
Indeed. I don't see any resemblance. Note that the historical "cover an incident up for a mate" has long since departed the rail industry, the amount to monitoring-obtrusive and unobtrusive- is actually very high.
TPO
- Status