Mintona
Established Member
She went about that in the wrong way; she could have done it much better. But she is quite fit, so she must be let off.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Macclesfield station photo ban
- Thread starter a4pacific
- 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
I am not totally sure what to make of it so far. At first she is doing her job, perfectly understandable, and to be greeted with a nice big "ssshhhhh" is pretty unacceptable IMO. Nothing stops anyone finding a member of staff and informing them of your presence, something regularly referred to in the guidelines. After that though, I do believe she took a bit of the old "power trip" but probably in response to Mr Tan's initial reaction.
a4pacific
Member
Hi All, thanks for your response, yes its Mr Tan here.
I would have complied with their request of getting permission first if I had know it existed, I never ventured into the National rail Enquirer webpage except to check the train arrival or departure time. I have never heard of this guide line until this happened. Further more there were not sign or notices to alert the general public about the rule. I have emailed the National Rail website admin to include a warning about "photos at the discretion of the train company" and had a positive response.
The "Sssshhh" sound was made becuase I was not facing her as shown on the video, I though someone on the station was trying to get somebody's attention and thus ruining the video, so I made that "ssshhh" sound to make the person quiet. When I found out it was someone from VT yes, I wanted to keep the camera running to see what they have to say. Good job I did too, whether or not I turn the camera off, there is no need for losing it like she did, after all we, the rail users pay their wages, there is no need for the rudeness. She could have a bad day or the night before. The suggestion of her pursuing legal channel will be laughed out of hand, simply because the intention of the video was to film the train, and she deliberately walked into front of the camera. However some website such as Channel M did blur her image, I'd say just as well, as it might scare children under 16.
I further have to add I went back to the station to collect my other daughter on Wednesday, and got chatting with the station manager, not the one on sunday, and he was very nice and understanding and welcome me to take photos anytime.
It just shows that only a handfull of railway staff behave badly.
I would have complied with their request of getting permission first if I had know it existed, I never ventured into the National rail Enquirer webpage except to check the train arrival or departure time. I have never heard of this guide line until this happened. Further more there were not sign or notices to alert the general public about the rule. I have emailed the National Rail website admin to include a warning about "photos at the discretion of the train company" and had a positive response.
The "Sssshhh" sound was made becuase I was not facing her as shown on the video, I though someone on the station was trying to get somebody's attention and thus ruining the video, so I made that "ssshhh" sound to make the person quiet. When I found out it was someone from VT yes, I wanted to keep the camera running to see what they have to say. Good job I did too, whether or not I turn the camera off, there is no need for losing it like she did, after all we, the rail users pay their wages, there is no need for the rudeness. She could have a bad day or the night before. The suggestion of her pursuing legal channel will be laughed out of hand, simply because the intention of the video was to film the train, and she deliberately walked into front of the camera. However some website such as Channel M did blur her image, I'd say just as well, as it might scare children under 16.
I further have to add I went back to the station to collect my other daughter on Wednesday, and got chatting with the station manager, not the one on sunday, and he was very nice and understanding and welcome me to take photos anytime.
It just shows that only a handfull of railway staff behave badly.
Last edited:
Mintona
Established Member
Most rail staff are good people, there are a few jobsworths, but there are in every line of work I think. You just got unlucky.
If you ever want to come to Wilmslow, you are more than welcome.
If you ever want to come to Wilmslow, you are more than welcome.
a4pacific
Member
I will take up your offer, thanks, please pm/email me of who shall I look for at the station. (Can you send Private message in this forum?)
Last edited:
adamp
Member
Mr. Tan is quite the celebrity now around the North West!
I stand by what I say. I now appreciate why you said "shhh", but she did ask you to turn the camera off and you ignored that request. I'm not going to labour that point, though. I've already said my piece.
She didn't "lose it". She seemed more annoyed that you did not comply with a simple request. She seemed reasonable up until that point (of course, I wasn't there, I'm just going by what I can hear on the tape). I'm assuming she walked in front of the camera to get your attention. As I've already said, I don't think you really did anything wrong, although you could have complied with the request in the first place. At the same time, I'm baffled as to why people seem to think she was abusive. I don't think she was.
I think if you had turned the camera off in the first place, she would have been more understanding. And I think she'd have been more likely to let you stay on the platform.
For the legal channel, I would be speaking to a lawyer regarding my face being plastered over the news channels without my permission if I were her. I wouldn't be taking it straight to court. As you say, at least one network has blanked her out, but she's still shown on BBC and the newspaper. I'm sure there's laws about this; having worked in a call centre, this was mentioned regarding telephone conversations, so I'm assuming that there's a law covering videos as well. Of course, any lawsuit would be aimed at the BBC and any other company who's using the video in the same way.
I do think the guidelines should be revised. They're open to interpretation on both ends, and that's causing all this. I think a fair rule would be:
"Enthusiasts are welcome at all stations. However, before stepping onto the platform, they must seek permission from the station staff at a manned station". Such a request is easy, and if it were a solid rule it would prevent incidents like this happening in the first place. What is also needed is better publicity of this, although I don't think plastering stations with posters is the best way to go about it!
She didn't "lose it". She seemed more annoyed that you did not comply with a simple request. She seemed reasonable up until that point (of course, I wasn't there, I'm just going by what I can hear on the tape). I'm assuming she walked in front of the camera to get your attention. As I've already said, I don't think you really did anything wrong, although you could have complied with the request in the first place. At the same time, I'm baffled as to why people seem to think she was abusive. I don't think she was.
I think if you had turned the camera off in the first place, she would have been more understanding. And I think she'd have been more likely to let you stay on the platform.
For the legal channel, I would be speaking to a lawyer regarding my face being plastered over the news channels without my permission if I were her. I wouldn't be taking it straight to court. As you say, at least one network has blanked her out, but she's still shown on BBC and the newspaper. I'm sure there's laws about this; having worked in a call centre, this was mentioned regarding telephone conversations, so I'm assuming that there's a law covering videos as well. Of course, any lawsuit would be aimed at the BBC and any other company who's using the video in the same way.
I do think the guidelines should be revised. They're open to interpretation on both ends, and that's causing all this. I think a fair rule would be:
"Enthusiasts are welcome at all stations. However, before stepping onto the platform, they must seek permission from the station staff at a manned station". Such a request is easy, and if it were a solid rule it would prevent incidents like this happening in the first place. What is also needed is better publicity of this, although I don't think plastering stations with posters is the best way to go about it!
me123 said:
Its called 'Public interest'. If its deemed by the newspaper to be in the public interest, then she cannot stop ANY publication of her image... nor can she claim damages as she/ Virgin will find.. Not even Royalty or film stars are immune to the papperazzi...
Why do you think we saw pictures of Fritzel before he pleaded guilty in a 'private' building without his permission....It wasn't needed!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Fixed your quote for you 
I know for a fact, however, that you cannot record someone's voice without their prior permission. And that still remains property of the person who was speaking. So I'm surprised that doesn't in any way cover a video or picture.
That said, I'm not a legal expert. I checked a couple of laws out on the internet and the wording baffled me! So that's why I'd be seeking legal advice.
I know for a fact, however, that you cannot record someone's voice without their prior permission. And that still remains property of the person who was speaking. So I'm surprised that doesn't in any way cover a video or picture.
That said, I'm not a legal expert. I checked a couple of laws out on the internet and the wording baffled me! So that's why I'd be seeking legal advice.
Thank you for fixing the quote, I still can't see how to do it but thats not relevant. You say its not legal to record a voice ... There is no restriction legally on recording a voice at all ( unless you are say at a concert and part of the terms and conditions of the ticket sale state that.) You may be thinking of telephone recording- there is some quirk there , I agree, but thats as a byproduct of the telecommunications act. Otherwise there is equally no privacy or expectation of privacy in public places- whether that be for image or voice or noises from any other orifice...
I'll PM you about quoting.
It is about phone calls, but I was recently made aware of issues about recording people's voices as part of some university coursework. Something about it remaining property of the individual or something like that. Not too sure. As you can see, there's a reason I'm not a law student!
It is about phone calls, but I was recently made aware of issues about recording people's voices as part of some university coursework. Something about it remaining property of the individual or something like that. Not too sure. As you can see, there's a reason I'm not a law student!
a4pacific
Member
I was glad to annoy her, I have no regrets whatsoever, if she cannot deal with being annoyed with common sense and composure, esp. in this sort of high stress situation, then she should go back to training and learn how to deal with it. I would suggest she learn "the customer is always right". She did lost it I can assure you, after the camera was switched off. she was yelling like a mad chicken, I should have kept the camera running a bit longer so as to show you. One thing more, she would have yelled at me anyway whether or not I turned the camera off, as when you turn these little cameras on and off, there is no sound no light no nothing to show you whether the camera is actually on or off.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but if you read the comments on the Manchester evening news site, we have 80 comments so far and you will see only 1 or 2 agree with your line of thinking. Sorry but this is how it goes.
I do not wish to provoke more discord here or anywhere else, so I am keeping my mouth shout, and leave you guys to it.
Again, thanks everybody for your response and support.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but if you read the comments on the Manchester evening news site, we have 80 comments so far and you will see only 1 or 2 agree with your line of thinking. Sorry but this is how it goes.
I do not wish to provoke more discord here or anywhere else, so I am keeping my mouth shout, and leave you guys to it.
Again, thanks everybody for your response and support.
Don't worry; I'm used to it
I'm not going to go on any more about this though, unless someone specifically asks me to explain something. I've said my bit, it's there, and I don't want to repeat myself any more!
Last edited:
metrocammel
Member
I am sorry, but in this situation, the woman acted in a totally ridiculous manner. First of all, as it has been stated on various forums / newsgroups, she was in the wrong, by stating that you have to 'ask' for permission to take photographs. As I'm sure Snapper can confirm, on WNXX, it has been clearly stated [on the NR guidelines] that you must 'sign in' (also, you must bear in mind that these are only 'guidelines', and are not by-laws)- it does not state that you must 'ask' for permission- which this individual denied. As confirmed on the Granada News tonight, VT will be 'having words' with this employee.
I do, however, agree to an extent with the woman, I personally would not have asked her to 'shhh', but, seriously, is 'shhh' that offensive? (refer to my comments about abusiveness on Friday / Saturday nights!) If Virgin really want to lay down the laws, shouldn't they advertise the 'draconian rules' to all and sundry? At the end of the day, unless you are a crank, and have access to the internet, how on earth will you know about the 'photography guidelines? - Does this mean in future Ada and Bert who want to take a picture of their train before their cruise (or whatever) are going to get chastised by this neo-Nazi platform woman? If so, I think we should all avoid Virgin
Anyway, back to Virgin. Mr. Branson isn't one for bad publicity (as he proved with his recent intervention with 'the poor quality food on Virgin Atlantic') Hopefully, he may take an interest in this story (which is undoubtedly bad publicity for Virgin in the North West at least)!
I do, however, agree to an extent with the woman, I personally would not have asked her to 'shhh', but, seriously, is 'shhh' that offensive? (refer to my comments about abusiveness on Friday / Saturday nights!) If Virgin really want to lay down the laws, shouldn't they advertise the 'draconian rules' to all and sundry? At the end of the day, unless you are a crank, and have access to the internet, how on earth will you know about the 'photography guidelines? - Does this mean in future Ada and Bert who want to take a picture of their train before their cruise (or whatever) are going to get chastised by this neo-Nazi platform woman? If so, I think we should all avoid Virgin
Anyway, back to Virgin. Mr. Branson isn't one for bad publicity (as he proved with his recent intervention with 'the poor quality food on Virgin Atlantic') Hopefully, he may take an interest in this story (which is undoubtedly bad publicity for Virgin in the North West at least)!
Last edited:
There are no published requirements to sign in for photography or videos, or to seek permission if you are a member of the public unless it is for commercial use.
The only guidelines - not requirements - are for enthusiasts and even they do not state you need to request permission.
As usual the guidelines for enthusiasts asking them to sign in is turned into a requirement for photographers to ask permission. Yet this is not stated anywhere.
The woman behaved in a manner that is not acceptable to speak to a potential customer and there is no legal reason why the video cannot be put on the BBC site. It is in the public interest as she is making up rules that do not exist and she is in a public facing job. The claims that she can sue are utterly ridiculous and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the law. Sue for what? Some imaginary law that only one person agrees with? Hmm...
The legal nonsense about her suing should be ignored.
I am not supporting going up to people who do not want to be filmed and start filming them - if he went up to her and started filming her and harassing her then she could sue for harassment (it´s not the filming itself it is the harassment potentially being caused by it) however clearly that is not the case here as he was already filming trains and she walked into it by being abusive when the film was being taken, that´s just dumb and she has no legal grounds to complain.
Virgin have made a PR blunder and I suspect someone is in trouble for that already because Virgin are usually very good with PR and dont like any negative press.
The only guidelines - not requirements - are for enthusiasts and even they do not state you need to request permission.
As usual the guidelines for enthusiasts asking them to sign in is turned into a requirement for photographers to ask permission. Yet this is not stated anywhere.
The woman behaved in a manner that is not acceptable to speak to a potential customer and there is no legal reason why the video cannot be put on the BBC site. It is in the public interest as she is making up rules that do not exist and she is in a public facing job. The claims that she can sue are utterly ridiculous and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the law. Sue for what? Some imaginary law that only one person agrees with? Hmm...
The legal nonsense about her suing should be ignored.
I am not supporting going up to people who do not want to be filmed and start filming them - if he went up to her and started filming her and harassing her then she could sue for harassment (it´s not the filming itself it is the harassment potentially being caused by it) however clearly that is not the case here as he was already filming trains and she walked into it by being abusive when the film was being taken, that´s just dumb and she has no legal grounds to complain.
Virgin have made a PR blunder and I suspect someone is in trouble for that already because Virgin are usually very good with PR and dont like any negative press.
Last edited:
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
True the so called guidelines say that you just need to let them know of your presence. You do not need to ask permission nor sign in.
As for publishing her photo being illegal; get real!
It's a shame that Mr Tan didn't leave the camera running all the time, but fair dos he got her face and that has caused the required effect.
Anyone for a 'flashmob' type expedition to Macclesfield next times she's on duty????!!!!!
Oh dear, having now actually seen the video, looks like she may have fulfilled my prophecy about railway staff earning themselves Form Ones................
It'd be interesting if the BBC or the MEN followed up the story with VT now and confronted them with the enthusiast guidelines which after all VT signed up to!!! Then watch that spokesman squirm. Like I said before, what he meant to say was "we're really sorry and it won't happen again"!!!!!!
Edmund - please ask them to....
It'd be interesting if the BBC or the MEN followed up the story with VT now and confronted them with the enthusiast guidelines which after all VT signed up to!!! Then watch that spokesman squirm. Like I said before, what he meant to say was "we're really sorry and it won't happen again"!!!!!!
Edmund - please ask them to....
Sandy Jamieson
New Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 1
First of all as said before the Code is just that it is a code. It is not part of the Railway By-laws nor is it part of the Law of the Land.
I congratulate the MP Tom Harris for taking this point up (see his blog) but as I said there, each time some bureaucrat or misfit in a uniform exceeds their powers, a spokesman for Network Rail or one of the Companies says something like, "Of course we encourage train spotters" but nothing changes. By the way, bearing in mind that Macclesfield is used by more than one railway operator, why was an employee of Virgin Rail taking it upon themselves to upbraid Mr Tan
Neverthless, this type of arrogant action by bureaucrats and officials will continue. We need to identify what is the most obnoxious station to railway enthusiasts/train spotters/photographers and stage a mass photography session. We observe the Laws of the Land and the Railway By-laws to the letter, we are polite but we all refuse to pay the slightest bit of attention to any 'crat who demands we desist. Neither do we give any information such as our names and addresses to them. We are a free people and we are entirely free to conduct our behaviour and interests. We arrive by a train on a valid rail ticket or we buy a "platform ticket" or failing that a return to the nearest station. We tip the press of. By the way be prepared for a police presence. Remember Gordon Brown's Stasi will monitor sites such as this
First they came for the Train Spotters
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Train Spotter.
Then they came for the Photographers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a photographer.
Then they came for the civil libertarians
and I did not speak out - because I was not a civil libertarian.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me
Apologies to Martin Niemoller.
I congratulate the MP Tom Harris for taking this point up (see his blog) but as I said there, each time some bureaucrat or misfit in a uniform exceeds their powers, a spokesman for Network Rail or one of the Companies says something like, "Of course we encourage train spotters" but nothing changes. By the way, bearing in mind that Macclesfield is used by more than one railway operator, why was an employee of Virgin Rail taking it upon themselves to upbraid Mr Tan
Neverthless, this type of arrogant action by bureaucrats and officials will continue. We need to identify what is the most obnoxious station to railway enthusiasts/train spotters/photographers and stage a mass photography session. We observe the Laws of the Land and the Railway By-laws to the letter, we are polite but we all refuse to pay the slightest bit of attention to any 'crat who demands we desist. Neither do we give any information such as our names and addresses to them. We are a free people and we are entirely free to conduct our behaviour and interests. We arrive by a train on a valid rail ticket or we buy a "platform ticket" or failing that a return to the nearest station. We tip the press of. By the way be prepared for a police presence. Remember Gordon Brown's Stasi will monitor sites such as this
First they came for the Train Spotters
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Train Spotter.
Then they came for the Photographers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a photographer.
Then they came for the civil libertarians
and I did not speak out - because I was not a civil libertarian.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me
Apologies to Martin Niemoller.
a4pacific
Member
I just did a seach on the Manchester Evening site and found this:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1004/1004423_trainspotter_threatened_with_arrest.html
This happened 2 years ago and sounds scarier then my incident.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1004/1004423_trainspotter_threatened_with_arrest.html
This happened 2 years ago and sounds scarier then my incident.
I remember that, can't believe that was nearly 2 years go.
Again, the Southern spokesman is talking rubbish.
Never delete the photos or give your name and address to these jobsworths - they have no right to do that. In fact I'd say the jobsworth is in breach of the data protection act for asking for his DOB for no valid reason. Taking photos of trains has absolutely nothing to do with the DPA. There is no 'data' being processed. This is basic stuff. Perhaps the jobsworth didn't pay attention at school as learning about the DPA is compulsory I believe.
Again, the Southern spokesman is talking rubbish.
Never delete the photos or give your name and address to these jobsworths - they have no right to do that. In fact I'd say the jobsworth is in breach of the data protection act for asking for his DOB for no valid reason. Taking photos of trains has absolutely nothing to do with the DPA. There is no 'data' being processed. This is basic stuff. Perhaps the jobsworth didn't pay attention at school as learning about the DPA is compulsory I believe.
- Status