Not allowed to volunteer on the Mid Norfolk Railway

[TurbostarFan]

I signed up to a membership a while ago with the Mid Norfolk Railway in the hope of volunteering with them only to find that they wouldn't let me. I renewed multiple times until recently they rejected my application. Am I right in saying that their "membership" is beyond a joke and best avoided for anyone who isn't already a respected member who already volunteers and is in their "exclusive members only club" so to speak? Or am I wrong? You decide!

 

[swt class 450]

That's a shame to hear. I find that Heritage Railways seem to hugely vary in regards to this. You get some that will happily welcome any volunteer with open arms. Yet there are some others like this which are very selective and make it very difficult to become a volunteer. It is a shame that some of them are like this.

 

[trash80]

What reason did they give?

 

[Intermodal]

The OP neglects to mention that he has a well publicised criminal record with a history of being challenging towards any sort of authority, not sure I would want him a member of any organisation I was running either. Very immature to slag off the railway with not even half the facts of the case presented.

 

[TurbostarFan]

What reason did they give?

No reason, just "a number of concerns".

 

[TurbostarFan]

The OP neglects to mention that he has a well publicised criminal record with a history of being challenging towards any sort of authority, not sure I would want him a member of any organisation I was running either. Very immature to slag off the railway with not even half the facts of the case presented.

I accept that I do have criminal record for a number of offences, those being breaching my Criminal Behaviour Order and also a few section 5 Public Order Act offences. However I fail to see the relevance of that when I was a member of the MNR because if that was a reason to restrict me from volunteering then why give me the membership, training and PTS card? Seems utterly stupid to me.

 

[TurbostarFan]

That's a shame to hear. I find that Heritage Railways seem to hugely vary in regards to this. You get some that will happily welcome any volunteer with open arms. Yet there are some others like this which are very selective and make it very difficult to become a volunteer. It is a shame that some of them are like this.

Indeed. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[Cowley]

Indeed. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I think he agreed with you before knowing all the facts.
Did the Mid Norfolk Railway also agree with you before knowing all the facts?

 

[TurbostarFan]

I think he agreed with you before knowing all the facts.
Did the Mid Norfolk Railway also agree with you before knowing all the facts?

No because I didn't have a criminal record at the time. But still denied the opportunity to volunteer, which is a right I have paid for. I think this is wrong and that they need to change their processes.

 

[DarloRich]

The OP neglects to mention that he has a well publicised criminal record with a history of being challenging towards any sort of authority, not sure I would want him a member of any organisation I was running either. Very immature to slag off the railway with not even half the facts of the case presented.

indeed.

I accept that I do have criminal record for a number of offences, those being breaching my Criminal Behaviour Order and also a few section 5 Public Order Act offences. However I fail to see the relevance of that when I was a member of the MNR because if that was a reason to restrict me from volunteering then why give me the membership, training and PTS card? Seems utterly stupid to me.

Maybe they weren't in possession of all of the facts. Perhaps your behaviour or attitude fell short of what they deemed acceptable. Perhaps they thought these offences showed a chronic inability to follow rules and instructions and an inability to respect authority and thought it wasn't worth the trouble having you around and that you would be unsafe. Perhaps they thought you were a walter mitty type time waster. Perhaps your criminal convictions breach their safeguarding rules. Perhaps your views on what you were equipped to volunteer for and what they thought you were equipped to volunteer for different widely. Perhaps you thought you could apply and just start driving trains and they thought you could start sweeping the shed floor.

You haven't told us why they rejected you ( nor do i suspect have you told us the full story)

No because I didn't have a criminal record at the time. But still denied the opportunity to volunteer, which is a right I have paid for. I think this is wrong and that they need to change their processes.

So this is another one of your massively delayed threads about some perceived slight form the past? Did you ask them why they didn't want you?

BTW it isnt a right to volunteer. It is a right for a member to apply to volunteer.

 

[TurbostarFan]

indeed.



Maybe they weren't in possession of all of the facts. Perhaps your behaviour or attitude fell short of what they deemed acceptable. Perhaps they thought these offences showed a chronic inability to follow rules and instructions and an inability to respect authority and thought it wasn't worth the trouble having you around and that you would be unsafe. Perhaps they thought you were a walter mitty type time waster. Perhaps your criminal convictions breach their safeguarding rules. Perhaps your views on what you were equipped to volunteer for and what they thought you were equipped to volunteer for different widely. Perhaps you thought you could apply and just start driving trains and they thought you could start sweeping the shed floor.

You haven't told us why they rejected you ( nor do i suspect have you told us the full story)



So this is another one of your massively delayed threads about some perceived slight form the past? Did you ask them why they didn't want you?

BTW it isnt a right to volunteer. It is a right for a member to apply to volunteer.

They were in possession of all the facts. The only reasons to say no is the fact that I suffer from Crohn's Disease. I didn't even have a chance to demonstrate behaviour or attitude so that couldn't have been it. I wasn't convicted of an offence at the time I was a member. No reason to believe that I was a Walter Mitty type time waster and our views didn't really differ. We agreed initially that I could start of as a crossing keeper. I didn't want to apply and just start driving trains, so that couldn't have been it. They haven't told me why they rejected me for membership or to volunteer for them. I asked but no response yet.

 

[AlterEgo]

I signed up to a membership a while ago with the Mid Norfolk Railway in the hope of volunteering with them only to find that they wouldn't let me.

Good.

 

[DarloRich]

The only reasons to say no is that fact that I suffer from Crohn's Disease.

without wishing to be rude that might be the reason. If you have to leave your post to use the facilities on a regular basis the proposed role may not be for you! I suspect they made the right decision.

 

[TurbostarFan]

without wishing to be rude that might be the reason. If you have to leave your post to use the facilities on a regular basis the proposed role may not be for you! I suspect they made the right decision.

Could be but shouldn't they have at least given me the chance before jumping to conclusions? I'd argue disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which is totally unlawful, if this is the case.

 

[DarloRich]

Could be but shouldn't they have at least given me the chance before jumping to conclusions? I'd argue disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which is totally unlawful, if this is the case.

ok. crack on.

 

[Ianno87]

Could be but shouldn't they have at least given me the chance before jumping to conclusions? I'd argue disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which is totally unlawful, if this is the case.

Lwfulness depends, AIUI, on whether they are capable of making a "reasonable adjustment" for your needs or not.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Lwfulness depends, AIUI, on whether they are capable of making a "reasonable adjustment" for your needs or not.

I would argue yes they are. Why not just let me inspect the tickets, that way I can still use the toilet like everyone else.

 

[yorkie]

You are entitled to your opinion however the railway is entitled to decide they do not wish to allow any individual to be a member.

They are certainly not under any obligation to allow someone to volunteer. Even if the risks of allowing a member with a criminal record were small, they may consider the risk of reputational damage to be too great.

There is also the possibility it may cause concerns, bad feeling and resentment among other volunteers and employees; the organisation may not want to risk losing other volunteers.

If you had kept a low profile then you may have not had an issue, however anyone with a Youtube account that includes videos of a concerning nature does risk being denied access to opportunities.

I do multiple jobs but in the job I did today, if anyone had a Youtube channel such as yours wishing to do voluntary work with me, they would be barred from doing so. And if I asked that particular employer if such a person could do voluntary work with me, questions would be asked regarding my own judgement.

Someone who had a troubled past but was working to change their outlook and was no longer publishing views that were likely to be contrary to those considered acceptable by a preserved railway, may well be viewed in a more positive light.

It is the railway's call and you have to accept that. Some people may sympathise with you but I doubt anyone with any relevant experience is going to state the railway has acted incorrectly or outside their remit.

Also in your opening post you state membership may be "best avoided"; I agree that in your case it is best not to challenge their decision and to forget about it and move on.

However in contrast, I would say that there is no evidence that membership of the railway is "best avoided" for anyone who does not publish videos of the nature you publish and who does not have a criminal record.

This post is not intended to have a go at you, but you have posed the question and therefore the above is my honest answer.

 

[TurbostarFan]

You are entitled to your opinion however the railway is entitled to decide they do not wish to allow any individual to be a member.

They are certainly not under any obligation to allow someone to volunteer. Even if the risks of allowing a member with a criminal record were small, they may consider the risk of reputational damage to be too great.

There is also the possibility it may cause concerns, bad feeling and resentment among other volunteers and employees; the organisation may not want to risk losing other volunteers.

If you had kept a low profile then you may have not had an issue, however anyone with a Youtube account that includes videos of a concerning nature does risk being denied access to opportunities.

I do multiple jobs but in the job I did today, if anyone had a Youtube channel such as yours wishing to do voluntary work with me, they would be barred from doing so. And if I asked that particular employer if such a person could do voluntary work with me, questions would be asked regarding my own judgement.

Someone who had a troubled past but was working to change their outlook and was no longer publishing views that were likely to be contrary to those considered acceptable by a preserved railway, may well be viewed in a more positive light.

It is the railway's call and you have to accept that. Some people may sympathise with you but I doubt anyone with any relevant experience is going to state the railway has acted incorrectly or outside their remit.

Also in your opening post you state membership may be "best avoided"; I agree that in your case it is best not to challenge their decision and to forget about it and move on.

However in contrast, I would say that there is no evidence that membership of the railway is "best avoided" for anyone who does not publish videos of the nature you publish and who does not have a criminal record.

This post is not intended to have a go at you, but you have posed the question and therefore the above is my honest answer.

You are correct. I agree that it is best not to challenge their decision. But my issue isn't being told no, it's being charged a membership fee, provided with the training and then refused. This is what I would call "beyond a joke".

 

[yorkie]

OK, I think it is impossible to really comment on what is really a personal matter between you and the railway.

If anyone has anything to add please do contact us and we will consider any request to reopen it (in particular if anyone from the railway concerned wishes to reply), but until then I think it best the thread be closed.

Edit: further to the above, I have been contacted by a forum member who I know to be involved in railway preservation, not at the railway mentioned in this thread, but at another railway, and he wishes to add the following:-

A known criminal background, or multiple convictions would put the railway in a difficult position as it is likely to cause concerns around the safeguarding policy, especially as they rely on family events for a large portion of the income stream. The fact the person has multiple convictions also suggests they cannot follow instructions, and this would be a concern even if not working in a safety critical role. Similarly a group or society does not have to accept you as a member, and this will be laid out in the articles of association.

From my personal point of view, I would 100% agree with what he says regarding potential concerns.