Railway staff lying to the BTP

[cjmillsnun]

You are not proved innocent. You are innocent until proved guilty. There is no such thing in law as not guilty but not innocent either aka got away with it.

Correct. It is a fundamental part of our justice system.

 

[Flamingo]

You are not proved innocent. You are innocent until proved guilty. There is no such thing in law as not guilty but not innocent either aka got away with it.

I thought there was in Scotland?

 

[michael769]

But the premise of talltim's question was that there was proof of innocence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought there was in Scotland?

Not really, the principle is the same, just the terminology (which is the result of a historical accident) is different.

 

[Flamingo]

Not really, the principle is the same, just the terminology (which is the result of a historical accident) is different.

So what does "Not Proven" mean?

 

[island]

So what does "Not Proven" mean?

Not guilty, but don't do it again

 

[Flamingo]

Not guilty, but don't do it again

Very good!

 

[michael769]

Same as not guilty.

Originally Scotland used "proven" and "not proven". However in 1728 (The King vs Carnegie of Findhaven) a jury chose to exercise the ancient common law power of "juror privilege" (which allows a jury to lawfully refuse to convict where the prosecution case has met the burden of proof but it would be fundamentally unjust to do so) which they did by expressing their verdict as "not guilty". It quickly became normal practice to render verdicts as "guilty" or "not guilty" and for a time both forms were in use.

Eventually "proven" fell out of use, however juries continued to use "not proven" as a way of saying "we think you did it but hae no proof". A practice that has surived into the modern era. However legally speaking guilty/proven and not guilty/not proven are interchangable ave have the same meaning in law.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks for that.

 

[W230]

I'm probably going off topic here but to clarify:

You are not proved innocent.

That was my point but I don't think I worded it very well.

I wasn't meaning from a legal point of view, I was meaning where someone says "the court proved me innocent", where in reality the court didn't prove them innocent but they were found not guilty and so by definition are innocent:

You are innocent until proved guilty.

 

[RJ]

What was the name of the OBM concerned ?

I'm not prepared to release that level of detail. My posts are not intended as a vilification campaign against individual members of staff.

 

[yorkie]

In addition to the numerous problems described above, a forum member reported to me they had problems with gateline staff not accepting tickets, which are valid in the NRCoC (no need to consult the Routeing Guide) and for which the SET website offers an itinerary via HS1.

So I put it to the test, and to my surprise (perhaps even shock), the ticket was accepted at all stages of the journey. The gateline staff were much more pleasant than the ones I've seen previously.

However I do know that if I was to try that ticket often, I would not have a 'hassle-free journey' every time, as I have previously witnessed some of them have a huge dislike for tickets that are not marked "Plus High Speed" and get extremely hostile. But I can't really go testing it often! If anyone else wants to give some "mystery shopping" a go, feel free to PM me. Ideally, someone who could actually make good use of HS1 between St Pancras & Stratford Intl.

 

[notadriver]

I'm not prepared to release that level of detail. My posts are not intended as a vilification campaign against individual members of staff.

Thats okay i've since been told anyway the full details by the staff concerned anyway .

 

[RJ]

Thats okay i've since been told anyway the full details by the staff concerned anyway .

Very well.

I'm still flabbergasted over the OBM's decision to delay a train and the REO's decision get physical over a fare dispute that could have been resolved with a TIR or assistance further down the line. Telling a harmless customer with a valid ticket to either hand over money, get off or be forced off isn't good enough, even if it is felt the byelaws provide indemnity.

When I was a Govia pass holder a couple of years back, I did witness an OBM hold a train over a ticketless youth who was refusing to budge. Back then I was baffled as to why the OBM decided to inconvenience everyone for the sake of that numpty. As a railwayman on a free ride, I decided to assist by talking to the passenger calmly and respectfully. His story was quite sad, he already had a criminal record and dejectedly said that he had nothing to lose by being arrested by the police. I spoke to the guy with respect, not like a piece of sh*t I'd scraped off my shoe. Consequently, within 2 minutes, he got off of his own accord. The OBM was thankful for my intervention and the passengers were glad we were on the move. Clearly, humility works much better in certain types of dispute than thuggery or tactless staff who blow their top very quickly. In fact, in my case I was quite prepared to wait for the BTP to turn up but left of my own accord after a rather more politely assertive, softly spoken member of staff addressed me.

I only hope the staff involved will come to realise why handling the situation the way they did was a serious error of judgement.

 

[table38]

I was on a class 150 a few years ago sat behind a couple of scrotes who I am guessing had just picked up discarded tickets off the floor, as the guard was asking them questions such as where did they buy them, when did they buy them, how did they pay for them, why they had already been "biro'd" etc. all which they appeared unable to answer!

He said he would put them off the train at the next station, so when we arrived and he went to do the doors, he announced he had called the BTP and the train wasn't going anywhere until they arrived to offload these two guys; then the guard tipped the driver to switch off the engines, and went and stood on the platform.

Without the engine noise, it all went eerily quiet, and I guess the unspoken hostility and glares of all the other fare paying passengers who were being delayed, eventually got to the two miscreants who went onto the platform to remonstrate with the guard.

He nimbly shut the doors, the engines started and off we went!

I gathered later the two were "well known" for this sort of evasion, but even so, I thought the guard handled the situation excellently! There was definitely no agression or "manhandling".

I do worry what might happen to RJ if a "Big Man" passenger decided to intervene on behalf of the guard.

 

[Ferret]

I do worry what might happen to RJ if a "Big Man" passenger decided to intervene on behalf of the guard.

I honestly believe that it would result in the member of staff concerned facing dismissal, if RJ was proved to have done nothing wrong.

 

[craigwilson]

The South Eastern website also says that "ANY PERMITTED" is valid on HS1, adding a strange caveat that the journey has to be part of a "long distance through one" beyond St Pancras.

My interpretation is that anything that is ANY PERMITTED, and would allow HS1 as a valid route by the usual methods, are valid and not subject to an upgrade fee, no matter what the OBM (or website) says, even if entirely within Kent.

I note that Gravesend to Ashford has had its routing changed from ANY PERMITTED, PLUS HIGH SPEED, and NOT VALID ON HS1, to NOT VALID ON HS1 and EBSFLET+HSNOTLON only. I recall forum members being requested to pay an upgrade at Ebbsfleet last year on an "ANY PERMITTED" ticket - SET making up their own rules again!! At least it's clearer now.

I can understand those trying to game the system with obscure routes needing to carry a print of the itinerary to justify their choice of routes, but it really shouldn't be necessary for the leisure traveller on the obvious direct route.

Indeed. I've never had any problems on a VWC+CONNECTIONS routing, for example.

 

[benk1342]

My interpretation is that anything that is ANY PERMITTED, and would allow HS1 as a valid route by the usual methods, are valid and not subject to an upgrade fee, no matter what the OBM (or website) says, even if entirely within Kent.

Absolutely. The wording they make up and stick on their website does not form part of your contract with them.

 

[RJ]

I've never come across anyone who would attempt to physically remove someone over a fares issue - that's something I've always seen left to the police (who certainly do have ways of dragging individuals out of seats!). Are these REO types private security wallahs with a silly title?

You may have a point. I have spoken to Southeastern and they say the REOs (as distinguished from RPOs) work on behalf of Southeastern.

I have to say that in all the fare disputes I've had, very few have involved any level of physical contact. One EMT TM and one EMT RPI, both at St Pancras have deliberately made physical contact I was not comfortable with, but they seemed more like loose cannon types rather than any level. Certainly with all of the transport operators I have worked with, there has always been a strict hands off policy in these types of situation.

 

[SETCommuter]

The Southeastern REO's are effectively security guards who wear a uniform made to look like a police officer - hi vis, peaked cap, notebook, "utility belt" etc (impersonating a police officer anybody ?) and basically walk around trying to look "hard".

Amusingly most platform staff I've spoken to call them "CheeREO's" as they apparently disappear at the first sign of any trouble !

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have spoken to Southeastern and they say the REOs (as distinguished from RPOs) work on behalf of Southeastern. I have to say that in all the fare disputes I've had, very few have involved any level of physical contact. Certainly with all of the transport operators I have worked with, there has always been a strict hands off policy in these types of situation.

Could someone with a knowledge of the British legal system make a legal clarification with regard to the powers of any REO and the matter of their laying a hand upon anyone in performance of their contractual duties.

 

[jon0844]

most platform staff I've spoken to call them "CheeREO's" as they apparently disappear at the first sign of any trouble !

That is brilliant. Yet another post that makes me long for a 'like' button.

Doesn't c2c also have similar? Mind you, some of their stations need people that look more like soldiers than police officers.

 

[michael769]

Could someone with a knowledge of the British legal system make a legal clarification with regard to the powers of any REO and the matter of their laying a hand upon anyone in performance of their contractual duties.

Authorized representatives of the railway have powers set out in statute to detain people pending the arrival of a police constable and can use force to do so.

A contractual arrangement can be sufficient to provide the necessary authorization.

 

[talltim]

SOo a police constable has to be called as part of the process, or can they be detained just in case one happens by sometime?

 

[michael769]

SOo a police constable has to be called as part of the process, or can they be detained just in case one happens by sometime?

The police can be called after the person is detained. The statute (RoR Sect 5.2) actually says this ". . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law." so in theory they could bypass the police and hold him until they could get him in front of a court.

It is perhaps worth noting that laying a hand on someone is not sufficient to establish assault.

Assault is only committed by a person who causes another person to "apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence" by the attacker, and is subject to mens rea such that this fear must have been caused either intentionally or recklessly.

 

[BrownE]

The Southeastern REO's are effectively security guards who wear a uniform made to look like a police officer - hi vis, peaked cap, notebook, "utility belt" etc (impersonating a police officer anybody ?) and basically walk around trying to look "hard".

Closer to PCSOs really. They are accredited staff meaning they have passed the Railway Safety Accreitation Scheme (RSAS) approved by BTP.

Below are the powers that are available to Railway Safety Accreditation Scheme accredited people under the Police
Reform Act 2002 and Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003.

1) To have access to and share information and intelligence with the Police.
2) Request name and address for Fixed Penalty Notice and offences that cause injury, alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another’s property.
3) Request name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner.
4) Confiscate alcohol from young persons.
5) Confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people.
6) Regulate traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads.
7) Require the removal of abandoned vehicles.
8) To stop a vehicle under sub-section (3) of section 67 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52) for the purposes of a test under sub-section (1) of that section.
9) Issue of Fixed Penalty Notice for dog fouling.
10) Issue of Fixed Penalty Notice for litter.
11) Issue of Fixed Penalty Notice for riding bicycle on footpath.
12) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare.
13) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder trespassing on a railway.
14) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for throwing stones, etc at trains or other things on railways.
15) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress.
16) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in a bar in licensed premise by a person under 18.
17) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for wasting police time or giving a false report.
18) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for consumption of alcohol in a designated public place.
19) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for using a public telecommunications system for sending messages known to be false in order to cause annoyance.
20) Issue of Penalty Notice for Disorder for knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade.
21) Issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for graffiti
22) Issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-posting.
23) Issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to parents for truancy (eg. if they come across a parent with a child who should be at school in a shopping mall)
24) The power to stop cyclists if they are suspected of having committed the offence of riding on a foot-way.

 

[talltim]

(24) The power to stop cyclists if they are suspected of having committed the offence of riding on a foot-way.

Surely that should be 'authority', not 'power'

 

[barrykas]

The police can be called after the person is detained. The statute (RoR Sect 5.2) actually says this ". . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law." so in theory they could bypass the police and hold him until they could get him in front of a court.

Whilst they theoretically MAY detain someone under RoRA, there's a strong warning NOT to do so in The Manual:

Section 5(2) states, a person that has refused/failed to produce a ticket AND failed to pay for a ticket AND failed to supply a name and address (the 3 Fails) may be detained until they can be conveniently brought before some justice. The courts view any detention of a person against their will very seriously. All the auspices of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) and SOCPA (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005) apply and you are not trained or equipped to deal with such a situation. The Regulation of Railways Act was written long before the PACE and SOCPA came into being. Please be aware you are entering a legal minefield in detaining a person. You may well find yourself on the wrong side of the law should you attempt to do so.

 

[michael769]

I am aware of that!

The question I was answering was about what was allowed in law, they did not ask about the empluers instrucions.

 

[transmanche]

I am aware of that!

The question I was answering was about what was allowed in law, they did not ask about the empluers instrucions.

Well the employer's instructions make good sense and are probably based on legal advice.

There's a common law concept of 'implied repeal', which in simple terms means if what the RoRA says conflicts with what PACE (or some other later act) says, even if the earlier act hasn't expressly been repealed, then the later act takes precedence - i.e. it is repealed by implication.

Of course the only this can be tested is in the courts - hence the strong warning in 'The Manual'

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am aware of that! The question I was answering was about what was allowed in law. They did not ask about the employers instrucitons.

Indeed you answered the most specific legal question that I asked, as it was for the purposes of establishing that very matter. I did not ask about employers instructions to their employees as these are not appertaining to the actual understanding of matters that would be used as Points of Law in a courtroom by legal counsel.