Should front line staff be issued with body worn video cameras?

[Tallguy]

Not wishing to hijack the thread about the horrific staff stabbing, I’ve started a new thread.

My local big Sainsbury’s has issued some front line staff with body worn video and I have noticed other organisations doing it too where staff could be in a conflict zone. Whilst I doubt BWV would have stopped the horrific stabbing what is the opinion of forum members as to issuing those members of rail staff working in potential conflict zones with BWV?

I’m all for it. But I don’t go around stabbing people or travelling without a ticket.....

 

[bramling]

Not wishing to hijack the thread about the horrific staff stabbing, I’ve started a new thread.

My local big Sainsbury’s has issued some front line staff with body worn video and I have noticed other organisations doing it too where staff could be in a conflict zone. Whilst I doubt BWV would have stopped the horrific stabbing what is the opinion of forum members as to issuing those members of rail staff working in potential conflict zones with BWV?

I’m all for it. But I don’t go around stabbing people or travelling without a ticket.....

Personally I’m extremely wary of them - I don’t like the idea of a camera being shoved up my face during any interaction, and there’s quite a few people jumping on the bandwagon who aren’t in high-conflict-risk roles.

However, I’m given to believe there is evidence that they do reduce the risk of assault, so on that basis with some regret I’d say there is a place for them.

The middle ground is therefore having them for the most high-conflict roles, but not handing them out like confetti.

 

[tspaul26]

They should only get them if it is on permanently and cannot be turned off by the individual member of staff.

Otherwise, no. It is ripe for abuse. I myself have been ‘taped’ as an implicit threat by an officious Inspector on Avanti. If it happens again then straight to the Information Commissioner we will go.

 

[steve_wills]

They should only get them if it is on permanently and cannot be turned off by the individual member of staff.

Otherwise, no. It is ripe for abuse. I myself have been ‘taped’ as an implicit threat by an officious Inspector on Avanti. If it happens again then straight to the Information Commissioner we will go.

Just video them on your phone

 

[tspaul26]

Just video them on your phone

Not in my experience likely to lead to de-escalation or an easy life!

 

[LowLevel]

Trials at our place have shown them to have reduced the risk of assault (physical and verbal) during routine things like revenue activities and telling people not to play music on phones/keep feet off the seats as scummy people are more wary of being caught on camera being scum.

However they do put some people on edge and may cause some situations that you can use a bit of nous to talk down to become more difficult as people react to the camera rather than the person.

As it goes I usually manage to live by my wits anyway so I'm less inclined to use them. Others swear by them.

They should only get them if it is on permanently and cannot be turned off by the individual member of staff.

Otherwise, no. It is ripe for abuse. I myself have been ‘taped’ as an implicit threat by an officious Inspector on Avanti. If it happens again then straight to the Information Commissioner we will go.

They are usually on permanently, but they have a function whereby the member of staff activates them and the previous several minutes of footage plus subsequent footage are saved rather than being overwritten.

 

[tspaul26]

Trials at our place have shown them to have reduced the risk of assault (physical and verbal) during routine things like revenue activities and telling people not to play music on phones/keep feet off the seats as scummy people are more wary of being caught on camera being scum.

However they do put some people on edge and may cause some situations that you can use a bit of nous to talk down to become more difficult as people react to the camera rather than the person.

As it goes I usually manage to live by my wits anyway so I'm less inclined to use them. Others swear by them.

I think is a very useful insight.

Hence, my view that if it’s going to be used it should be ‘always on’ and not switched on and off by the wearer in order to avoid the edginess mentioned.

They are usually on permanently, but they have a function whereby the member of staff activates them and the previous several minutes of footage plus subsequent footage are saved rather than being overwritten.

This I do not approve of: members of staff should not be obliged to put themselves in the position of indicating (by deed) that “I’m taping you”.

And users should certainly not use such action to threaten members of the public as has happened to me.

EDIT: by way of wider context, the same Inspector left the train at an intermediate station and started rapping on the window at me as I had not alighted - I was using more than one ticket for my journey. I also overheard him telling another member of staff that I was travelling without a ticket which was, of course, false.

 

[_toommm_]

They absolutely should be and option in anywhere where a staff member has to interact with customers.

I’ve been sworn at and abused throughout the pandemic, and have continued to be after the lockdown. People can be down right disrespectful if they think there’s no consequences, and certainly signs asking for respect and kindness don’t work.

Maybe something in your face such as a camera might be a better deterrent.

 

[nanstallon]

I don't like the idea of being taped and treated as a criminal as I make a train journey. I think I'll stick to the car.

 

[Darandio]

I don't like the idea of being taped and treated as a criminal as I make a train journey. I think I'll stick to the car.

Yet you are being taped in just about every other aspect of your life. Got a dashcam in that car by any chance?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What are "front live staff" as stated in the title of this thread? I am out of touch with railway parlance.

 

[DarloRich]

I am all for it. If it stops people behaving like idiots then so much the better.

I don't like the idea of being taped and treated as a criminal as I make a train journey. I think I'll stick to the car.

Goodness me!

Best park the car up - lots of traffic cams out there. Best not visit the shops either. Best just stay in bed if the thought of being videoed worries you. The UK is awash with camera's.

They should only get them if it is on permanently and cannot be turned off by the individual member of staff.

Otherwise, no. It is ripe for abuse. I myself have been ‘taped’ as an implicit threat by an officious Inspector on Avanti. If it happens again then straight to the Information Commissioner we will go.

Typical RUK overreaction to something simple. What are they going to do with a video of you on a train?

 

[bramling]

Best park the car up - lots of traffic cams out there. Best not visit the shops either. Best just stay in bed if the thought of being videoed worries you. The UK is awash with camera's.

There's an element of difference between a typical CCTV camera, most of which aren't directly in your face, and a body-worn camera which is, and which records sound.

I find this quite an intrusion, and therefore there should be a correspondingly high bar as to whether it really is necessary.

I'm rather uncomfortable with a society where "anything you say will be taken down" (and potentially used against you).

 

[tspaul26]

Typical RUK overreaction to something simple. What are they going to do with a video of you on a train?

Goodness knows!

But if the thing is taping come-what-may then it doesn’t matter.

It is the “I am taping you now, sirrah” attitude to which I object and, in the specific circumstances, is also questionable.

 

[DarloRich]

There's an element of difference between a typical CCTV camera, most of which aren't directly in your face, and a body-work camera which is, and which records sound.

I find this quite an intrusion, and therefore there should be a correspondingly high bar as to whether it really is necessary.

We are recorded everywhere we go all day. It makes no difference if it is in your face or at the end of the street on a pole. Like I said, what are they going to do with a video of you having your ticket checked on a train?

BTW - can you explain why such an approach would be "questionable"? It seems entirely reasonable for someone wearing such equipment to use it in a situation where they feel there may be confrontation. As I say I am sure you were an example of good behaviour and positive attitude, however the guard might not know that and going on past experience might have expected a less than positive response to his/her challenge.

 

[TheEdge]

I find this quite an intrusion, and therefore there should be a correspondingly high bar as to whether it really is necessary.

Spoken like someone who hasn't been spat at for selling someone the exact ticket they asked for...

 

[DarloRich]

Goodness knows!

But if the thing is taping come-what-may then it doesn’t matter.

It is the “I am taping you now, sirrah” attitude to which I object and, in the specific circumstances, is also questionable.

Whilst I am sure your behaviour and response where entirely civilised, not everyone is the same and the evidence collected by these cameras is useful in convicting those who behave less well or perhaps display an attitude that is less positive than yours.

 

[thenorthern]

I think they should be optional as in staff shouldn't be prevented from wearing one, I wear one when out in public.

 

[LowLevel]

Spoken like someone who hasn't been spat at for selling someone the exact ticket they asked for...

I have a colleague who is the sweetest most inoffensive lady in the world who was beaten to a pulp by a "lady" who was travelling with her 4 year old child for much the same reason, who had to be pulled off by 4 police officers, subsequently declared the old "Mental Health" in court, escaped any real punishment and still uses the train to this day while my colleague deals with PTSD. The law is an ass at times and anything to give an upper hand against Scum (with a capital S) has to be a good thing.

 

[robbeech]

I have no issues with them when used correctly and fairly. They should be encouraged on services with known issues, although i would prefer to see the issues dealt with and prevented rather than recorded.

For a private operator or business there is very little control (outside the law) to what they can and cannot and will and will not record.

For a public body, which the railway seems to be heading towards, if these things are funded by the tax payer then i think there should be certain rules in place to ensure that both the wearer AND (in the case of the railway) the passenger be able to use the footage should it be required (subject to current laws). None of this recording it until the guard makes a mistake and then losing the video lark,

 

[DarloRich]

None of this recording it until the guard makes a mistake and then losing the video lark,

That is fairly standard. Happens to the police often enough

 

[Watershed]

The effect on staff assault rates is clearly likely to be positive. It does engender an 'us' and 'them' sort of attitude, but I suppose in certain rough areas that's unavoidable if you're enforcing rules.

But I agree that it needs much more regulation, to ensure that it really is there to keep everyone in line, and not just used to dob in unruly passengers. Although it's rare, staff misbehaviour does happen and there should be more safeguards to ensure that passengers have recourse where it happens.

 

[TheEdge]

I have no issues with them when used correctly and fairly. They should be encouraged on services with known issues, although i would prefer to see the issues dealt with and prevented rather than recorded.

There is this bizarre belief on here that somehow there is a defined set of trains with "known issues". Its true but not in the way people here think it is. The trains with known issues is every single train with a member of the public on. I was spat at on a quiet train travelling late in the evening early in the week by someone who caused no issues up to the moment he spat at me. I had a malicious complaint made against me for applying the minimum fare to a ticket at 0900 on a weekday morning by someone who said absolutely nothing during the non incident.

I can go out and think "oh goody, last Yarmouth on a Saturday night, this could be messy" but that doesn't mean there will never be an issue at 11am at Woodbridge on a Thursday.

 

[robbeech]

That is fairly standard. Happens to the police often enough

Absolutely, i remember a local police force using some video evidence to prosecute an individual but in doing so they incriminated themselves for something else. Needless to say the person was successfully prosecuted using that evidence, but when it came to the other case, the evidence was lost. Even though it was evidence in another case, and still existed.

I absolutely loathe the hours of dashcam footage we get forced down us on social media whereby the video is edited to show the other driver doing something, but you never get to see the 3 or 4 minutes before when the camera car cuts them up, and you never get to see the 2 minutes after when the camera car throws the drinks bottle at the other car from the window. Unless they're both recording of course.

 

[tspaul26]

BTW - can you explain why such an approach would be "questionable"? It seems entirely reasonable for someone wearing such equipment to use it in a situation where they feel there may be confrontation. As I say I am sure you were an example of good behaviour and positive attitude, however the guard might not know that and going on past experience might have expected a less than positive response to his/her challenge.

Whilst I am sure your behaviour and response where entirely civilised, not everyone is the same and the evidence collected by these cameras is useful in convicting those who behave less well or perhaps display an attitude that is less positive than yours.

I would have more sympathy with this but for the fact that the taping only started after we had had a perfectly civil conversation.

The fundamental point is that the inspector did not like the fact that I was using a ticket (which was completely valid) which cost less than he thought it should. Those are pretty much his exact words!

And the taping was clearly intended as a bullying tactic following that...disagreement, as was the defamatory discussion with his colleague and the rapping on the window. He actually re-boarded the train to have another go!

 

[robbeech]

There is this bizarre belief on here that somehow there is a defined set of trains with "known issues". Its true but not in the way people here think it is. The trains with known issues is every single train with a member of the public on. I was spat at on a quiet train travelling late in the evening early in the week by someone who caused no issues up to the moment he spat at me. I had a malicious complaint made against me for applying the minimum fare to a ticket at 0900 on a weekday morning by someone who said absolutely nothing during the non incident.

I can go out and think "oh goody, last Yarmouth on a Saturday night, this could be messy" but that doesn't mean there will never be an issue at 11am at Woodbridge on a Thursday

There can be an incident on any service, which is why i recommend their use all the time, however, there really are services with known issues, ones where, every time that service runs there WILL be issues, without fail. For those services, should the use of cameras remain optional there should be further encouragement to wear them.

 

[DarloRich]

I would have more sympathy with this but for the fact that the taping only started after we had had a perfectly civil conversation.

The fundamental point is that the inspector did not like the fact that I was using a ticket (which was completely valid) which cost lesthan he thought it should. Those are pretty much his exact words!

And the taping was clearly intended as a bullying tactic following that...disagreement, as was the defamatory discussion with his colleague and the rapping on the window. He actually re-boarded the train to have another go!

Always ask how you can obtain a copy of the recording and to whom you should write to secure it - always confuses people

Ps i would i written a suitbale letter to the toc expressing my unhappiness with their customer service.

 

[robbeech]

I would have more sympathy with this but for the fact that the taping only started after we had had a perfectly civil conversation.

The fundamental point is that the inspector did not like the fact that I was using a ticket (which was completely valid) which cost lesthan he thought it should. Those are pretty much his exact words!

And the taping was clearly intended as a bullying tactic following that...disagreement, as was the defamatory discussion with his colleague and the rapping on the window. He actually re-boarded the train to have another go!

Which is why they need to be neutral devices. Ones available for the benefit of the passenger as much as the railway. Especially given whatever the circumstances, they're being paid for by the passenger. To use them solely to benefit the railway seems poor.

 

[tspaul26]

Ps i would i written a suitbale letter to the toc expressing my unhappiness with their customer service.

I pick my battles!

Since I work in the same office building as Avanti’s complaints department it’s easier to pop my head around the door anyway.

Which is why they need to be neutral devices. Ones available for the benefit of the passenger as much as the railway. Especially given whatever the circumstances, they're being paid for by the passenger. To use them solely to benefit the railway seems poor.

Exactly my view: tape everything or tape nothing, but members of staff must not be permitted to pick and choose.

More generally, in my experience most CCTV footage is generally worthless as probative evidence which leads me to question how useful these devices are likely to be in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Merseysider]

We are already recorded via on-train/station CCTV. No problems with members of staff wearing cameras, providing it can’t be “conveniently” turned off or the footage “lost”.

Last time I was on Merseyrail there were a couple of the branded heavies doing Byelaw enforcement, wearing cameras. If what’s recorded is evidence that helps secure a conviction against troublemakers then I’m all for it.