Special needs children denied free first class upgrades

[starrymarkb]

Owners of young children... What are they called again?

Usually Parents, but could be a Teacher or other Responsible Adult. It still made me smile though

 

[WSW]

Well no it isn't prejudice, lets stop throwing emotive words around, its just an assumption that may be right or wrong.

There are too many people playing the 'special needs card' to get what they want and this appears to be a prime example of that.

If these childrens needs really are that special perhaps a minibus should have been hired to transport them?

Yes, it is prejudice, Steve Ford. Let's have a look at the word. It means to "pre judge" which is precisely what you are doing here when you specifically claimed that a group of children will wail "randomly".

And what if they do "wail randomly"? What is wrong with that?

Why should they not travel by train? Why should they be put in a minibus? What a narrow minded attitude you seem to have.

I don't believe they should have claimed special treatment beyond what they had already arranged (if any) but there is a duty on businesses to make reasonable adjustments for disabled folk and I'd have expected the train staff to know their duty, understand the situation and allow this group to sit in seats that were otherwise unoccupied. That's not "playing the special needs card" - it is a simple civil duty for others to try to help wherever possible.

They are people. Just like me, and you, who deserve to do the things in life that you and I are able to do. Or would you rather they were kept out of sight and sound?

On the more general point about children in first class, it has been suggested in another post that some people travel first class to avoid children. Well, more fool them, then. I've travelled first class for years and by far the better passengers with which to share the journey have been children, rather than some of the ignorant oiks who claim to be "working" and demand the whole table and extra seats for their coat, jacket, scarf, documents, laptop, coffee and bags, and spend much of the journey yapping on the phone at high volume to another oik ("random wailing" maybe!) Thankfully, these oiks are not common.

Steve

 

[maniacmartin]

I interpret Steve Ford's comments differently, in a more sarcastic tone, that if the leaders of the group (ie the teachers) wanted to have everything their own way and guarantee a seat for every child, then perhaps they should organise their own private vehicle where there will be no train manager to deny them a free upgrade. (ie the dig is against the organisers not the children).

This is not the same as saying the children shouldn't be allowed to travel on trains.

 

[yorkie]

Whilst I appreciate there is an element of one-sidedness and perhaps exaggeration in the reporting, I am aware that a female conductor on these services is making a bit of a name for herself in the passenger-unfriendly stakes. I am certain, if this report refers to the same individual, that this is not the first complaint about her attitude and behaviour.

Unfortunately, Cross Country appear to have a flagrant disregard for customer service, particularly at times of service disruption, and her attitude is one that I expect filters down from a higher level.

Absolutely.

• XC have long time delays before they investigate complaints.
• XC back up staff who remove, or threaten to remove, ticket-holding passengers from trains.
• XC disregard Condition 10 of the NRCoC.
• XC appear to be content for the small, but very vocal and well known, minority of their TMs who are rude, to continue to be rude.

Based on the information available I believe the TM probably acted correctly in this case by selectively upgrading and I don't think it is fair to criticise them for that, so I have some sympathy, but, by the sound of it, was rude. Threatening to chuck the group off was also unwise.

... (ie the dig is against the organisers not the children)...

Indeed, and I'd join in with that.

I think the whole 'Special Needs' thing is by the by, a piece of sensationalism by a media group notorious for it.

The real matter is whether or not the Guard was right to refuse these children (disabilities or not) free First Class upgrades and I believe he was right - people pay for FC to get away from noisy children. Upgrading other passengers to make room for them in Standard would have been a better course of action though.

Absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind that the organisers are playing the 'special needs' card when really that was never anything to do with it.

If it was essential for the group to have seats, why did they not make a reservation? The organisers have to take responsibility for that.

Was it really so unacceptable for the kids to be sat on the floor? Do kids as young as 4 really mind sitting on the floor that much? Surely kids that age spend quite a bit of time sat on a floor anyway? It's a carpeted floor we're talking about! I've sat on the floor of a Voyager for a long distance before. It doesn't mean your entire day is ruined.

 

[Class377]

the original article - I equate "special needs" with disabled children. Perhaps my experience is clouding my judgement.



Yes it is - you and others have shown quite blatant prejudice towards one group of people.



What other words shall we use? You dont want to allow a disabled person to use the same train as you. What else shall i call it?



I assume you have lots of experience of dealing with the disabled that makes you suitably qualified to comment on this. Or is it something you read in the paper?



What is that if not prejudice :roll:

What other group in society should not be allowed to travel by train?

What are you scared of? That they might touch you? Imagine that - A disabled touching you!!!!!!!!!!!!! You might catch whatever they have! :roll:

TBH this must be trolling which I am sure has just landed a big bite but what the hell. These attitudes are all wrong and should be challenged.

Bear in mind Steve Ford seems to be pretty anti-disabled in my book - earlier in the thread he said his grandson was diagnosed as special needs but he refuse to believe it and blamed bad parenting for a disability!

It does seem to me that the railUK attitude of "the railway is always right" is shining through on this thread - a lot of posters have seemed to jump straight to the conclusion that the rail worker was in the right and it was the fault of the disabled people which is incredibly unfair until all the facts come to light.

 

[jon0844]

I think that regardless of their needs or not, the preferred method to transport a group of kids of this age range would not be on a train (packed or not). I wouldn't let my youngest go in a group who were travelling by train, I would very much prefer coach/minibus travel. With the amount of kids to adults there would always be a risk that one could go missing and disabled, special needs or otherwise doesn't have anything to do with that.

It would only need one adult to take one child to the toilet, then the ratio of adults to children goes up massively and, in my opinion, unacceptably

Seeing school trips on trains, there are always a LOT of staff. Kids are likely to be wearing hi-vis clothing with the school name or other contact details (in case they do get lost) and I've also seen them walking along holding the hand of the person behind/in front.

Realistically, when they board a train (as in a tube train, or perhaps a 313 into Moorgate) they are NOT going to be able to sit together. And, so they don't. But there are enough adults to look after them.

So, yes, it does matter a great deal as to how many adults were with the group (and of course, all of these would need upgrading to FC too).

We don't know that there was enough room to allow all of these people into first class and still stay together, do we?

 

[Deerfold]

It does seem to me that the railUK attitude of "the railway is always right" is shining through on this thread - a lot of posters have seemed to jump straight to the conclusion that the rail worker was in the right and it was the fault of the disabled people which is incredibly unfair until all the facts come to light.

Lots of people have said that we can't know for sure what happened and pointed out that the party did not have first class tickets.

If the TM was rude or offensive that is wrong but still does not give the group the right to demand first class accommodation unless they've paid for it.

 

[Antman]

I wasn't intending to comment on this thread again but clearly I'm going to have to.

If people want to take issue with anything I've said that is fine, but it would be nice if they could actually read what I've posted and not make up their own version:roll:

What does this mean then because it looks to me like you are saying that those with special needs should be sent in a special mini bus rather than by train:




Perhaps you could clarify your point if I have misunderstood it?

My view is that public transport should be for all members of the public. Yours appears to be somewhat different.

Yes you have 'misunderstood'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, it is prejudice, Steve Ford. Let's have a look at the word. It means to "pre judge" which is precisely what you are doing here when you specifically claimed that a group of children will wail "randomly".

And what if they do "wail randomly"? What is wrong with that?

Why should they not travel by train? Why should they be put in a minibus? What a narrow minded attitude you seem to have.

I don't believe they should have claimed special treatment beyond what they had already arranged (if any) but there is a duty on businesses to make reasonable adjustments for disabled folk and I'd have expected the train staff to know their duty, understand the situation and allow this group to sit in seats that were otherwise unoccupied. That's not "playing the special needs card" - it is a simple civil duty for others to try to help wherever possible.

They are people. Just like me, and you, who deserve to do the things in life that you and I are able to do. Or would you rather they were kept out of sight and sound?

On the more general point about children in first class, it has been suggested in another post that some people travel first class to avoid children. Well, more fool them, then. I've travelled first class for years and by far the better passengers with which to share the journey have been children, rather than some of the ignorant oiks who claim to be "working" and demand the whole table and extra seats for their coat, jacket, scarf, documents, laptop, coffee and bags, and spend much of the journey yapping on the phone at high volume to another oik ("random wailing" maybe!) Thankfully, these oiks are not common.

Steve

I look forward to you showing me where I have made any reference to children 'wailing randomly'.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I interpret Steve Ford's comments differently, in a more sarcastic tone, that if the leaders of the group (ie the teachers) wanted to have everything their own way and guarantee a seat for every child, then perhaps they should organise their own private vehicle where there will be no train manager to deny them a free upgrade. (ie the dig is against the organisers not the children).

This is not the same as saying the children shouldn't be allowed to travel on trains.

Nice one maniacmartin...............at least somebody understands where I was coming from
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bear in mind Steve Ford seems to be pretty anti-disabled in my book - earlier in the thread he said his grandson was diagnosed as special needs but he refuse to believe it and blamed bad parenting for a disability!

It does seem to me that the railUK attitude of "the railway is always right" is shining through on this thread - a lot of posters have seemed to jump straight to the conclusion that the rail worker was in the right and it was the fault of the disabled people which is incredibly unfair until all the facts come to light.

Well perhaps you need to rewrite your book?:roll:

I hadn't realised that you knew my grandson personally..............he is NOT disabled.

For the record..............his behaviour is appalling when he is with his parents, my daughter and her partner, but when he is away from them his behaviour is fine.............now what does that suggest to you?


Phew...................I need a large drink

 

[158801]

Always difficult

Today my train was full and standing. There were 6 (out of 15) seats empty in First Class.

Stood outside of First Class was

1) an elderly lady

2) a younger woman on crutches

3) a woman (aged about 25) with two children

4) a solo male (aged about 30)

5) a solo female (aged about 40)

I wanted to "invite" people into First Class. Who should I tender the request to ?

1) & 2) obviously. If I told these people would the others complain ?

Why should I invite 1) and 2) but not the others - there would have still been 3 empty seats !

 

[DarloRich]

Yes you have 'misunderstood'

Help me out then - I notice you didn’t take the opportunity to add any clarification. I notice your previous thread has gone but perhaps you could explain to me the point set out below as you seem unwilling or unable to do so thus far.

If these childrens needs really are that special perhaps a minibus should have been hired to transport them?

 

[yorkie]

WSW - You quote Steve Ford and then appear to suggest he made comments about 'wailing', when in fact he didn't. You will need to take that up with 34D. Here is the original comment:

No prejudicial reason, just simply that they will make a lot of noise (random wailing, etc) and 2 adults can hardly supervise/discipline them all!

It does seem to me that the railUK attitude of "the railway is always right" is shining through on this thread ....

Which is interesting as some people make the opposite accusation! It is, however, only to be expected that there are, in fact, a range of opinions on this matter as you'd expect anywhere.

In reality it's actually possible for there to be some 'fault' on both sides and I think most people can recognise that!

1) & 2) obviously. If I told these people would the others complain ?

They have no right to, however there is the risk that one of them may rant about it, as the organisers in the article did. So I can understand if you'd be apprehensive about doing so.

Why should they not travel by train? Why should they be put in a minibus? What a narrow minded attitude you seem to have.

I do not think that it is a case of being "narrow minded" and I would appreciate it if everyone can please bear in mind our rules do ask that posts should be "respectful" towards other members.

If the risk assessment states that they MUST have an actual seat and that if there is any risk that reservations will not be available, then the logical outcome would be that the trip takes place by minibus. That's not being "narrow minded".

In this case, there is no suggestion that reservations were even made, so it is difficult to understand how the organisers can be so insistent that seats must be provided.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Help me out then - I notice you didn’t take the opportunity to add any clarification. I notice your previous thread has gone but perhaps you could explain to me the point set out below as you seem unwilling or unable to do so thus far.

This was already done by maniacmartin (post #153 ), and Steve Ford confirmed that was indeed the point he was making, in the post you are responding to.

 

[flymo]

Always difficult

Today my train was full and standing. There were 6 (out of 15) seats empty in First Class.

Stood outside of First Class was

1) an elderly lady

2) a younger woman on crutches

3) a woman (aged about 25) with two children

4) a solo male (aged about 30)

5) a solo female (aged about 40)

I wanted to "invite" people into First Class. Who should I tender the request to ?

1) & 2) obviously. If I told these people would the others complain ?

Why should I invite 1) and 2) but not the others - there would have still been 3 empty seats !

Devils Advocate mode : ON.

OK, say you invited numbers 1 and 2 in your example and then someone got on at a station with a first class ticket, who would you eject first. Before 'upgrading' anyone would you consider asking someone if they would be willing to pay for an upgrade and see what happens. That way it would be a win-win situation. If not then you have done your duty by trying to provide accommodation.
If you only admit numbers 1 and 2 in your example then an accusation of positive discrimination in their favour could be suggested by the others.

Mode : OFF.

Always difficult, as you say...

 

[DJ_K666]

Incidentally (and this is to those who are guards and conductors on here) How does the upgrade work on your trains? Is there a stamp you put on the ticket? Is there any paperwork? What happens when someone pays their upgrade? how easy is it to say "Give us a fiver and I'll stamp your ticket" ? And would you get booked by your bosses/an RPI if you did?

 

[Manchester77]

You probably show them your standard ticket and pay however much the upgrade is and then they'll print out first class tickets

 

[Tibbs]

Incidentally (and this is to those who are guards and conductors on here) How does the upgrade work on your trains? Is there a stamp you put on the ticket? Is there any paperwork? What happens when someone pays their upgrade? how easy is it to say "Give us a fiver and I'll stamp your ticket" ? And would you get booked by your bosses/an RPI if you did?

If you get the weekend (or gold card) upgrade you get a supplement printed on ticket stock.

 

[tony6499]

A few years ago we were given a book of vouchers to give out as a free First Class upgrade but as others have said who do you choose and who not ? An annual season ticket holder who is able to stand or someone more vulnerable on an advanced ticket bought for a fiver ?

 

[Sidious]

'Special needs' can mean just about anything and some people try and label their kids with that tag to get what they want, whether that happened here I obviously don't know.

Would anybody who has paid for first class really want their peace and quiet shattered by (presumably noisy?) kids?

Sounds like a storm in a teacup quite honestly.

I agree Steve.

Notwithstanding that these kids were 'special needs' which is a loosely applied term which can range from ADHD, to mild autism, to severe cerebral palsy and everything in between, what on earth makes anyone think that they are entitled to a free upgrade to first class, just because standard class is full?

I travel a mix of Standard and First Class - but if I am undertaking a long journey, I will wherever possible pay for a first advance. I like being in first class, and one of the perks is that it is quieter and less crowded.

People wouldn't expect an upgrade on an Aircraft, so why should it be offered on a train? If the train company declassifies first class, then those who have paid for a first class ticket are entitled to a refund of the difference, so it rarely makes commercial sense.

The underlying problem which seems to have been overlooked is that once again an eight carriage train (East Coast Mark IV set) has been replaced by a four car one (XC Voyager) on that journey. That could be the cause of the severe overcrowding...

Another thing is that all XC journeys have reservations available, as do journeys involving group travel. It is incumbent upon the organisers of such a journey to reserve seats, especially if travelling with Special Needs kids, so the organisers are hardly blameless in all of this.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story...

 

[jon0844]

The special needs bit has definitely made the difference here, which is (possibly) what was intended. Without it, it's not much of a story and must happen every day with people wanting to sit in first class because they perceive standard as being crush loaded because there aren't loads of empty seats.

Without the 'special needs' aspect, the papers would report it as 'Rowdy children' having the 'cheek' to 'demand' first class travel because 'they didn't want to stand'. And all the comments would have been along the lines of 'well, the TM should have just chucked them off the train' and 'in my day, we'd never have done such a thing' etc.

 

[trainophile]

Surely the sensible thing would be to scrap free upgrades completely. Then the TM could have made a PA announcement to the effect that "there are 15 seats free in First Class if anyone would like to upgrade for £10. I'll be in Coach G (which is towards the front of the train), so come and see me if you're interested. First come first served." I doubt that would result in a stampede, as most people are conscious of paying the least possible for their journey.

I know that doesn't help elderly, pregnant or disabled passengers who haven't got a seat, but it might be possible to accommodate them in the seats vacated by those who do elect to pay for their upgrade.

 

[Sidious]

The special needs bit has definitely made the difference here, which is (possibly) what was intended.

Which is my point exactly Jon. "Special Needs" covers such a complex array of conditions, its impossible to judge. It doesn't change the fact that the organisers of the trip were the architects of the problem when they failed to reserve the seats for the journey.

 

[trainophile]

I'm puzzled as to whether the perceived offence taken is because they were special needs, or despite them being special needs.

Did the party expect preferential treatment because their group were not your average children. (ETA If they were all on crutches they might have a good case, but I think we'd have been told if that was the situation). Or is it that they believe they would have been picked for upgrade if they hadn't been special needs?

Either way, the prospect of finding a dozen unoccupied seats in any First Class coach, that are close enough together to allow two supervisors to keep an eye on 10 youngsters, is a bit of a pipe dream at the best of times.

It's logical to select individuals, couples or small family groups to fill any vacant and spread-out seats. I think this is a typical Daily Mail making a drama out of a crisis story.

 

[jon0844]

It does seem that the group had to be kept together simply because there weren't enough responsible adults to look after them if they split up. That's negligent in my view because there are loads of reasons that a group might get split up.

At our nursery, if a member of staff is off sick and they don't have another approved carer they can call upon, some children will be sent home until they restore the correct ratio of staff to children (more in the lower age groups). And, while my son is currently too young, if they are doing anything outside of the nursery (walking to the park, say) then they have extra staff to accompany them.

I can't help but feel that the adults here (nobody can blame the children, who I see as totally innocent in all of this) didn't plan things properly and when their lack of planning caused problems, the solution was not to admit a mistake but to lash out and make it someone else's problem - namely the train company and its staff.

And for anyone reading this from elsewhere, I don't work in the railway industry and have no reason to simply defend anyone for the sake of it, or because of some form of solidarity that I'd agree there's plenty of in the industry. I am merely giving my opinion.

For one, I can't believe that any member of staff would have actually used the words quoted. Even if someone thinks something in their head, I can't believe any of them would say things like 'the likes of you' or other derogatory remarks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know that doesn't help elderly, pregnant or disabled passengers who haven't got a seat, but it might be possible to accommodate them in the seats vacated by those who do elect to pay for their upgrade.

All of these people should be able to sit in the many priority seats available. Of course if the train is crush loaded (as this one supposedly was; 'full to the brim') then it might be hard to actually get through.

FCC has a priority pass scheme, where you can show this to a passenger to request a seat. It's a bit awkward, as I'm not sure I'd want to go up to someone and produce a card to ask them to move (but, at the same time, I can see some people would LOVE to do that and would literally wave it like a police warrant card!).

In the past, some TOCs (including FCC) would allow pregnant women to sit in first class at no extra cost. They would however need a pass issued by the TOC after getting suitable 'proof' from their doctor - although I expect RPIs may have used discretion on this. Sadly, that perk ended a few years ago in favour of the above priority scheme.

Having travelled around Europe, I think we are very good at providing for people with special needs and disabilities, and better than a lot of other places that certainly haven't done anywhere near as much work to make places more accessible.

Of course there are exceptions and some people will be ignorant of things, usually because they hadn't thought about things. I mean, how many times have you perhaps called to get the attention of someone and not considered they might be deaf?

Just last weekend, I asked at Paddington when the H&C lines would get the lift (answer; some time in 2014 but nobody seems to know for sure when!) and said it would be really useful for people like me with a suitcase and buggy. The woman I spoke to then added 'and wheelchairs' as if I was ignoring the real purpose for the lifts, and I felt a little embarrassed but let it go (no need to say 'Yes, I know that').

Of course, I know full well why lifts are being installed and that benefits to people with bags and buggies are a bonus, but now there's probably someone who thinks of me as just yet another able bodied passenger that isn't aware of the needs of people with disabilities...

 

[Wolfie]

What does this mean then because it looks to me like you are saying that those with special needs should be sent in a special mini bus rather than by train:




Perhaps you could clarify your point if I have misunderstood it?

My view is that public transport should be for all members of the public. Yours appears to be somewhat different.

my bold and italics

The law (ie the Equality Act which superceded the Disability Discrimimation Act) agress with you!

 

[WSW]

This has been an interesting thread. I have been rather guilty of making accusations against particular forum individuals. I'm sorry for doing that and will do my best to comment on the issue rather than the forum member. Again, apologies.

Allow me to explain where I'm coming from on this issue. It was some time before I posted to this thread, because like many, the information about the incident we have seen in the media has been unclear. And still is. I joined in when the discussion began to get rather too close to my heart as my son (42) has "special needs". We have tried damn hard to ensure my son gets the chance to experience as much of life as possible. Just like everyone wants to. It's not sympathy that we seek but we do ask for tolerance and understanding and, if appropriate, a little help. Thus I joined the discussion.

Like most forum members, I'd like to think the group was denied access to the first class seats for reasons other than their "special needs" - in other words, there was no room for a group of that size.

If seats were essential for this group, then reservations should have been made. The fact no reservations were made makes me think it was not essential.

Although if no seats were available in standard class then I don't blame them for asking about being allowed to use vacant first class seats. I would and I guess most of us would.

I don't think the carer/child ratio was wrong and I don't think splitting the group would have been a big problem either. These kids may have "special needs" but that doesn't mean they will be disruptive, noisy or disobedient. In my experience, these kids can actually be much better behaved. But we don't know about this group as we weren't there.

If the group leader insisted access on grounds of "special needs" then that was clearly wrong and I'd be the first to condemn such behaviour.

That, really, is the original issue. And we still don't know the actual details.

Out of interest, I looked up the XC website page to see what they offer in first class and it says "Travelling First Class you can enjoy larger, reclining seats, more table space and a calm environment." I'm not quite sure how XC can guarantee the "calm environment". On a different day, the carers of that group of "special needs" kids might have purchased first class tickets for their group. Does anyone know if XC might have denied the sale of first class tickets to any group of (say) 12 people, and if so, what would the grounds be and where might we find the answer in a public document?

Steve

 

[jon0844]

It does seem odd to suggest a 'calm environment' as clearly ANYONE can buy a first class ticket, and that can include a misbehaving child, alcoholic adult or any inconsiderate person that wants to play loud music on their phone, shout on a phone and be a t*t.

First class is open to anyone with a ticket, there's no other restriction based on age, dress etc.

 

[AndyLandy]

So. tl;dr:

If these kids were denied access to First Class because they have special needs, then XC are wholly to blame for being unreasonable.

If their carers felt that because they have special needs then they should be looked at first for First upgrades, then they are wholly to blame for being unreasonable.

In summary, we should treat all people equally. Sound fair to everyone?

 

[duncanp]

It is worth noting that this thread is entitled "Special Needs Children Denied Free First Class Upgrades"

It is quite possible that they were told that they could go into first class, on payment of the appropriate supplement.

If the other family with standard class tickets was allowed into first class after paying for an upgrade it would be unfair to them if other people were allowed into first class for free.

 

[jon0844]

Surely anyone can upgrade to FC on a staffed train, even if that upgrade is the cost of a new FC ticket (as against a supplement)?

Not that I'd imagine there was ever any chance that such a group would stump up the money, which would be quite a bit. But the cost of first class tickets is another can of worms...

 

[Oswyntail]

Heavens! 12 pages in and such beautiful constructs out of barely known facts. Statements such as that the "adults did not plan things properly" are as bad as anything written in the Daily Mail in being based on misinformation and supposition. All we can actually know is that a supervised group of children, some or all of whom had "Special needs", did not get allowed to sit in first.
I wonder what it is about this story that has generated so much heat and smoke!

 

[ModernRailways]

I wonder what it is about this story that has generated so much heat and smoke!

The 'Special Needs' part has. If it was just a normal passenger it would be a non-story and no one would care.

My personal stance should be for everyone to forget the kids have special needs. In my opinion, that shouldn't give you any benefits over other normal passengers. The special needs has been put in deliberately so they can get a story out there.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet in all honesty!