Steve Coogan argues with conductor over passengers standing in First Class section

[Parallel]

I would personally remove all first class on Southern - They don’t offer a first class service anyway, just more chance of getting a seat which I think is wrong - especially when a seat isn’t even guaranteed. (Yes I know about the partial refund if all seats are taken but that’s not really the point)

EDIT: Maybe an upgrade would be the answer, a bit like Chiltern do.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

Instead of winging to the media, he needs to either write to the TOC in question or his member of parliament.

That's why there is things called elected officials and formal comments and complaints processes. Not using the court of public opinion.

The problem with doing that is you get fobbed off and get the usual PR response or in the case of a politician you get the "How great we are, how bad the other mob are and how we are fixing the trains" bull.
In both cased stuff all gets done because both just couldn't care less.

 

[uww11x]

.....

 

[uww11x]

At our TOC all employees have some degree of entitlement to travel in first class ranging from a few boxes at the start to full unrestricted travel after 15 years for all/for certain grades of managers.

There are a number of weeks through the year when all management first class travel is cancelled and they're instructed to travel standard class as a back to the floor style exercise.

Every now and then we have the 'strip them of free travel' blah blah blah.

We work for a railway company. Thus we get discounted railway travel, with conditions. Car salesmen get cheap cars. Shop workers get discounts.

This is I believe a fairly normal part of the niceties of employment.

Not all shop workers get discounts

 

[AlterEgo]

Not all shop workers get discounts

Neither do all rail staff.

 

[exbrel]

Credit where it deserves it, I boarded the 1116 Luton airport parkway to London Bridge train on 8/9/18, it had 12 coaches and it was packed except as the guard announced the last 2coaches then after an influx of people at St.Albans he said there were still seats at the rear but first class was also available for standard class ticket holders. He must have gone thru the guards training school before common sense was discontinued from the course...

 

[Bucephalus]

I'm glad this thread is still live just so I can say "that's first class"

I know that everything has already been said here but I want to add. The thought of a famous person (presumably) questioning the authority of the guard makes me feel a little uneasy. I feel this way because I presume guards and conductors must already get a lot of passengers arguing with them and having a celebrity challenge them might normalise this practise further. I also think that the authority of a safety-critical role carries more weight than that of your typical staff member. I'd hate to see a guard second-guessing their decisions in the name of customer service in the event of a derailment for example.

That said, i don't know how the guard came across when he was kicking out the standard-class standees. That says a lot about me, maybe I only respect authority that's nice

 

[fowler9]

I'm glad this thread is still live just so I can say "that's first class"

I know that everything has already been said here but I want to add. The thought of a famous person (presumably) questioning the authority of the guard makes me feel a little uneasy. I feel this way because I presume guards and conductors must already get a lot of passengers arguing with them and having a celebrity challenge them might normalise this practise further. I also think that the authority of a safety-critical role carries more weight than that of your typical staff member. I'd hate to see a guard second-guessing their decisions in the name of customer service in the event of a derailment for example.

That said, i don't know how the guard came across when he was kicking out the standard-class standees. That says a lot about me, maybe I only respect authority that's nice

This is where it gets awkward. We have sections of society who think Boris Johnson should be able to say what he wants because of freedom of speech, others saying that Steve Coogan can't have what seems to be a reasonable discussion because he is famous. Other people think everyone should keep their gob shut and yet others think everyone should be able to say anything. Would love to see the Venn Diagram.

 

[whhistle]

The "Rules Are Rules" force is strong today.

So you're saying it's okay to break the rules if you think it's sensible to do so?
Does that apply to laws too?

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

For info, click on the "+ quote" button and it'll allow you to quote lots of people in one reply, rather than replying individually to one per post.

 

[DavyCrocket]

I would personally remove all first class on Southern - They don’t offer a first class service anyway, just more chance of getting a seat which I think is wrong - especially when a seat isn’t even guaranteed. (Yes I know about the partial refund if all seats are taken but that’s not really the point)

EDIT: Maybe an upgrade would be the answer, a bit like Chiltern do.

I agree, make the space available to others.

Perhaps those that have to stand in first class when have a non first class ticket should buy and upgrade and then have it refunded as no seats. I’m sure they’ll enjoy the extra correspondence!

 

[Antman]

Ja, orders are orders. Rules are rules. Irrespective of whether they are common sense. We must live by all of the Rules. Or the world order will collapse.

In the real world we expect common sense and an application of discretion. We do not expect to slavishly Follow orders of a man in uniform. Because he has a uniform. The same as, in the UK, we expect those with authority to enforce it as little as possible and to do the minimum possible to enforce it and not to enforce it just because it is there (that that goes for traffic wardens, police officers and even railway guards).

 

[kristiang85]

I've suggested before that first class on suburban commuter routes should be scrapped, but there should be a 'gold' class section of a few carriages during weekdays for those with annual Gold season tickets on that route - i.e. as a perk for those who pay a whole year up front to give them more chance of getting a seat (no other comforts, just a restricted zone).

This can also be declassified when needed, and without the need for compensation, which simplifies it for the TOC.

 

[gazzaa2]

The problem with first class is when standard class is over subscribed due to an inadequate service (if there's more people on a train than seats then the service is inadequate).

First class should be done away with until there's enough capacity on trains for people not to have to stand like cattle. If you get a standard class seated ticket on an aeroplane you can actually sit down.

Replace first class with child free quiet zones with an inspector there to enforce it as they would with first class. That way people can still travel in peace at least and comfort if they can find a seat.

I've travelled in plenty of other countries via train and you can actually sit down on a train without having to buy a first class ticket. I know people who pay fortunes for first class tickets (standard class is expensive enough) just so they can sit down. It's an absolute joke the service in this country and only getting worse and it's worse up north with the shocking 2 or 4 car old trains carrying hundreds of people.

 

[Mag_seven]

in the UK, we expect those with authority to enforce it as little as possible

Why would we want that? I don't want a rule half enforced thanks. It's either enforced or it isn't.

 

[Antman]

Why would we want that? I don't want a rule half enforced thanks. It's either enforced or it isn't.

Because the point is not the rule. The rule is only there to intrude as little as possible to allow life and society to continue and thrive without conflict. Enforcing rules for rules’ sake is pointless. And the sort of thing jobsworth apparatchiks do

 

[LowLevel]

Because the point is not the rule. The rule is only there to intrude as little as possible to allow life and society to continue and thrive without conflict. Enforcing rules for rules’ sake is pointless. And the sort of thing jobsworth apparatchiks do

Jobsworth is a beautiful word. It's never levied at gas engineers making joints properly, or surgeons operating. But when you're employed to stop someone losing out at another person's expense it's fair game, whether you're a traffic warden or a train ticket inspector or a police officer.

It's a magical word that turns this rather benign and hands off train guard into a rather large and unfriendly pain in the backside - and then the rules come out

 

[bussnapperwm]

Jobsworth is a beautiful word. It's never levied at gas engineers making joints properly, or surgeons operating. But when you're employed to stop someone losing out at another person's expense it's fair game, whether you're a traffic warden or a train ticket inspector or a police officer.

It's a magical word that turns this rather benign and hands off train guard into a rather large and unfriendly pain in the backside - and then the rules come out

In my profession (local government) I quite often get called a jobsworth and my response is quite simple...

"Thank you sir"

I can only follow the rules in my job as otherwise it's more than my jobs worth, bending them.

 

[bnm]

Why would we want that? I don't want a rule half enforced thanks. It's either enforced or it isn't.

31mph?

 

[Antman]

And can’t you see that this is part of the problem? Don’t you want to change the system? Wouldn’t you rather be more useful and helpful ? I am, for my sins, a solicitor. I see the law as a framework that I have to negotiate, not a cage I must stay inside. I get so frustrated by those, often public sector, who just do, don’t question or try to change it from the inside, then moan that they don’t get enough respect from the public.

Or just happy to wait for the pension ? (Joke)

 

[LowLevel]

And can’t you see that this is part of the problem? Don’t you want to change the system? Wouldn’t you rather be more useful and helpful ? I am, for my sins, a solicitor. I see the law as a framework that I have to negotiate, not a cage I must stay inside. I get so frustrated by those, often public sector, who just do, don’t question or try to change it from the inside, then moan that they don’t get enough respect from the public.

Or just happy to wait for the pension ? (Joke)

Me? I'm happy dealing with incidents, caring for drunks, keeping people safe and making sure they get where they're going as quickly and as happy as I can achieve. What I do have a responsibility towards is that if they err, whether intentionally or otherwise, I make sure they're aware of it whether I choose to apply to appropriate penalty or not (I'm lucky enough to have that discretion - my employer generally leaves guards to deal with situations on their trains as they see fit provided they're willing to be accountable for any issues later). It's when you even mention the rules and people immediately kick into the defensive that's the problem and when the Jword gets flung around I become less than friendly.

 

[Bikeman78]

Because if he'd let off a few f bombs and had thrown his weight around, it would a) be apparent on the video. His body language is In no way confrontational and it doesn't look like a hostile exchange and b) passengers would have reported it to the press.

Also, what conceivabale reason would people find to stand in first class, other than to find a bit of space? It isn't like they're helping themselves to the big comfy seats and a complimentary meal and drink is it?

Quite. Blagging it in first class on a 377 is the definition of pointless, the seats are the same as in standard.

 

[Rail Blues]

So you're saying it's okay to break the rules if you think it's sensible to do so?
Does that apply to laws too?

Yep. My parents, both teachers in the 80s, routinely ignored section 28 as it was unworkable, stupid, cruel and politically motivated clap trap.

Or a further example, until the 90s it would be illegal for a 21 year old man to have consensual sex with his 20 year old boyfriend.

Would you really want policemen peering into the bedroom windows of consenting to prevent this heinous crime taking place?

In fact, I'd think less of someone who took a blind bit of notice of either of those idiotic pieces of legislation.

Rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

 

[mmh]

So you're saying it's okay to break the rules if you think it's sensible to do so?
Does that apply to laws too?

I'm saying that there are too many people who are unecessarily scared by rules. There was someone earlier in this thread saying they wouldn't even walk through first class. That's ridiculous adherance to rules. In this particular example, nobody will be trying to stand on better first class carpet. Nobody will want to to stand in a first class area on Southern for zero benefit and to raise the ire of those who've paid their supplement for an antimacassar.

I've done the same, and I'd do it again tomorrow.

 

[mmh]

Yep. My parents, both teachers in the 80s, routinely ignored section 28 as it was unworkable, stupid, cruel and politically motivated clap trap.

Or a further example, until the 90s it would be illegal for a 21 year old man to have consensual sex with his 20 year old boyfriend.

Would you really want policemen peering into the bedroom windows of consenting to prevent this heinous crime taking place?

In fact, I'd think less of someone who took a blind bit of notice of either of those idiotic pieces of legislation.

Rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

Thank you very very much for that, as someone directly affected by that it means a lot to me that other people realised quite how wrong both an inequal age of consent and section 28 was. A great example of why blind acceptance of rules isn't a good thing.

 

[fowler9]

Thank you very very much for that, as someone directly affected by that it means a lot to me that other people realised quite how wrong both an inequal age of consent and section 28 was. A great example of why blind acceptance of rules isn't a good thing.

I know we disagree on a lot of things but I totally agree with you on this. Had a large impact on many friends, I also agree with your previous post.

 

[whhistle]

So you're saying it's okay to break the rules if you think it's sensible to do so?
Does that apply to laws too?

Yep.

That's good then.
I'm glad my law breaking is welcomed by you.

That means all those times I travel late at night and drive through red lights, ignore speed limit signs because I think it's sensible is fine.

That means all those people illegally downloading films are fine, because they think it's sensible to allow their child to watch the latest blockbusters but can't afford to go to the cinema.

And why not just steal food from the supermarket (it costs too much!)? I mean, it's sensible to to eat, right? So it's okay.

Yep. My parents, both teachers in the 80s, routinely ignored section 28 as it was unworkable, stupid, cruel and politically motivated clap trap.
Or a further example, until the 90s it would be illegal for a 21 year old man to have consensual sex with his 20 year old boyfriend.
Would you really want policemen peering into the bedroom windows of consenting to prevent this heinous crime taking place?

You refer to two small examples that don't show your point of view. I don't even know or care what "section 28" is or was.

And I hardly think police officers (nice to see you're old fashioned mind assume they're men!) will be peering into peoples houses.

Let's face it, there's loads of laws that exist, that are broken all the time. It's not because people think it's "sensible", it's because nobody has thought to get rid of the law as it doesn't need to exist any more and they're not particularly well known.

Rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

I'd appreciate a Train Drivers view on this statement.

No need to follow the rule book anymore! Just use it as a guide instead!
This guy is cracking me up!

I'm saying that there are too many people who are unecessarily scared by rules.

There's a significant difference between being scared by rules, blindly following rules or ignoring them completely.

Most rules (or laws) are there to protect people.
I blindly follow the law of "do not murder" because I agree with it.
I blindly follow the law of "do not steal" because I agree with it.
I'd suggest most people do.

What I don't appreciate is being challenged when in a position of authority, when the instruction is clearly for the persons benefit. It then goes further that if the person doesn't follow the instruction, I could end up in a lot of trouble.

For example, a guard telling someone to move away from the doors.
The person should move back without question.

I appreciate the person may not see the benefit but if they don' follow the instruction, there is a risk to their life. Yes, you could say "well the guard shouldn't dispatch blah blah blah" but that's getting away from the point - the member of public should follow the instruction without question.

Don't get me wrong, I understand there may be power hungry police out there but no wonder we have such dis-respect for the law in this country - people seem to think it's optional.

 

[Mingulay]

That's good then.
I'm glad my law breaking is welcomed by you.

That means all those times I travel late at night and drive through red lights, ignore speed limit signs because I think it's sensible is fine.

That means all those people illegally downloading films are fine, because they think it's sensible to allow their child to watch the latest blockbusters but can't afford to go to the cinema.

And why not just steal food from the supermarket (it costs too much!)? I mean, it's sensible to to eat, right? So it's okay.




You refer to two small examples that don't show your point of view. I don't even know or care what "section 28" is or was.
And I hardly think police officers (nice to see you're old fashioned mind assume they're men!) will be peering into peoples houses.
Let's face it, there's loads of laws that exist, that are broken all the time. It's not because people think it's "sensible", it's because nobody has thought to get rid of the law as it doesn't need to exist any more and they're not particularly well known.



I'd appreciate a Train Drivers view on this statement.
No need to follow the rule book anymore! Just use it as a guide instead!
This guy is cracking me up!

Can’t believe this is still running. Now descended into daft arguments by those on both sides of the argument. Move on ?

These exchanges will occur several times a day on trains. It’s only got air time as it was a celebrity involved and some attention seeking individual thought it would raise his profile or kudos by filming it and publishing. Never really understood the mentality of filming incidents rather than assisting or minding your own buisiness or being respectful of people’s privacy and not filming or recording it but posting it online.

Can we call it a score draw and close the thread ?

 

[sprunt]

I blindly follow the law of "do not murder" because I agree with it.
I blindly follow the law of "do not steal" because I agree with it.

That's not blindly following it. That's following it because you've considered the value of it. To blindly follow it would be to follow it simply because it is a law, regardless of its value.

 

[nottsnurse]

Replace first class with child free quiet zones with an inspector there to enforce it as they would with first class. That way people can still travel in peace at least and comfort if they can find a seat...

I take it you don't have children?

Why "child free quiet zones" and not just "quiet zones"? You may not believe this but some parents and their children can behave in quite a reasonable manner when out and about. Some adults on the other hand...

Are children not allowed to travel in relative peace and quiet too? Would my autistic daughter and I not be allowed to escape the hustle and bustle of non-quiet coaches (which cause her a great deal of anxiety) and be left to fend for ourselves among the other untermensch in your perfect world?

I've travelled in plenty of other countries via train

And how many of them had "child free quiet zones" on their trains?

 

[Rail Blues]

That's not blindly following it. That's following it because you've considered the value of it. To blindly follow it would be to follow it simply because it is a law, regardless of its value.

Good point. I'd add to that, I don't steal as my economic circumstances are such that I can afford to make such decisions. If I were starving (literally starving) I'd steal food from a supermarket without a second thought, as would I suspect most people.