TPE kicks woman and child off train

[hairyhandedfool]

I still cannot believe that the conductor chose to throw her off instead of offering a UPFN. Can any staff confirm whether this is codified in the manual?

You don't know it wasn't offered. However, a UFN is not a right the passenger has.

 

[pemma]

No, but Byelaw 18(1) and 24(2) are pretty clear:

The Operator has every right to expel those who are in breach of the Byelaws, and travelling without a railcard invalidates your ticket.

Please say that's not the exact wording! On that wording a female passenger could never be removed for breach of bye-laws and if they, with the help of a good solicitor could successfully sue the operator.

 

[Ferret]

I still cannot believe that the conductor chose to throw her off instead of offering a UPFN. Can any staff confirm whether this is codified in the manual?

edit: as long as it doesn't cause any adverse effect on your job, the last thing I want is for someone to face a disciplinary for revealing info from the manual

Well, let me put it this way - the FRPP will not mention anything about throwing people off the train.

 

[SS4]

That is not known IMHO I feel there is so much more to this than meets the eye like so many other stories that we hear, I certainly will not pass jusgement until all the real facts emerge and not a rant on facebook

You don't know it wasn't offered.

Indeed I dont, I'm simply saying it's unlikely it wasn't offered.

 

[EM2]

And I see in the original FB posts, the fact that she had no phone is mentioned. Is there any station that doesn't have at least one phone box nearby, from where you can make a reverse charge call?

 

[Eagle]

The only info we have suggests she was happy to pay extra. OK this may have been untrue at the time, but for anyone to assume its untrue is unfair.
As for the attitude you mention. That is something that has not been displayed yet, and its again unfair to assume she has shown it, as there is no evidence.

I'm not saying the passenger in question has displayed any such attitude, or that we are not to take her story at face value. Given that it's all we have at the moment, I think quite the contrary.

I was referring to the general attitude of some posters that forgetting a railcard shouldn't have any consequences.

 

[EM2]

Please say that's not the exact wording! On that wording a female passenger could never be removed for breach of bye-laws and if they, with the help of a good solicitor could successfully sue the operator.

How do you work that out?
Oh, hang on, because it refers to 'him', right? Wrong. Byelaw 25, clause 4

25. Interpretation
....
(4) Gender
Unless the context requires to the contrary, words importing one gender shall include the other gender.

 

[Eagle]

Please say that's not the exact wording! On that wording a female passenger could never be removed for breach of bye-laws and if they, with the help of a good solicitor could successfully sue the operator.

You're clearly being facetious there :P but luckily the Byelaws come to the rescue again:

Unless the context requires to the contrary, words importing one gender shall include the other gender.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

And I see in the original FB posts, the fact that she had no phone is mentioned. Is there any station that doesn't have at least one phone box nearby, from where you can make a reverse charge call?

If that was a Northern service the guard would/should let the passenger use the works mobile phone, so many parts of this story is strange.

 

[mailman]

• How far she had to travel or how far she had come.

Or how far she had to go? If she only had one or two stops to go why not let her continue on and if she had only just got on and was a significant distance from her destination then again, why not let her stay on the train on the grounds of personal safety?

• Why the story went to Facebook (even if it was the TPE page) seemingly before TPE Customer services?

Because sadly it seems the only way one can get any action is to go public!

Mailman

 

[Eagle]

...and if she had only just got on and was a significant distance from her destination then again, why not let her stay on the train on the grounds of personal safety?

I don't follow; how is that grounds of personal safety?

 

[pemma]

And I see in the original FB posts, the fact that she had no phone is mentioned. Is there any station that doesn't have at least one phone box nearby, from where you can make a reverse charge call?

Greenbank and Ashley as a starter for ten.

 

[junglejames]

She is not willing to include more facts because TPE are bound by the Data Protection Act and are saying nothing.

She has said TPE cant disclose anything in public, and that she isnt disclosing personal details of those involved.
So unfair, as you claim later, to say its because it would go against her. Was it you that said that?

What we don't know is:

• Did she actually have the railcard on her?
• Where she bought the ticket.
• How she paid for her ticket (or even who paid for it).
• How far she had to travel or how far she had come.
• Was she offered a UFN?
• Why the story went to Facebook (even if it was the TPE page) seemingly before TPE Customer services

1- Doesnt make much difference.
2- Doesnt make much difference
3- Ditto
4- Think she mentioned where she was going. York?
5- Dunno
6- It apparently did go to customer services. TPE believed guards side of story. Its only just come about now on FB for whatever reason. Dont think it was her who brought it up though.

 

[pemma]

You're clearly being facetious there :P but luckily the Byelaws come to the rescue again:

No I'm not. Have you heard of this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman ?

 

[transmanche]

I don't follow; how is that grounds of personal safety?

For the same reason that the AA et al treat lone women (and those travelling with children) as priority?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

If it was a TPE train then the passengers are hardly likely to be stranded in the middle of nowhere. They were obviously able to get picked up (and then have a chance to post their story on Facebook as a first priority).

 

[DarloRich]

The only info we have suggests she was happy to pay extra. OK this may have been untrue at the time, but for anyone to assume its untrue is unfair.
As for the attitude you mention. That is something that has not been displayed yet, and its again unfair to assume she has shown it, as there is no evidence.

point of order - she said she has no money. She seemed to be suggesting someone else pay for her at the end.

I cant imagine that a gaurd would let you off that easily.

 

[mailman]

I don't follow; how is that grounds of personal safety?

So you are prepared put at risk the safety of a mother and her child simply because she didnt have the right rail card on her?

Again...there just seems to be a total lack of compassion, discretion, common sense and down right common decency here.

Surely the ethically correct thing to do would have been to allow her to complete her travel and deal with her horribly blatant fare evasion in other, less intrusive ways?

Mailman

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Greenbank and Ashley as a starter for ten.

Greenbank?? next to a main road so bound to be one, Ashley has one that works in the Chester bound station AND the old station buildings are occupied as residences

 

[SS4]

For the same reason that the AA et al treat lone women (and those travelling with children) as priority?

Thanks to either an anachronism or the increased chance of sexual assault neither of which is likely on a train

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Or how far she had to go? If she only had one or two stops to go why not let her continue on and if she had only just got on and was a significant distance from her destination then again, why not let her stay on the train on the grounds of personal safety?


Because sadly it seems the only way one can get any action is to go public!

Mailman

Apparently she asked if the father of the child could pay on arrival, but if you think about it, what happens if the father refuses or has no money either?

Does the guard hold the train 'til the Police arrive? Is she to be held against her will until payment is made?

What happens if the is no-one there to meet her and she said that to try to get away with paying a lower fare?

What if she had travelled over a long distance and had three or four occasions to correct the fare but didn't? What if a previous guard had let her travel to the next manned stop to contact someone and she abused that trust?

What if she was one stop from her destination and wasn't quite as stranded as she makes out?

 

[Eagle]

For the same reason that the AA et al treat lone women (and those travelling with children) as priority?

Depends which station she got kicked off at, and when. If it was an unmanned halt in the late evening then yes, but it could have been a relatively busy staffed station in the middle of the day.

 

[SS4]

So you are prepared put at risk the safety of a mother and her child simply because she didnt have the right rail card on her?

Again...there just seems to be a total lack of compassion, discretion, common sense and down right common decency here.

Surely the ethically correct thing to do would have been to allow her to complete her travel and deal with her horribly blatant fare evasion in other, less intrusive ways?

Mailman

No, the ethically correct thing to do would be to treat her in the same way as a drunken teenager. Equality works both ways despite what feminists would have you think
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Apparently she asked if the father of the child could pay on arrival, but if you think about it, what happens if the father refuses or has no money either?

Does the guard hold the train 'til the Police arrive? Is she to be held against her will until payment is made?

What happens if the is no-one there to meet her and she said that to try to get away with paying a lower fare?

What if she had travelled over a long distance and had three or four occasions to correct the fare but didn't? What if a previous guard had let her travel to the next manned stop to contact someone and she abused that trust?

What if she was one stop from her destination and wasn't quite as stranded as she makes out?

How dare you use common sense and logic in an argument regarding a child

 

[Eagle]

So you are prepared put at risk the safety of a mother and her child simply because she didnt have the right rail card on her?

See post 82. There's nothing to suggest the station was unsafe.

And I'll say, personally if I was the guard in this case I wouldn't kick her off*. I'm not condoning the guard's actions (at face value they're suspect), I'm just countering the idea that this was a matter of risk to the two (which it likely wasn't).

* unless she had started becoming abusive, of course

 

[SS4]

See post 82.

And I'll say if I was the guard in this case I wouldn't kick her off unless she had started becoming abusive.

Allow me to quote myself

How dare you use common sense and logic in an argument regarding a child

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Surely the ethically correct thing to do would have been to allow her to complete her travel and deal with her horribly blatant fare evasion in other, less intrusive ways?

Pray tell, what other less intrusive ways? What should the guard have offered that (s)he didn't?

 

[W230]

As with many of these stories we're unlikely to ever know what happened. One person says one thing, the other contradictory. Maybe the guard was a over the top, maybe they weren't.

It unfortunate that the passenger apparently got on the train without any money whatsoever, or any mobile phone to contact her partner or anyone else. I would imagine most people nowadays would have a bank card of some description on them while out and about and could just have it swiped and pay the excess fair before sorting it all out with customer services later...

Don't know what cctv would prove though - it's not going to hear the conversation! However, whatever happened, I don't buy the 'stranded' argument. To me stranded is being stuck at Berney Arms on a Sunday evening!

The debate continues...

 

[pemma]

Greenbank?? next to a main road so bound to be one.

Just checked Streetview and there is one the wrong side of the traffic island, so not immediately obvious on leaving the station and that's assuming it's not been vandalised.

Ashley has one that works in the Chester bound station AND the old station buildings are occupied as residences

You're right about Ashley I was going by the big red cross on National Rail enquiries site but it turns out that means the phone is not accessible.

 

[mailman]

No, the ethically correct thing to do would be to treat her in the same way as a drunken teenager. Equality works both ways despite what feminists would have you think

I think you will find that the ethical thing is to NOT treat her exactly the same as you would a drunk violent aggressive abusive fare dodging teenager.

How dare you use common sense and logic in an argument regarding a child

You have to have shown some common sense in the first place before you can play the "How dare you use common sense and logic in an argument" argument

Regards

Mailman

 

[pemma]

Depends which station she got kicked off at, and when. If it was an unmanned halt in the late evening then yes, but it could have been a relatively busy staffed station in the middle of the day.

The Facebook quote said unstaffed station. I initially thought it must have been late at night or early in the morning for a station to be unstaffed, but then remembered some of the Cumbria stations TPE serve are unstaffed.