TPE kicks woman and child off train

[EM2]

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

Greenbank has one right outside the station on Beach Road. I found it in two minutes on Google Street View.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

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.



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.

As I stop everywhere on that line on a regular basis I have a little bit of inside knowledge, Greenbank did have a phone on the station but it did get vandalised (like the rest of the station) on a regular basis, being a TPE service though, the chances are that she would have hardly any problems using a station phone (as the majority are manned) and the guard would have a phone also (this I presume as if we at Northern do I presume TPE would).

 

[Eagle]

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.

Ooh, you could cut the hypocrisy with a knife. You mustn't treat this poor, delicate, alone young damsel with a child who's only made an honest mistake and isn't trying to dodge the fare in the same way as an abusive young man, intoxicated, who's obviously deliberately trying to evade the fares, he's probably a regular fare evader, he looks like a wrong'un.

 

[mailman]

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

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

Okay so the guard doesn't kick her off the train, then what?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

Or there is more to this than you know, someone who follows the rules IS NOT a jobsworth they are someone who is doing there job correctly, they are only a jobsworth to people who they either catch breaking the rules or inconvenience

woohoooo I'm a Jobsworth

 

[mailman]

Ooh, you could cut the hypocrisy with a knife. You mustn't treat this poor, delicate, alone young damsel with a child who's only made an honest mistake and isn't trying to dodge the fare in the same way as an abusive young man, intoxicated, who's obviously deliberately trying to evade the fares, he's probably a regular fare evader, he looks like a wrong'un.

Exactly Eagle...you and I are in compelte agreement!

Mailman

 

[Eagle]

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

It is also quite possible that the woman was offered an UPFN, was unable to produce the fare, became abusive and a danger to others (including her child, THINK OF THE CHILDREN :P), and was summarily ejected.

WE

DON'T

KNOW

okay?

(Although I don't think any guard would immediately eject someone without a valid railcard, no matter how cruel you perceive all staff to be.)

 

[pemma]

Greenbank has one right outside the station on Beach Road. I found it in two minutes on Google Street View.

Like I said in the post between yours and the one by ANorthernGuard, it's not immediately obvious on leaving the station, especially if you leave via Milner Route, in which case you'd probably carry on in that direction noticing that there are shops and a large college in front of you.

 

[EM2]

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

Seeing as we already know this (top of page 2 in this thread):

Originally Posted by FTPE via Facebook
it is worth noting that the issue in question was reported to us, a full investigation was carried out and the findings provided to Passenger Focus, who independently agreed with our assessment of the situation.

then I find that highly unlikely.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Like I said in the post between yours and the one by ANorthernGuard, it's not immediately obvious on leaving the station, especially if you leave via Milner Route, in which case you'd probably carry on in that direction noticing that there are shops and a large college in front of you.

also known as using common sense JCollins (sadly us guards know about the collge, you want fare evading stories with that place I can tell a few )

 

[transmanche]

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

Er, the point being that after being kicked off, she was no longer on the train...

Also I have sufficient empathy to understand that for a lone female; being left at an unstaffed station, possibly a long way from home, with no phone or money and a (quite possibly very upset) child - this could be quite an upsetting experience.

 

[Geezertronic]

Of course we don't know the full facts but if it turns out to be the case, I have very little sympathy for people who break the rules, get caught and dealt with in the appropriate manner, then complain about it getting all emotive about it at the same time

 

[DarloRich]

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

and we have a potential troll

I doubt anyone was simply thrown off a train for not having a railcard. As has been said by those who deal with this situation all the time, i bet she was offered a UPFN, refused, "kicked off" got absuive and was ejected for that NOT for having a railcard.

The story, imo, doesnt look quite so good if you tell everyone you were thrown off a train for refusing the fare AND calling the gaurd a chuffing funt!

 

[Batman]

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

Wouldn't that contravene the Equalities Act?

 

[transmanche]

Wouldn't that contravene the Equalities Act?

No, why?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Surely it can't contravene equalities because we are talking about women being given priority. Now, if it was about men being given priority.....

 

[Batman]

No, why?

I was just wondering because as soon as I saw that post, the resent case about women's car insurance costs in the European courts came to mind. I'm no legal expert (although I did briefly study contract law at uni), but coundn't that be cited as case law in gender equality cases where women have been given an advantage over men?

Or have I missed the point?

 

[SS4]

Wouldn't that contravene the Equalities Act?

No, if it gives women an advantage is not hypocrisy. Much the same way mandating (Christian) prayer in local councils does not contravene the Equalities Act according to Mr Pickles.

Er, the point being that after being kicked off, she was no longer on the train...

I would hazard that stations are still pretty safe. We know neither which station nor what time but I think it's fair to say that it was neither unstaffed nor the dead of night

 

[route:oxford]

Surely the best course of action here would to continue to "kick" the non-paying passenger off the service...

But also to call social services and advise them that there is a negligent parent and child with no money stranded at the station.

 

[junglejames]

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

I know. Hence why if the story is all true, she seemed happy to pay. Just she never had the ability to do so there and then. So had to do so at another time.
Of course, this is assuming she is telling the truth, but we know nothing else so cant assume she is lying yet.
Im not commenting on whether anybody is right or wrong as the story may be exagerated, but its unfair for others to assume she is wrong or lying etc.

 

[Darandio]

I know. Hence why if the story is all true, she seemed happy to pay. Just she never had the ability to do so there and then. So had to do so at another time.
Of course, this is assuming she is telling the truth, but we know nothing else so cant assume she is lying yet.
Im not commenting on whether anybody is right or wrong as the story may be exagerated, but its unfair for others to assume she is wrong or lying etc.

But anyone would seem "happy" to pay by any means if they had been caught, regardless of whether it was a case of intended evasion or not. Presumably the latter is probably true in this case.

The issue is, anyone can make a similar claim and more often than not, this claim would be someone trying it on. Are staff expected to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in this situation, or pick and choose depending on the situation i.e a woman and child? That is what is clouding judgement here for many, simply because it was a woman and child involved and surely all women with children are upstanding citizens and wouldn't dream of breaking the law. :roll:

[youtube]S-xeStoNHFY[/youtube]

 

[transmanche]

I was just wondering because as soon as I saw that post, the resent case about women's car insurance costs in the European courts came to mind. I'm no legal expert (although I did briefly study contract law at uni), but coundn't that be cited as case law in gender equality cases where women have been given an advantage over men?

Or have I missed the point?

I think that case related to the fact it was the same service but provided at a different price.

I guess it's too soon for such things to have been tested in the courts, but I think it's permitted under s29 & s158 of the Equality Act 2010. As in this case, the same service is being provided at the same price - just that at busy times certain types of people are being given priority.

 

[Greenback]

Some people do make an honest mistake and leave their railcard at home. They may not even realise it when they buy their ticket at a TVM.

Another type of person might deliberately buy a discounted ticket when they don't have a railcard at all. They may even believe that they can talk their way out of trouble if they are found out.

We do not know whether this instance is an example of the former or the latter. All I will say is this (all based on my own observations and nothing else)

I have never seen anyone thrown off a train for not having their railcard with them
I have hardly ever seen a mother, out with her baby, not talk into a mobile phone at some point

As you cna probably tell, on balance I am inclined to agree with those who suspect that there may be more to this story than has been revealed so far. Ultimately, though, we cannot come to any definite conclusion without being in possession of the full facts.

 

[junglejames]

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?

What if she was honest, and a UPFN would have done the job? Assuming it wasnt.
OK it would seem strange if it wasnt, but its unfair to assume she is lying. We shall probably never know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ooh, you could cut the hypocrisy with a knife. You mustn't treat this poor, delicate, alone young damsel with a child who's only made an honest mistake and isn't trying to dodge the fare in the same way as an abusive young man, intoxicated, who's obviously deliberately trying to evade the fares, he's probably a regular fare evader, he looks like a wrong'un.

No hypocrisy. You cant treat them the same, because she had a young child.

Anyway, I cant believe she's a regular fare evader. Not if its true about having a railcard, and having a ticket in the first place.

 

[Geezertronic]

Anyway, I cant believe she's a regular fare evader. Not if its true about having a railcard, and having a ticket in the first place.

And I think there lies the problem, perception. Out of interest, why couldn't you believe that she'd be a regular fare evader? What makes you think that way? No axe to grind, I'm genuinly interested?

 

[junglejames]

Or there is more to this than you know, someone who follows the rules IS NOT a jobsworth they are someone who is doing there job correctly, they are only a jobsworth to people who they either catch breaking the rules or inconvenience

woohoooo I'm a Jobsworth

He never said the guard was a jobsworth. He purely said the guard may have taken a jobsworth attitude.
He never said you are a jobsworth just for doing the job. However some guards may possibly tsake on a jobswroth attitude at times.

 

[Batman]

I think that case related to the fact it was the same service but provided at a different price.

I guess it's too soon for such things to have been tested in the courts, but I think it's permitted under s29 & s158 of the Equality Act 2010. As in this case, the same service is being provided at the same price - just that at busy times certain types of people are being given priority.

Looking at s158 of the Equality Act 2010, it all depends on whether the guard 'reasonable thinks that a persons gender is a protected charictoristic'.

Different people will have different views on that and it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just to play Devil's Advocate:

How would you feel if it was your wife and child?

I believe it is in most circumstances improper to put a child and mother off at an unstaffed station. However, we don't know anything factual about this, or the circumstances in which it occurred. Like it or not, the railway has a duty of care to all who are on it's property - even people who have forgotten their railcard.

Given that we don't know the full picture, I can't really form an opinion.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Hows about the opposite of what he did...ie. NOT kick her off the train.

Its quite possible the guard developed an instant jobsworths hightened sense of importance the instant she couldnt produce the rail card.

Mailman

ok then

so..

that isn't accusing the guard of being a Jobsworth? or at least insinuating it?

If I do my job correctly according to a few members on here the Guard is a Jobsworth,

so if the guard has done their job correctly they are then a "jobsworth"

then so am I

and damn proud of it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to play Devil's Advocate:

How would you feel if it was your wife and child?

I believe it is in most circumstances improper to put a child and mother off at an unstaffed station. However, we don't know anything factual about this, or the circumstances in which it occurred. Like it or not, the railway has a duty of care to all who are on it's property - even people who have forgotten their railcard.

Given that we don't know the full picture, I can't really form an opinion.

I for one would never throw a mother and child off IF i thought they would be in ANY danger!

HOWEVER

if it is a station that is either manned or has a phone AND there is another train due soon (if it the same TOC the guard would be warned via control), I would have no problem

Just because you have a child DOES NOT exempt you from the rules