YorkshireRider
Member
The unanswered question is perhaps did the persons without railcards get offered the chance to take a UPFN and rejected it?
Agreed, think this may be the main question in any investigation TPE carry out.
The unanswered question is perhaps did the persons without railcards get offered the chance to take a UPFN and rejected it?
FTPE is more than capable, in my experience, of doing something similar to that. It's a silly comparison. A TOC "forgetting" to run a service which is in the working timetable and stranding hundreds of people is unlikely to be the result of an "honest mistake". A parent travelling with a child accidentally misplacing a railcard is quite possibly an honest mistake. What bugs me is the automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the passenger by so many on here in cases of potential fare evasion.In an ideal world. Also in an ideal world nobody would try and evade paying the correct fare, North Korea would be a democracy and wealth would be shared equitably.
How do you tell the difference between an honest mistake and a good actor? Why is so hard to follow the rules? Imagine the outrage had TPE made an "honest mistake" and "forgot" to put that train on?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Trial by Facebook - the outcome with the most likes is correct
And neither should anyone who doesn't recognise the possibility of an honest mistake
FTPE is more than capable, in my experience, of doing something similar to that. It's a silly comparison. A TOC "forgetting" to run a service which is in the working timetable and stranding hundreds of people is unlikely to be the result of an "honest mistake". A parent travelling with a child accidentally misplacing a railcard is quite possibly an honest mistake. What bugs me is the automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the passenger by so many on here in cases of potential fare evasion.
Applying the letter of the law with complete rigour in a situation like this (if that is what happened), has more than a whiff of North Korea about it
Unlike some of the lynch mob above, I'm reluctant to comment on the details of this individual case. In answer to a general question about how a guard should process this type of situation, I can only say that they should use their judgement, experience and common sense to assess each individual case and act accordingly. They should then be able to justify their actions in any subsequent investigation.For it to have more than a whiff or North Korea the customer would be thrown off for no reason at all. And she would be lucky to get that.
The customer (by her own admission) didn't have her railcard. How should the guard have proceeded?
Excesses I do not agree with at all. They give no incentive to travel with the railcard and encourage chancers
Is chucking her and her child off the train at an unstaffed station reasonable? In my opinion, if there were another train an hour later then it is fully justified.
In an ideal world. Also in an ideal world nobody would try and evade paying the correct fare, North Korea would be a democracy and wealth would be shared equitably.
Completely different things. Forgetting your rail card is not the same as failing to operate your train service. Apples and oranges and all that.How do you tell the difference between an honest mistake and a good actor? Why is so hard to follow the rules? Imagine the outrage had TPE made an "honest mistake" and "forgot" to put that train on?
Hate to burst your bubble BUT WMD weapons WERE discovered in Iraq after the invasion BUT thats actually got nothing to do with this thread.Were the lack of WMD in Iraq an honest mistake?
If all you had to do was pay an excess when you couldn't show a railcard, wouldn't everyone just buy discounted tickets and chance it knowing that all you had to do was pay a ittle more if asked... where is the deterrent in that?
Bb21 - if you can deal with it yourself by UFN/TIR then I don't see what's achived by throwing her off. Are you not just passing on the problem to the next man? That's the angle I'm looking at it from, and why I'd have just TIR'd or UFN'd if she'd accepted the offer of one.
So the conductor on the train an hour later could then chuck them off the next station, and so on?
I saw a TV documentary where police in Merseyside dealt with a fare evader. He had no ticket or money and lived a number of miles from where he had been thrown off by the conductor, guess what the police did - took his details and told the conductor of the next train to let him go home on that train even without a ticket.
Junglejames - pay at the other end was a non-starter - I can't see any RPI or Guard accepting that one for reasons that are blatantly obvious.
UFN or TIR was where I think this should have gone. The only reason to ask somebody to leave is if they are repeatedly abusive as far as I'm concerned - and that applies to anyone whether they have children or not. Slightly different for me though because I only stop at main staffed stations as a rule. Without any evidence that the woman was abusive, I'd have to be of the opinion that the Guard should have gone down the UFN/TIR route.
As you said earlier, in the REAL world people do forget their cards and surely in situations where a mother and her child are on a train and cannot find their rail card the guard can use his discretion to allow them to travel onwards WITHOUT kicking them off the train and the potential for disaster that has for them...and the train companies reputation.
Police do not have the authority to do that only the guard and the TOC's control do, they can ask but that is all.
Sorry but in what world is it justified stranding a mother and her child just because she didnt have a rail card?
There's nothing in NRCoC saying a passenger can be removed from a train mid-journey for not having a ticket, unless you think the clause relating to nuisance dogs being removed from train applies! Therefore, the police could put the passenger back on the train because the operator had no right to remove them in the first place.
SS4 quite - I'm afraid honest mistakes have consequences. It's not hard to remember a railcard, and if you don't you must expect to have to pay for a new ticket as you're required to by the T&Cs which you agreed to when you bought the ticket. I lost a day bus ticket in Bournemouth once. It was an honest mistake but I still had to buy a new one, and then learn not to be so stupid in future!
There's nothing in NRCoC saying a passenger can be removed from a train mid-journey for not having a ticket, unless you think the clause relating to nuisance dogs or passengers with unacceptable behaviour being removed from train applies. Therefore, the police could put the passenger back on the train because the operator had no right to remove them in the first place.
Byelaw 18(1) said:In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
Byelaw 24(2) said:(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
Yes, which is why my added thoughts of what would then happen to her, given that she still wouldn't have been able to pay her fare.
Maybe I was overly generalising and didn't express myself too well there. I should have said that under a normal TIR situation where the passenger had the ability to pay but subsequently refused, it would have been fully justified to throw him/her off the train.
In this case, if she were willing to take the TIR then I don't see any problem with it. If she refused, provided that her destination was a staffed station, surely there would have been a better way to deal with it by station staff at the destination, as allegedly her partner was able to cough up.
In the case where she refused to take the TIR and the destination also being unstaffed, I reckon that it would have been a judgement call for the guard. Would it have been worth delaying the train in pursuit of the uncollected fare? (Somehow I doubt it.)
There are too many things unclear about her case for anyone to make a decision about it.
Sorry but in what world is it justified stranding a mother and her child just because she didnt have a rail card?
Christ...its a rail card...its not like she was trying to steal the crown jewells...although given how some of you have instantly circled the wagon you would think she was trying to "steal" every single spare seat on the train so no one else could sit!
Completely different things. Forgetting your rail card is not the same as failing to operate your train service. Apples and oranges and all that.
As you said earlier, in the REAL world people do forget their cards and surely in situations where a mother and her child are on a train and cannot find their rail card the guard can use his discretion to allow them to travel onwards WITHOUT kicking them off the train and the potential for disaster that has for them...and the train companies reputation.
Define common sense. It appears to me that common sense is giving in to the passenger. We cannot say for sure whether or not she was offered a UPFN or not and I doubt the passenger would know (through no fault of her own) what an UPFN is.I dunno guys...there just seems to be a total lack of common sense and discretion being shown here by the guard.
Fair enough. Also agreed it's beyond the scope of this thread, I was using reductio ab absurdum again.Hate to burst your bubble BUT WMD weapons WERE discovered in Iraq after the invasion BUT thats actually got nothing to do with this thread.
hairyhandedfool said:My personal opinion is that there is far more to this story than is being said and that the reason she is not saying more is because it will go against her.
Now, we have no idea as to whether a) or b) were true in this casealthough it's unlikely both were true, given the resultso we can't speculate. But the attitude of "I've bought my railcard, why should I be forced to pay excess when I forget it?" is arrogant and stupid.
I have been in this situation before but this time with the police wanting me to take a drunk on my train who was abusive to a member of staff previously, I refused told my Control that I will refuse to take the train if the drunk was on board, they backed me 110% and the police had to sort out there own transport.
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?