Trespass incident at Manchester Piccadilly (11/03)

[farleigh]

A simple answer - in most other countries it is allowed to walk on the railway provided it is safe to do so. And these protesters likely had foreign nexuses, or they wouldn't have been in that protest and thereby used to foreign practices.
To be clear, I'm not justifying what they did, merely explaining why they did it.

I don’t think that this makes sense. I would guess that they would have known it it is not permitted. To illustrate, people from other countries might drive on the right but know not to do so here.

 

[NSEFAN]

A simple answer - in most other countries it is allowed to walk on the railway provided it is safe to do so. And these protesters likely had foreign nexuses, or they wouldn't have been in that protest and thereby used to foreign practices.

A more cynical view would say that they brought their children to avoid potential conflict with police, who might have a punch up with a group of rowdy adults but not a parent with their child.

The whole point of the protest is to get attention to their cause. By walking on the tracks at a terminus station, they can cause disruption and maximise the publicity for their cause, whilst reducing the chance of being run over by a train, which would be much higher at a through station where trains could pass at high speed. They even brought hiviz (albeit the wrong colour) so make themselves more visible to potential trains which could be moving nearby. The chosen locations also have trains to many destinations and so would likely cause delay across the country, again maximising the attention grabbing.

It was absolutely illegal for them to do what they did and rightly so, but I wouldn't say that it was stupid.

 

[greyman42]

A simple answer - in most other countries it is allowed to walk on the railway provided it is safe to do so. And these protesters likely had foreign nexuses, or they wouldn't have been in that protest and thereby used to foreign practices.
To be clear, I'm not justifying what they did, merely explaining why they did it.

Thanks for the answer, but I find it hard to believe that they did not think that they were putting children in danger.

 

[greyman42]

A more cynical view would say that they brought their children to avoid potential conflict with police, who might have a punch up with a group of rowdy adults but not a parent with their child.

The whole point of the protest is to get attention to their cause. By walking on the tracks at a terminus station, they can cause disruption and maximise the publicity for their cause, whilst reducing the chance of being run over by a train, which would be much higher at a through station where trains could pass at high speed. They even brought hiviz (albeit the wrong colour) so make themselves more visible to potential trains which could be moving nearby. The chosen locations also have trains to many destinations and so would likely cause delay across the country, again maximising the attention grabbing.

It was absolutely illegal for them to do what they did and rightly so, but I wouldn't say that it was stupid.

I tend to agree with your cynical view which makes me wonder how much they care for their children.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think that this makes sense. I would guess that they would have known it it is not permitted. To illustrate, people from other countries might drive on the right but know not to do so here.

It's notable that in many countries signs stating not to cross the line (where it isn't allowed) are large and prominent, whereas in the UK they are small and at platform ends only.

I very much doubt this was the drive, though. I expect they went on the track to cause enough disruption that their protest would make national news - as indeed it did.

 

[goblinuser]

I don’t think that this makes sense. I would guess that they would have known it it is not permitted. To illustrate, people from other countries might drive on the right but know not to do so here.

Roads are something people interact with daily but I think railways are a little different, the rules come from education in the country. Imagine coming from a culture where tresspassing on railways is a norm, you might not see it as such a big issue compared to us who grew up with the very strict and safe approach to railways.

 

[AlterEgo]

A simple question. Why did these people take children to a protest that involved trespass on the railway?

Who knows - I imagine basic ignorance of railway danger was a contributor here.

A child that young shouldn’t be at any protest of that kind in my opinion.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t think that this makes sense. I would guess that they would have known it it is not permitted. To illustrate, people from other countries might drive on the right but know not to do so here.

Trespass is not permitted in a number of European countries for example, but enforcement is low and there’s often a blind eye culture.

 

[greyman42]

It's notable that in many countries signs stating not to cross the line (where it isn't allowed) are large and prominent, whereas in the UK they are small and at platform ends only.

I very much doubt this was the drive, though. I expect they went on the track to cause enough disruption that their protest would make national news - as indeed it did.

Surely they were not looking for publicity as bad as this?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A simple question. Why did these people take children to a protest that involved trespass on the railway?

You'd have to ask the parent(s) themselves...

However, as numerous people have pointed out, social services have a tough job on their hands with ever-shrinking resources: to the point that this particular incident will barely register. If at some point the police pay a visit to the parents in question, their decision to involve their children in this protest in such a way might well be questioned. Additionally if the organisers of this protest have any sense, they too will have questions and criticisms about the photos that we've all seen. Such an image discredits the protest from a PR point of view.

But to suggest that the children be taken into care on the basis of one very silly but ultimately inconsequential decision is ridiculous. Being taken into care is not a barrel of laughs, as friends of mine would testify. Would you also support taking children into care if their parents drive recklessly with their children in the car? Or if the parents smoke?

 

[goblinuser]

Would you also support taking children into care if their parents drive recklessly with their children in the car? Or if the parents smoke?

Most definitely, certainly not.

 

[Holly]

Roads are something people interact with daily but I think railways are a little different, the rules come from education in the country. Imagine coming from a culture where tresspassing on railways is a norm, you might not see it as such a big issue compared to us who grew up with the very strict and safe approach to railways.

Indeed when I was a child there were a number of disused railways and children thought nothing of walking on the tracks. And for example on the line to the Winsford salt mines which, I seem to recall, had one (steam) train a week in the late 1950s. The West Coast mainline in nearby Weaverham was a different matter, on Sundays the kids would play around the coal yards and visit the platelayers in their huts but would never dream of setting foot on active tracks where expresses might pass. I never heard of a kid being injured on the railway in Mid-Cheshire, though it might have happened.
I'm sure it's not a bit like that in today's society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely they were not looking for publicity as bad as this?

This forum is (for obvious reasons) quite highly concerned with railway safety. The country more widely isn't. They'll only have been hacked off if their specific train was late/cancelled, meanwhile the cause has made it into the Press and the country's awareness.

It was, from that point of view, whether one agrees with the topic or not, clearly a successful protest for them.

 

[beeza1]

This forum is (for obvious reasons) quite highly concerned with railway safety. The country more widely isn't. They'll only have been hacked off if their specific train was late/cancelled, meanwhile the cause has made it into the Press and the country's awareness.

It was, from that point of view, whether one agrees with the topic or not, clearly a successful protest for them.

Has it really been a successful protest?
The only place I have heard about it was when I saw it on this forum, there was no mention of it whatsoever on BBC Breakfast this morning,(unlike the small number of "animal rights" idiots who tried to disrupt Crufts, they made the national news).
I think all they have managed to do is annoy and inconvenience a lot of people who may, prior to their idiotic actions have had some sympathy for them and their cause.
They have probably also provided fuel for the "send them back" brigade.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The story was in the Metro, with a picture.

 

[Robertj21a]

Has it really been a successful protest?
The only place I have heard about it was when I saw it on this forum, there was no mention of it whatsoever on BBC Breakfast this morning,(unlike the small number of "animal rights" idiots who tried to disrupt Crufts, they made the national news).
I think all they have managed to do is annoy and inconvenience a lot of people who may, prior to their idiotic actions have had some sympathy for them and their cause.
They have probably also provided fuel for the "send them back" brigade.

It's hardly surprising that it hasn't made much news - it's really not very newsworthy (except to a few on this forum).
Would it have been more acceptable to rail staff if they had protested on a tramway ?

 

[Domh245]

It was also the most read story on the BBC for a good part of yesterday afternoon. In terms of publicity they did quite well

 

[greyman42]

It's hardly surprising that it hasn't made much news - it's really not very newsworthy (except to a few on this forum).
Would it have been more acceptable to rail staff if they had protested on a tramway ?

If it's not really newsworthy, why are people using words such as "offensive" and "outraged".

 

[Raul_Duke]

Would it have been more acceptable to rail staff if they had protested on a tramway ?

Yes. For various reasons. Trans are driven on line of sight, tramways aren’t fenced off and systems are in place because of that.

No matter what the armchair experts on here think, it’s not safe to be on the tracks, even if you did it on the 60’s.

Even a protest that shut London terminals down without going on the tracks would have been more acceptable. I don’t think the child should be taken into care, but I do think the parents should be spoken to officially. Not that’s it’s my decision to make .

I don’t know anything about you, so I’m assuming you’ve never seen the aftermath of a train hitting someone “at a low speed.”

Seen the mess and smelt the various bodily fluids and organs cooking on the exhaust, or seen what effect it has on your colleagues, then I’m not going to be lectured about perspective by some trainspotters.

 

[greyman42]

It was also the most read story on the BBC for a good part of yesterday afternoon. In terms of publicity they did quite well

As I asked earlier, surely they did not want publicity as bad as this?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some of the responses on here have been more offensive and outrageous than any of the mainstream news coverage. Like you say, the "send 'em back" brigade will pounce on this and it may well turn out to be an "own-goal" for those behind the protest.

A similar protest over the same issue took place on the Humber Bridge earlier today, but hasn't garnered as much attention.

 

[Domh245]

As I asked earlier, surely they did not want publicity as bad as this?

Protests rarely tend to receive good publicity, if at all, so getting lots of bad publicity is going to be preferable to little or no good publicity. It's certainly made me aware of the whole Turkey/IS situation now. I also suspect they don't particularly care about what people think about this actions if it brings attention to their cause

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes. For various reasons. Trans are driven on line of sight, tramways aren’t fenced off and systems are in place because of that.

No matter what the armchair experts on here think, it’s not safe to be on the tracks, even if you did it on the 60’s.

Even a protest that shut London terminals down without going on the tracks would have been more acceptable. I don’t think the child should be taken into care, but I do think the parents should be spoken to officially. Not that’s it’s my decision to make .

I don’t know anything about you, so I’m assuming you’ve never seen the aftermath of a train hitting someone “at a low speed.”

Seen the mess and smelt the various bodily fluids and organs cooking on the exhaust, or seen what effect it has on your colleagues, then I’m not going to be lectured about perspective by some trainspotters.

For goodness sake, talk about going way overboard !
There was no way anybody was going to get hit by a train, so you can wind in the silly rhetoric.
Is it me who you assume to be a 'trainspotter' ? - excellent stuff, at least I now know that you haven't a clue about other people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No matter what the armchair experts on here think, it’s not safe to be on the tracks

Safety is rarely an absolute. Jumping off Beachy Head without a parachute is one of the things that is pretty universally unsafe, but most things are on a continuum somewhere, and different people will set that at different levels.

Were any of them injured? If not, it clearly was safe enough for them. That doesn't make it OK, as it's illegal, of course. But people with a strong view on a cause (perhaps protesting, perhaps a more practical cause as on the other thread about trespass) often do choose to break the law.

 

[bb21]

This thread is getting far too personal now - at no point during any of my posts have I made personal attacks on any poster yet because my opinion happens to differ from a number of other members it seems fair game to make personal jibes.

I fully respect the right of people to hold a differing opinion to mine but calling people "ignorant" and "naive" is inappropriate. If you support the Kurds, good on you. Stand up for your opinion by all means. But things aren't always black and white, and other people may not hold the same views.

This is agreed.

While in threads like this emotions can easily run high and discussion intensive, and we have allowed everyone to openly have a say on a sensitive topic, some of the posts are very much starting to push the boundary on respecting other people's views and getting rather personal.

Can we all please remember that no one's view is more worthy and valid than another person's. Please be reminded that you need to discuss the issue itself, and challenge each other's views, not attack fellow forum members. Certainly do not make unsubstantiated allegations about a follow forum member please.

 

[AlterEgo]

Safety is rarely an absolute. Jumping off Beachy Head without a parachute is one of the things that is pretty universally unsafe, but most things are on a continuum somewhere, and different people will set that at different levels.

Were any of them injured? If not, it clearly was safe enough for them. That doesn't make it OK, as it's illegal, of course. But people with a strong view on a cause (perhaps protesting, perhaps a more practical cause as on the other thread about trespass) often do choose to break the law.

Indeed.

And I speak as someone who has seen what a train can do to someone.

 

[Mojo]

Has it really been a successful protest?
The only place I have heard about it was when I saw it on this forum, there was no mention of it whatsoever on BBC Breakfast this morning,(unlike the small number of "animal rights" idiots who tried to disrupt Crufts, they made the national news).

I beg to differ, it was the top story on Twitter yesterday afternoon, it also got mentions on BBC Radio News yesterday afternoon and into the night, as well as mentions on top stories on-line, plus non railway commentators on Twitter picked up on it. Crufts meanwhile I’ve heard nothing aside from a photo of a press release from the organisers.

 

[greyman42]

Protests rarely tend to receive good publicity, if at all, so getting lots of bad publicity is going to be preferable to little or no good publicity. It's certainly made me aware of the whole Turkey/IS situation now. I also suspect they don't particularly care about what people think about this actions if it brings attention to their cause

I don't know if it will bring the desired attention to their cause. A lot of people will just remember the images of irresponsible adults with children trespassing on the railway.

 

[AndrewE]

I think it was a very well-planned protest, getting the maximum publicity for the minimum risk. The platform ends of a major terminus are going to be monitored ensuring that all trains will be stopped as soon as the trespass starts (and there was no 3rd rail electrocution risk for anyone), so many people were involved that it would have taken ages to find enough police and other staff to round them up - thus causing a long stoppage, 3 trains an hour to London and lots to other important cities to guarantee coverage in the national press... Very cleverly planned.
I'm not saying I support what was done, or minimising or forgiving its effects on the rest of us (luckily I narrowly missed being affected) but you can't say it didn't achieve its aims.

 

[beeza1]

I beg to differ, it was the top story on Twitter yesterday afternoon, it also got mentions on BBC Radio News yesterday afternoon and into the night, as well as mentions on top stories on-line, plus non railway commentators on Twitter picked up on it. Crufts meanwhile I’ve heard nothing aside from a photo of a press release from the organisers.

Perhaps I should have said it didn't make the mainstream national news on TV, either last night or this morning, unlike the Crufts incident where they actually showed footage of the protesters being ejected!