Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

[Darandio]

There's no way for a normal member of the public to know. It's best to assume that all cameras are recording at all times.

Even so, i'm not sure what the issue is with it.

 

[bramling]

I've come up with a couple, but they do need some imagination!

I think at least the first 10 posts, who expressed an opinion, all said 'there must be more to it'....
If a member of staff is assaulted, it must be very rare for anyone here to post 'well, they must have been goaded'.
I think that there are good reasons for the double standards - rail staff are much more likely to be on the receiving end - but they are still double standards.

There's staff who get assaulted on a fairly regular basis, and I can assure that both colleagues and management will be having conversations along the lines of "why is it always you that this happens to?".

I get cameras pointed at me all the time by rail staff, as they go around looking for people with their feet on the seats. I don't particularly like it, but that's not a good reason to be abusive towards them.

The camera pointed *directly* in your face at close range? And then the footage placed on social media?

It's also worth adding that for those staff who do use body cameras and the like, you can bet that the footage obtained is strictly controlled - unlike your average camera-phone recording which could be misused in a variety of ways. Station (and on-train) CCTV is similarly strictly controlled.

 

[mallard]

Even so, i'm not sure what the issue is with it.

If a camera is being pointed at me by a staff member, I personally feel it is ethically inconsistent for them to object to my doing the same in return. If they're entitled to the protection of having events filmed, so am I.

 

[Darandio]

If a camera is being pointed at me by a staff member, I personally feel it is ethically inconsistent for them to object to my doing the same in return. If they're entitled to the protection of having events filmed, so am I.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say now.

Member of staff walks through a train with a body mounted camera, you know it probably isn't filming but work on the assumption that they record all of the time. Staff member turns to face you so you start filming because they are?

Or you only film if there is an interaction? And if there is interaction between you and the member of staff, you only film purely because they are filming you, or only if there is some kind of dispute?

 

[mallard]

Or you only film if there is an interaction? And if there is interaction between you and the member of staff, you only film purely because they are filming you, or only if there is some kind of dispute?

Yes, if I were questioned by a member of staff wearing a body camera and there was any sort of disagreement or unexpected payment requested, I would be sure to have some kind of recording (whether video or just audio) of the interaction. On the occasions that a mistaken member of staff has (real example) claimed that my "off-peak" ticket (e.g. one with an "8A" restriction code) wasn't valid on the train, I've found that having evidence of what's said is vital in any claim for return of funds.

 

[Darandio]

Yes, if I were questioned by a member of staff wearing a body camera and there was any sort of disagreement or unexpected payment requested, I would be sure to have some kind of recording (whether video or just audio) of the interaction. On the occasions that a mistaken member of staff has (real example) claimed that my "off-peak" ticket (e.g. one with an "8A" restriction code) wasn't valid on the train, I've found that having evidence of what's said is vital in any claim for return of funds.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Antman]

Its has to be said that these cameraphones are nothing but trouble.

Far more pros than cons!

 

[bramling]

Far more pros than cons!

That's a matter of opinion.

I suspect that the proliferation of such devices could eventually mean that photographers find themselves coming under increasing restriction, both in terms of data protection and where they are freely allowed to take photographs, both in terms of rules imposed by private property owners (include the railway in this) and in terms of what others may find unacceptably intrusive.

Some people can be quite possessive over concepts like privacy, and all the more so if children are involved.

 

[yorkie]

I wonder if @bramling, @whhistle et al will wish to reply to this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...police-threaten-to-shoot-black-family.184476/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people can be quite possessive over concepts like privacy, and all the more so if children are involved.

And yet the relentless march of CCTV often including audio continues apace. Rather one sided, is it not?

 

[GB]

I wonder if @bramling, @whhistle et al will wish to reply to this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...police-threaten-to-shoot-black-family.184476/

To quote some of your previous replies "Whats that got to do with this thread?"....or is it ok because it suits your agenda?

 

[bramling]

And yet the relentless march of CCTV often including audio continues apace. Rather one sided, is it not?

Yes, but as I pointed out before CCTV is (or should be) strictly controlled. In the railway industry it certainly is. Staff can't just march up to the CCTV terminal, plug in a laptop and go looking through footage at their whim, and things get even more strict when downloads are taken. Likewise most CCTV tends not to be close-up.

 

[Wombat]

I suspect that the proliferation of such devices could eventually mean that photographers find themselves coming under increasing restriction, both in terms of data protection and where they are freely allowed to take photographs, both in terms of rules imposed by private property owners (include the railway in this) and in terms of what others may find unacceptably intrusive.

I'm not sure they'd get away with that - "Our staff will capture video in case of unreasonable behaviour by passengers, but passengers are not permitted to capture video in case of unreasonable behaviour by staff". I suppose it might work if staff captured video at all times and were unable to turn it off, but I believe that the police have compliance problems in that respect.

It's pretty academic anyway. It won't too be long before a sizeable chunk of people routinely capture and stream everything to the cloud, at which point we might as well just assume that all of our public interactions are recorded.

 

[bramling]

I'm not sure they'd get away with that - "Our staff will capture video in case of unreasonable behaviour by passengers, but passengers are not permitted to capture video in case of unreasonable behaviour by staff".

But it wouldn't be, it would simply be "no photography" to add to the list of other activities which are prohibited, followed by "you can't take photographs" from staff every time a camera is seen, an experience which every railway enthusiast will have doubtlessly experienced at some point already. The justification would be something along the lines that it's for the comfort and safety of all staff and passengers. Many shopping centres seem to have this policy, and as stated before so does Tyne & Wear Metro (with some nuances for things like selfies). If needs be it would be quite easy to run some kind of consultation exercise with the questions targeted towards getting the desired answers.

It's pretty academic anyway. It won't too be long before a sizeable chunk of people routinely capture and stream everything to the cloud, at which point we might as well just assume that all of our public interactions are recorded.

Which is precisely why I think this issue may well gain salience over time.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I suspect those damning the use of camera phones etc have never been in a situation where CCTV evidence has miraculously disappeared?
Never trust a company to provide you with evidence that goes against what they have said or views one of their staff in a bad light - it will often somehow vanish!
It is a lot more common than you think! The same goes for recordings of phone conversations!

 

[bramling]

I suspect those damning the use of camera phones etc have never been in a situation where CCTV evidence has miraculously disappeared?
Never trust a company to provide you with evidence that goes against what they have said or views one of their staff in a bad light - it will often somehow vanish!
It is a lot more common than you think! The same goes for recordings of phone conversations!

Much less common nowadays - where I am at least. Yes a decade or two ago it was quite easy for CCTV or voice recorders to be interfered with, modern technology much less so - not without leaving an audit trail at any rate.

 

[Bromley boy]

I suspect those damning the use of camera phones etc have never been in a situation where CCTV evidence has miraculously disappeared?
Never trust a company to provide you with evidence that goes against what they have said or views one of their staff in a bad light - it will often somehow vanish!
It is a lot more common than you think! The same goes for recordings of phone conversations!

Not to say that never happens, but CCTV is routinely used on the railway to investigate allegations of misconduct, safety incidents etc.

I’ve known of several incidents where rail staff members have been dismissed based on CCTV evidence contradicting their account of what happened.

I would imagine in most cases the people collecting the CCTV evidence are not the same people complaints are directed against, so have no vested interest in any case.

 

[bramling]

Not to say that never happens, but CCTV is routinely used on the railway to investigate allegations of misconduct, safety incidents etc.

I’ve known of several incidents where rail staff members have been dismissed based on CCTV evidence contradicting their account of what happened.

I would imagine in most cases the people collecting the CCTV evidence are not the same people complaints are directed against, so have no vested interest in any case.

There are a couple of remote scenarios where it might theoretically be possible to be investigating one’s own allegation (one which springs to mind is if a task was being performed by a manager licensed to carry out that role, for example covering staff shortage where this is permitted, or more likely maintaining their own competence).

However it would be skating on thin ice as although they could put their own spin on things when it came to filing the report, the CCTV would still probably (*) be available to anyone else should someone else within the organisation decide they wish to further investigate.

(* I say probably as for all I know there could still be the odd video-tape system still in use, although I’d imagine most or all would now have been replaced by digital, where the data is stored securely for a defined time period (normally 14 days, where I am at least)).

 

[sheff1]

Even so, i'm not sure what the issue is with it.

Well someone who appears to be a member of staff working in a public facing role freely admitted they would physically assault a member of public who filmed them at close range, so they clearly have an issue with it. The person in the footage which started this thread is apparently of a similar mindset.

 

[bb21]

We are essentially now just going around in circles with the added flair of hypothesis and hyperbole.

Two very diagonally opposing views I see no possibility of reconciling, so time to call it a day.