Stopped by a police officer yesterday

[fusionblue]

I left work at 5pm yesterday and made my way to embankment tube station to go up to Charing Cross to go home. It was quite busy with a bunch of 20 people standing right in front of the exit gates, and i was in a hurry to catch a particular train at Charing Cross. As i was leaving through the gates a girl pushed in front of me and shoved her paper ticket in which was rejected. I didn't see the number but i did see it was a child ticket on the screen.
She wasn't a child though. That much i know.

I thought her ticket let her through so i tapped my oyster on and it let her out in the process, but didnt realise that until after.

As i walked around the bunch of people a police officer standing behind a pillar (or BTP, he did not identify himself) stopped me, asked to see my ticket. I stop and pull it out. I have a monthly zone 1 to 3 loaded on an oyster with my photo on it. He just looked at it for 15 seconds then handed it back. He didn't check it on any readers. While he was staring at it, i told him a person in front pushed in front of me, pointed to her, and she was using a child ticket.

He didn't respond to that point at all (there was a long pause), just said thanks and handed the oyster back and returned to staring down the ticket hall.

I'm fine with ticket inspections (when there's some logic to it), but two points kind of stuck out:
1 - If you do not have the means to check electronic tickets, why just stand there?
2 - He completely ignored the point about the child ticket, despite having pointed her out in the crowd behind me.

I'm not trying to invoke any kind of discrimination of any sort as that's not relevant, but he obviously didn't have any tools to inspect so he was essentially wasting time. If i'm trying to avoid a police officer for not having a ticket i wouldn't walk directly towards them, would i?

I'm interested in hearing everyone's thoughts and opinions.

Still kinda makes me laugh, thinking about it.

 

[michael769]

The constable saw something he felt was suspicious and chose to investigate further. Having done so he was satisfied that his suspicions were unfounded. It is a process that every officers goes through several times on a typical shift.

The officer's primary role is to provide a visible presence to deter crime and reassure the public, as a secondary role is to be available to assist or to act if he sees anything that he deems suspicious.

As for not dealing with the other woman, there could be a multitude of reasons for that -for example he may have been there to look for someone in particular (and you may have been stopped because you vaguely met their description and he asked to see your ticket as a pretext to buy enough time to ascertain if you were the person he was looking for) - if you have bigger fish to fry sometimes someone using a child ticket will not matter in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[fusionblue]

The constable saw something he felt was suspicious and chose to investigate further. Having done so he was satisfied that his suspicions were unfounded. It is a process that every officers goes through several times on a typical shift.

The officer's primary role is to provide a visible presence to deter crime and reassure the public, as a secondary role is to be available to assist or to act if he sees anything that he deems suspicious.

As for not dealing with the other woman, there could be a multitude of reasons for that -for example he may have been there to look for someone in particular (and you may have been stopped because you vaguely met their description and he asked to see your ticket as a pretext to buy enough time to ascertain if you were the person he was looking for) - if you have bigger fish to fry sometimes someone using a child ticket will not matter in the bigger scheme of things.

He did not state what that "suspicious activity" was. He only asked for my ticket. I understand that "agents of the railway" are entitled to ask for tickets, and that in itself is fine, but if you're asking to see something you cannot inspect then why waste time in asking?

Why not just ask a couple of questions instead?

 

[yorkie]

I'm guessing he was just mistaken about what had happened, nothing to worry about.

Is it not quicker to walk to Charing Cross from Embankment? Simply walk up the stairs as there is a walkway that leads to Charing Cross station. I'd be amazed if it's quicker to take the tube. The Embankment platforms are below the Charing Cross mainline platforms!

 

[LexyBoy]

Is it not quicker to walk to Charing Cross from Embankment? Simply walk up the stairs as there is a walkway that leads to Charing Cross station. I'd be amazed if it's quicker to take the tube. The Embankment platforms are below the Charing Cross mainline platforms!

I read the OP as meaning fusionblue took the tube to Embankment in order to exit for Charing Cross, which would make sense if travelling on the Circle or District lines.

 

[Panda]

I think the OP came into Embankment to walk up to Charing Cross - that's how I read it.

There is a multitude of different things the officer could have been looking for - to make the accusation that he wasn't or couldn't do his job is a bit unfair. He could have been looking for a specific person or a specific type of crime - there's many things he could have been doing.

Just saying...

 

[fusionblue]

I think the OP came into Embankment to walk up to Charing Cross - that's how I read it.

There is a multitude of different things the officer could have been looking for - to make the accusation that he wasn't or couldn't do his job is a bit unfair. He could have been looking for a specific person or a specific type of crime - there's many things he could have been doing.

Just saying...

Spot on, i was on the circle changed at Embankment to dash up to Charing Cross mainline.

I don't mean to accuse him of not doing his job, but looking solely at his actions it did look a little strange doing what he did.
What if i had a standard photo-less oyster and he asked the same thing?

I'm not worried either, just wondering out loud (plus in hindsight it's not entirely clear what the objective of that conversation with me was).

 

[jon0844]

Some officers don't have amazing customer service skills, especially if looking at loads of people and trying to take in a lot of 'data' and make decisions on who to approach next.

Sounds like it was a simple case of asking for some information, quickly realising it wasn't going anywhere and moving on... which saved you time than having a long conversation to explain things and then apologise etc.

 

[Panda]

Maybe he was looking for a specific person and realised it wasn't you?

Many possibilities

 

[michael769]

He did not state what that "suspicious activity" was. He only asked for my ticket. I understand that "agents of the railway" are entitled to ask for tickets, and that in itself is fine, but if you're asking to see something you cannot inspect then why waste time in asking?

Accusing soneone of being suspicious is counter productive, at best it makes them nervous or defensive, at worst agressive or mouthy. Either way it affects their behaviour and demeanour and makes it harder to form a judgement at out how honest their responses or actions are.

It is also rather bad form for a constable to start accusing people before they have estalished grounds.

Why not just ask a couple of questions instead?

Sometimes it can be quite effective to give a person the opportunity to talk for theseleves - you would be surprised what people will sometimes blurt out!

Police call it "the attitude test" by the way - seemingly you passed

 

[fusionblue]

Police call it "the attitude test" by the way - seemingly you passed

I didn't get a medal :cry:

 

[michael769]

I didn't get a medal :cry:

They give you handcuffs if you don't pass

 

[jon0844]

Yeah, being free to carry on with your day is the prize for passing!!