ASLEF votes for protection against far right

[jb]

Firstly, ASLEF have not called for, nor imposed, any travel ban on EDL members. Any statement to this effect is factually incorrect in all respects. ASLEF do not mention the EDL by name but refers instead to "fascist and racist groups". services.

You said you would meddle specifically with respect to the EDL. Are you now saying something else?

 

[notadriver]

Just as an aside I think forum members have a problem with a train driver refusing travel to a member of the public. Why?

If for the sake of argument you were drunk and disorderly you could be refused travel by a bus driver on their bus, a coach driver on their coach and by the captain onto a plane ? But the suggestion that a mere train driver would refuse travel to that individual in the same circumstances seems to have caused uproar?!

 

[DarloRich]

Just as an aside I think forum members have a problem with a train driver refusing travel to a member of the public. Why?

If for the sake of argument you were drunk and disorderly you could be refused travel by a bus driver on their bus, a coach driver on their coach and by the captain onto a plane ? But the suggestion that a mere train driver would refuse travel to that individual in the same circumstances seems to have caused uproar?!

plus there is a union involved

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just as an aside I think forum members have a problem with a train driver refusing travel to a member of the public. Why?

If for the sake of argument you were drunk and disorderly you could be refused travel by a bus driver on their bus, a coach driver on their coach and by the captain onto a plane ? But the suggestion that a mere train driver would refuse travel to that individual in the same circumstances seems to have caused uproar?!

Why do you make reference in your posting to:-
A bus driver
A coach driver
An aircraft captain
.....but then refer to a "mere" train driver.

Sounds somewhat condescending to me.

 

[CC 72100]

Just as an aside I think forum members have a problem with a train driver refusing travel to a member of the public. Why?

If for the sake of argument you were drunk and disorderly you could be refused travel by a bus driver on their bus, a coach driver on their coach and by the captain onto a plane ? But the suggestion that a mere train driver would refuse travel to that individual in the same circumstances seems to have caused uproar?!

But it's not the same situation. I don't think anyone would have problems refusing travel to someone mis-behaving during the journey (ie. being drunk and disorderly) but what people have expressed their concern about is the ASLEF stance, in which they want Train drivers to be able to refuse travel to those who may be going to a place and then commit a crime there, even if they 'sit down and shut up' during the journey. It's a different scenario there.

 

[notadriver]

Why do you make reference in your posting to:-
A bus driver
A coach driver
An aircraft captain
.....but then refer to a "mere" train driver.

Sounds somewhat condescending to me.

I was being sarcastic; I'm actually a train driver myself.

 

[DarloRich]

Why do you make reference in your posting to:-
A bus driver
A coach driver
An aircraft captain
.....but then refer to a "mere" train driver.

Sounds somewhat condescending to me.

i think that may be the point - to highlight the (perceived?) condescension some posters seem to show to train drivers whilst seeming to accept the principle that the other "captains" of their respective ships may refuse travel.

 

[OxtedL]

The only two arguments that seem to be out here are that a)drivers may have a right to refuse to transport groups of people they perceive as posing excessive risk or trouble to themselves, perhaps for their own safety, as opposed to b)that in doing so they might be selectively denying travel to people with particular political beliefs, which could be seen as a poor precedent.

Given everything else is just people being angry or confused at the specifics, I'm amazed we haven't finished here yet.

 

[DarloRich]

The only two arguments that seem to be out here are that a)drivers may have a right to refuse to transport groups of people they perceive as posing excessive risk or trouble to themselves, perhaps for their own safety, as opposed to b)that in doing so they might be selectively denying travel to people with particular political beliefs, which could be seen as a poor precedent.

Given everything else is just people being angry or confused at the specifics, I'm amazed we haven't finished here yet.

thanks for that - when you are a moderator you can close threads down. Until then people may debate to their hearts content.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was being sarcastic; I'm actually a train driver myself.

Your forum username had implied the opposite, hence my posting.

No offence taken or intended.

 

[Oswyntail]

Blimey!! And we're all worrying about ASLEF making statements...? Seems like a lot of closets being opened at the moment.

O L Leigh

Could you explain this post, please.

 

[reb0118]

Blatant political posturing by the far left, against the far right.

True.

What are they going to say? 'You look a bit white and working class mate - not coming on my train, eff off back where you came from.'?

And that's just to the guard!

 

[TOCDriver]

Just as an aside I think forum members have a problem with a train driver refusing travel to a member of the public. Why?

because in a lot of cases, that would involve the driver going through the train checking on people. How else would a Virgin driver know otherwise? And remember that a bus driver comes into contact with his passengers - a train driver does not in most cases. And besides, that is the guards / TM's role and not the drivers

 

[notadriver]

because in a lot of cases, that would involve the driver going through the train checking on people. How else would a Virgin driver know otherwise? And remember that a bus driver comes into contact with his passengers - a train driver does not in most cases. And besides, that is the guards / TM's role and not the drivers

What about the captain of a ferry or an aircraft ? They don't always have contact with passengers in the same way a bus driver does and yet despite having their equivalent of a guard/TM on board (On board ship crew or cabin crew in a plane) they have the ultimate decision about who gets to travel and who doesn't.

So hypothetical situation. Virgin train is packed with loud football supporters. On the way home they pull the PassCom and shout obscenities at the driver via the passcom. PassCom is reset, driver reports incident but a few minutes later the same thing happens. TM/Guard just wants to get them home as they are just a bit 'excited'. Driver wants them off as the repeated PassCom activations are disturbing their concentration. Does TMs decision overrule the drivers ?

 

[bluenoxid]

The Driver and guard argument is very interesting. In virtually every other case, the "Driver" takes the final decision and ultimate responsibility.

 

[455driver]

So hypothetical situation. Virgin train is packed with loud football supporters. On the way home they pull the PassCom and shout obscenities at the driver via the passcom. PassCom is reset, driver reports incident but a few minutes later the same thing happens. TM/Guard just wants to get them home as they are just a bit 'excited'. Driver wants them off as the repeated PassCom activations are disturbing their concentration. Does TMs decision overrule the drivers ?

The driver and guard would agree a course of action, I have never had to "over rule" my mate on the train.

 

[notadriver]

The driver and guard would agree a course of action, I have never had to "over rule" my mate on the train.

Well of course they would agree a course of action but the point is - could you overrule because the suggestion seems to be that we can't.

 

[sheff1]

Well of course they would agree a course of action but the point is - could you overrule because the suggestion seems to be that we can't.

To me, this is the most interesting question on this thread (which was, as has been pointed out, based on a total falsehood).

A ship or plane captain is, without doubt, the ultimate authority on said transportation. Trains though are not so clear cut. Ceratin TMs on here have referred to refusing access to, or ejecting people from their train. The clear implication is that they are the ultimate authority .... but I doubt very much that a TM could order a driver to proceed if the driver did not feel it appopriate to do so. On the other hand, can a driver insist that a TM rejects or ejects certain passengers ... with potential 'insubordination' action if they did not ?

 

[455driver]

Well of course they would agree a course of action but the point is - could you overrule because the suggestion seems to be that we can't.

Where did I leave that can of worms?

I have never had a situation where an agreement wasnt reached, just because the guard would have offered another suggestion and the driver agreed (or visa versa) doesnt mean the driver was overruled in the strictest sense.

 

[A-driver]

Put simply, the driver is responsible for the train. The guard is responsible for the passengers.

 

[BestWestern]

Personally I support it. I will not be tracking the movements of the EDL from one place to the next, but if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

O L Leigh

I would be very surprised if any control centre would agree to such a request. "Okay Driver, what is the problem they are causing onboard...?" "Err, well, I just don't like the look of them really. And ASLEF says.....". "Driver, please get your train to its destination".

It isn't for train crews to deal with this, it's a police matter. Large groups of yobs shouldn't be allowed on trains whether they are the EDL, the BNP or the Whoever United Supporters & Thugs Club. But unfortunately they are and unless they are actually doing something wrong in terms of the law, it isn't for crew to make decisions on who travels and who doesn't. A very foolish move, I'd expect it of Uncle Bob but I always though ASLEF were a little more grown up (taking the thread at face value and assuming it isn't a load of rubbish). It would be totally unworkable and the TOCs would kick it into the bushes.

 

[6Gman]

I would be very surprised if any control centre would agree to such a request. "Okay Driver, what is the problem they are causing onboard...?" "Err, well, I just don't like the look of them really. And ASLEF says.....". "Driver, please get your train to its destination".

It isn't for train crews to deal with this, it's a police matter. Large groups of yobs shouldn't be allowed on trains whether they are the EDL, the BNP or the Whoever United Supporters & Thugs Club. But unfortunately they are and unless they are actually doing something wrong in terms of the law, it isn't for crew to make decisions on who travels and who doesn't. A very foolish move, I'd expect it of Uncle Bob but I always though ASLEF were a little more grown up (taking the thread at face value and assuming it isn't a load of rubbish). It would be totally unworkable and the TOCs would kick it into the bushes.

I think the problem is that two matters have been conflated.

ASLEF are seeking an agreement with TOCs that ethnic minority drivers can be re-rostered to avoid trains carrying EDL members to events. On the grounds - presumably - that it could be very intimidating for such a driver to have dozens of people who - to put it bluntly - don't like certain groups of people yelling abuse at the cab door. That seems fair enough to me, and I would hope RMT would seek similar for conductors, who are likely to be more directly affected.

Owen Jones - a political blogger - tweeted this to the effect that ASLEF wanted to bar travel to EDL types. As far as I can see, this is not the case.

 

[Darren R]

ASLEF are seeking an agreement with TOCs that ethnic minority drivers can be re-rostered to avoid trains carrying EDL members to events. On the grounds - presumably - that it could be very intimidating for such a driver to have dozens of people who - to put it bluntly - don't like certain groups of people yelling abuse at the cab door. That seems fair enough to me, and I would hope RMT would seek similar for conductors, who are likely to be more directly affected.

Let me get this right - a bunch of mindless, bigotted, racist bullies (quite frankly, thugs) who want to go somewhere to further their vile opinions are quite happy to get on a train being driven by (say) an Asian but that's ok because they are entitled to their opinions.

But it's not ok for that same driver to refuse to drive that train with those people on because that's the thin end of the wedge and where will it all lead? And it's not ok for that driver's union to raise this as a potential problem with TOCs? The world has gone mad.

Thugs do not have a legal right to travel on a specific train, even when (if) they have a ticket. An employee does have a legal right to a workplace that is free of threats, intimidation or bullying on any grounds, but especially not because he happens to have a slightly darker skin and more hair than the average EDF member. (As best we can tell anyway - whenever I see them they seem to have their faces and heads covered for some inexpliccable reason.) All employers are legally bound to do everything reasonable and practicable to ensure workplaces adhere to these standards. It strikes me that TOCs are failing to do so and ASLEF are putting a shot across employers' bows. Personally - if it ever came to it - I would quite happily help man the strike barriers on this one, and I'm not a member of any union.

BestWestern allow me to pose a slightly different scenario to yours: what would happen if an Asian guard suddenly found himself surrounded by several dozen of these people who started to abuse him and fellow passengers. The BTP and the TOCs control are informed but it is decided that it is "better" to get these thugs to their destination asap. The guard then says to Control "D'ya know what - I don't fancy it thanks, I don't feel safe even with BTP on board," and he refuses to take the train any further. What happens to the guard?

All of this knee-jerk union bashing and talk about 'the Loony Left' and Marxist union leaders (not quite sure what exactly a group of Loony Left protestors on a train would look like!) in some postings is rather more reminiscent of the comments on the Daily Mail website than a railway forum.

 

[John07]

How do they intend to identify EDL supporters? OK, I know they have horns and a tail, but they tend to keep these hidden. Or will it come down to good old St George? As has been said, if anyone has committed an offence, they can be refused, but, if they haven't they cannot.

Some of them are fairly easy to spot:

 

[Domeyhead]

Let me get this right - a bunch of mindless, bigotted, racist bullies (quite frankly, thugs) who want to go somewhere to further their vile opinions are quite happy to get on a train being driven by (say) an Asian but that's ok because they are entitled to their opinions.

But it's not ok for that same driver to refuse to drive that train with those people on because that's the thin end of the wedge and where will it all lead? And it's not ok for that driver's union to raise this as a potential problem with TOCs? The world has gone mad.

Thugs do not have a legal right to travel on a specific train, even when (if) they have a ticket. An employee does have a legal right to a workplace that is free of threats, intimidation or bullying on any grounds, but especially not because he happens to have a slightly darker skin and more hair than the average EDF member. (As best we can tell anyway - whenever I see them they seem to have their faces and heads covered for some inexpliccable reason.) All employers are legally bound to do everything reasonable and practicable to ensure workplaces adhere to these standards. It strikes me that TOCs are failing to do so and ASLEF are putting a shot across employers' bows. Personally - if it ever came to it - I would quite happily help man the strike barriers on this one, and I'm not a member of any union.

BestWestern allow me to pose a slightly different scenario to yours: what would happen if an Asian guard suddenly found himself surrounded by several dozen of these people who started to abuse him and fellow passengers. The BTP and the TOCs control are informed but it is decided that it is "better" to get these thugs to their destination asap. The guard then says to Control "D'ya know what - I don't fancy it thanks, I don't feel safe even with BTP on board," and he refuses to take the train any further. What happens to the guard?

All of this knee-jerk union bashing and talk about 'the Loony Left' and Marxist union leaders (not quite sure what exactly a group of Loony Left protestors on a train would look like!) in some postings is rather more reminiscent of the comments on the Daily Mail website than a railway forum.

It's quite obvious what is wrong with the logic in your post. How can you refuse to carry a passenger just IN CASE he or she does something offensive? The rules governing behaviour are already in place and can be enforced to protect drivers and passengers alike. It is not down to Unions nor to individuals to make their own snap judgement as to the possible behaviour of an individual based on their own value judgements which vary from person to person - that is simply a definition of racism dressed in different clothes. Would a white driver be entitled to refuse to take a train out because a group of Asians were looking at him in a way that led him to think he was in danger of being stabbed FFS? Of course not.
What annoys me is that firstly, you are so willing at the tiniest provication to surrender the freedoms of expression and tolerance that we once showed to world, even to people we don't personally like and secondly that the posturing and meddling by ASLEF is so obviously and blatantly politically motivated.
I'm no fan of the EDL and I'm no fan of the extreme left anti G7 looters and anarchists either who smashed up London (something that the EDL have not actually done) and I am no fan of football and alcohol fuelled violence and I can tell you that being in the carriage with them is far worse than being the driver safely at the front.
This is little to do with driver safety - has any driver yet refused to take a train out in case it had Millwall fans or anarchists travelling on it? This is just another example of the rail unions indulging in their nasty hard left power politics and as usual lacking even the courage to admit it.

 

[Hellfire]

Owen Jones - a political blogger - tweeted this to the effect that ASLEF wanted to bar travel to EDL types. As far as I can see, this is not the case.

I wouldn't rely on anything Owen Jones says.

 

[jon0844]

Some of them are fairly easy to spot:

I liked him in The Goonies.

 

[TDK]

What about the captain of a ferry or an aircraft ? They don't always have contact with passengers in the same way a bus driver does and yet despite having their equivalent of a guard/TM on board (On board ship crew or cabin crew in a plane) they have the ultimate decision about who gets to travel and who doesn't.

So hypothetical situation. Virgin train is packed with loud football supporters. On the way home they pull the PassCom and shout obscenities at the driver via the passcom. PassCom is reset, driver reports incident but a few minutes later the same thing happens. TM/Guard just wants to get them home as they are just a bit 'excited'. Driver wants them off as the repeated PassCom activations are disturbing their concentration. Does TMs decision overrule the drivers ?

Not all trains have guards
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the other hand, can a driver insist that a TM rejects or ejects certain passengers ... with potential 'insubordination' action if they did not ?

Yes, and I have requested this of my guard on a few occasions. The words being "I do not want that person on our train, if you need a hand ejecting them let me know, if they refuse cancel the train and let the passengers eject them for us"

In reality I have had guards ask me not to move the train because of an abuive or abusive passengers and I have always complied. I have never met a guard yet who would not agree to a drivers request regarding this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about extremists of any other religion?

It doesn't matter what colour, what religion, what background, what political views people have. If there are a group of passengers on a train that are going to or are actually intimidating ANY member of staff no matter what their race/colour/background etc. should be refused travel. By ASLEF supporting ethnic minorities that MAY feel intimidated is the wrong move as far as I am concerned. This should be reworded but then again I know damn well it wouldn't be.

I don't feel safe carrying some football fans (not the proper fans but the ****s) to football matches, I feel intimidated so can I ask for a different shift? I also feel intimidated carrying large groups of any people going to demonstrations - can I ask for a different shift? I think the answer will be a big fat NO!

 

[cjmillsnun]

This has been blown out of proportion, partially due to the wording on the resolution.

The intent of the resolution is good. It is not to deny travel, but to avoid a potential flashpoint on the journey itself, and in the process, protect its members from being intimidated.

The wording is bad.

It's also a shame that a paragraph isn't in there insisting that existing byelaws are enforced to eject passengers or groups of passengers that are intimidating other passengers or rail staff.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What about ASLEF members who are in the EDL ?