Consequences of drinking wine or beer on a 'dry train'

[Llanigraham]

Ok, so let's suppose railway staff request to search my closed bag which has no external signs of alcohol. I will calmly refuse that every time, as I'm simply not prepared to submit to what I see as an unlawful search and invasion of privacy. I won't have been acting in an unruly manner prior to them approaching me. If they choose to eject me from the railway, the next immediate step from me will be to start an audio recorder (if available), produce a pen and notebook, then say "Persuant to Railway Byelaw 24(3), I require you to produce your identification for my inspection", followed by asking them to state clearly the basis for asking me to leave. I will offer to drop the matter if they back down and allow me to travel, or leave if they insist. Letters of complaint would certainly follow if they did not back down, and that would be made clear to them at the time.

Byelaw 24(2) does allow removal from the railway, but pre-conditions have to be met. I do not believe that refusing a search would meet the requirements of 24(2). Byelaw 4 does not provide any power of search for alcohol. No other byelaw provides power of search.

That's just how I would handle it. I see searching of personal property by railway staff as being way beyond appropriate behaviour, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. unattended or lost bags).

Oh dear!!
I'm sure the nice Constable from the BTP would have a field day with you, and you wouldn't be catching the train you wanted.
Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer"?

 

[PermitToTravel]

May one open any bottles while in the queue to be searched and down them there?

 

[Murph]

Oh dear!!
I'm sure the nice Constable from the BTP would have a field day with you, and you wouldn't be catching the train you wanted.
Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer"?

Think what you like. I stand by my principles, one of which is that there should be good reason before authority interferes with privacy or peacefully going about one's business. My interactions with the Police have always been civilised and successful, including on an occasion where I had cause to complain about them acting in a quite dangerous manner (complaining directly to them, not a formal process after the event) and they took my words of advice without any issue. I do pass the "attitude test" with them, but that doesn't equate to becoming totally submissive and showing blind obedience (nor should it).

As I think I've already made clear, I'd rather miss the train and submit a formal complaint about staff misconduct (if required), than submit to a groundless search.

 

[najaB]

After reading this thread, was I mistaken for thinking dry trains just meant you couldn't drink on them then? Because all this talk about searching bags implies you can't even carry unopened alcohol that you have no intention of drinking on the train.

It is up to the TOC. They may allow carrying of unopened containers if they want to, or they can ban them.

As an example, on Scotrail you cannot carry visible alcohol or drink it between 9pm and 10am. You are allowed to carry it in a bag as long as it's not visible.

 

[island]

Sorry, but that's frankly ridiculous. Calmly, politely, and quietly refusing to comply with a baseless request for a search is not going anywhere near S5. Requiring staff to produce identification doesn't go anywhere near it, it's right there in the Byelaws. Taking notes of a negative encounter and informing them that you will be taking the matter further if they don't back down doesn't go near S5. At no point have I suggested any behaviour which would reach S5 territory, or any other unlawful conduct.

The third option is most certainly available, and I would leave if lawfully required to do so. My objection to submitting to a search has nothing to do with wanting to smuggle alcohol onto a dry train, and everything to do with finding the concept of being searched while peacefully going about one's everyday business to be entirely abhorrent.

It's not so long ago that we fought a war at great cost to preserve the right to peacefully go about our day to day lives, amongst other things. Back then, we were fighting against an evil that included oppression via frequent demands to see papers, searching private property without good reason, etc.

It is easy to write about what you "would do" from the comfort of your living room.

Let me be clear – you are deluding yourself if you think you would be allowed to board a train where an authorised person asked to search your bag before boarding and you declined to agree to such search.

As for the Public Order Act... let's leave it with the old saying "you might beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I stand by my principles, one of which is that there should be good reason before authority interferes with privacy or peacefully going about one's business.

Jolly good!
That's a fine principle!

It's not so long ago that we fought a war at great cost to preserve the right to peacefully go about our day to day lives, amongst other things. Back then, we were fighting against an evil that included oppression via frequent demands to see papers, searching private property without good reason, etc.

Yes, not in my living memory, but yes, some of 'us' did.

But we're discussing instructions given whilst on private property, not an invasion of nations. I can see a difference here. Can you?

I'm sure the nice Constable from the BTP would have a field day with you, and you wouldn't be catching the train you wanted.

I agree, Murph would probably not be travelling, but would have kept his/her 'principles' intact.

I'd rather miss the train and submit a formal complaint about staff misconduct (if required), than submit to a groundless search.

Now where did 'misconduct' come into this? I missed that bit!

 

[Llanigraham]

And "principles" have never won battles!!

 

[Flamingo]

And one can compose a REALLY snotty e-mail to the TOC during the long walk home...

 

[Merseysider]

This is getting quite ridiculous!

Companies can make a search a condition of entry to premises. If the ban on alcohol was in force, and advertised, when the ticket was bought, then you've got no grounds to argue otherwise if requested to declare alcohol or allow a quick peek inside any bags you're carrying. All this talk of "formal complaint" and "misconduct" is wide of the mark. In the real world you'd either shut up and let them look, and confiscate any alcohol found, or refuse a search and be told to bugger off.

Try refusing a search on the last trains from Carlisle to Newcastle at night (dry) or the last LMs out of Liverpool (dry) and let me know what the taxi cost.

 

[Anvil1984]

This is getting quite ridiculous!



Try refusing a search on the last trains from Carlisle to Newcastle at night (dry) or the last LMs out of Liverpool (dry) and let me know what the taxi cost.

Pedant mode the last trains from Carlisle to Newcastle arent dry, its the last two FROM Newcastle on a Saturday which are dry

Principle is the same, lose the alcohol, prove you arent in possession should you be suspected of having any or find another way home
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

May one open any bottles while in the queue to be searched and down them there?

Yes, you can drink on the station providing you have time and arent too intoxicated already just not take them on the train itself
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think what you like. I stand by my principles, one of which is that there should be good reason before authority interferes with privacy or peacefully going about one's business. My interactions with the Police have always been civilised and successful, including on an occasion where I had cause to complain about them acting in a quite dangerous manner (complaining directly to them, not a formal process after the event) and they took my words of advice without any issue. I do pass the "attitude test" with them, but that doesn't equate to becoming totally submissive and showing blind obedience (nor should it).

As I think I've already made clear, I'd rather miss the train and submit a formal complaint about staff misconduct (if required), than submit to a groundless search.

There's no misconduct by the staff, the publications are quite clear and if they reasonably believe that you are carrying alcohol they can refse you entry. If you are being a rebel without a cause that is up to you

 

[donald2007]

They ban alcohol from 1st? What's the point travelling weekday 1st without the bevvies!

 

[Wolfie]

Oh dear!!
I'm sure the nice Constable from the BTP would have a field day with you, and you wouldn't be catching the train you wanted.
Ever heard the term "barrack room lawyer"?

Yup.

Ever heard the names Deighton Payne Glyn, Public Interest Lawyers or Leigh Day?

They are just three of the human rights law firms that make rather good money, much of it through legal aid, in pursuing the police and public bodies for exactly that sort of attitude....

 

[Flamingo]

Yup.

Ever heard the names Deighton Payne Glyn, Public Interest Lawyers or Leigh Day?

They are just three of the human rights law firms that make rather good money, much of it through legal aid, in pursuing the police and public bodies for exactly that sort of attitude....

If you find a cash cow and are happy to milk it...

 

[cjmillsnun]

May one open any bottles while in the queue to be searched and down them there?

Yes, as long as you do not enter the train drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable.

 

[OLJR]

In the end the person travelling was able to access the train unimpeded because, although searches were in progress at the ground floor entrance to the King's Cross platforms, they were not in progress at the upper level entrance.

 

[Wolfie]

In the end the person travelling was able to access the train unimpeded because, although searches were in progress at the ground floor entrance to the King's Cross platforms, they were not in progress at the upper level entrance.

Frankly farcical. If there were no notices at the upper level entrance to the effect that the train was "dry" the passenger would also have legal come-back against the TOC/police were they to drink their alcohol on the train and encounter any problems as a result...

 

[Clip]

Frankly farcical. If there were no notices at the upper level entrance to the effect that the train was "dry" the passenger would also have legal come-back against the TOC/police were they to drink their alcohol on the train and encounter any problems as a result...

Ooh look , another 'If'.

Or they saw searches happening at the main entrance and not upstairs so went that way instead and didnt look for any signage.

After so many years of witnessing it first hand, i bet you my theory is the right one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the ban on alcohol was in force, and advertised, when the ticket was bought

And that's the issue- often it isn't. I was caught out at Christmas last year by this. When I bought the ticket it wasn't a dry train and then miraculously became one just before I was due to travel. I had to send the expensive whiskey I'd bought for dad by courier instead. Refund of the courier cost? Don't be stupid.

 

[Flamingo]

And that's the issue- often it isn't. I was caught out at Christmas last year by this. When I bought the ticket it wasn't a dry train and then miraculously became one just before I was due to travel. I had to send the expensive whiskey I'd bought for dad by courier instead. Refund of the courier cost? Don't be stupid.

FFS :roll:

 

[cjmillsnun]

FFS :roll:

So what constitutes reasonable notice then? If people buy and aren't told it's a dry train until the day of travel and turn up with alcohol is that their fault? No.

I think most of accept the need for dry trains, however people need to be made aware in advance.

For example if you've bought an advance or another ticket online to pick up from ToD then an email could be arranged.

 

[Flamingo]

So what constitutes reasonable notice then? If buy and aren't told it's a dry train until the day of travel and turn up with alcohol is that their fault? No.

I think most of accept the need for dry trains, however people need to be made aware.

For example if you've bought an advance or another ticket online to pick up from ToD then an email could be arranged.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The scenarios are frankly getting ridiculous.

The same posters on this thread who are claiming that the letter of the law should and would be applied regardless of circumstance are the same posters who on other threads are giving and wanting examples of the widest latitude in other circumstances.

An alcohol ban would not cover a gift-wrapped box in an opaque bag that was not opened during the journey if the passenger carrying it was sober and well-behaved, nor is it intended to catch this sort of passenger.

 

[najaB]

An alcohol ban would not cover a gift-wrapped box in an opaque bag that was not opened during the journey if the passenger carrying it was sober and well-behaved, nor is it intended to catch this sort of passenger.

I agree that it's not the intent of alcohol bans, but put yourself in the passenger's position for a moment: they don't know what the intent is, all they know is that they have arrived at the station and found a sign saying "No alcohol allowed on board" or similar. It's unfortunate that the people who the ban is aimed at are the people least likely to comply with it.

It's not entirely clear to me, reading East Coast's website

On some occasions services will be deemed 'Dry Trains'. This means that no alcohol is allowed on board except as part of the First Class offer.

that even in gift-wrapped box in an opaque bag it is allowed.

Edit: It would be much clearer if they had policy similar to Scotrail

At a Glance

• You may not drink alcohol on board ScotRail trains between 9pm and 10 am.
• Nor can you carry on visible alcohol during these times – opened or unopened. However, if the alcohol is in a bag and cannot be seen, no action will be taken.
• We won’t sell alcohol on board after 8.30 pm to give you time to drink up before 9pm.
• We may not allow you to board if you are extremely drunk.

 

[LowLevel]

Quite - if I'm working a dry train, as the guard and therefore person in charge I load it through one door only with the backup of the police and private security. First test is whether they've got a valid ticket - if not they're turned back to the open ticket office and vending machines without mercy. I don't sell tickets at the door. If they miss the train, tough. Second is alcohol. It's confiscated by the police officers. I once had someone with a crate of Stella down the lot after I turned them away from the train and so I refused them boarding on the grounds of being in my opinion, unfit. Finally, it's general behaviour. Anyone smoking, being overly loud (shouting and swearing, not just good natured merriment) or aggressive is also refused.

None of this involves bag searches. I simply inform anyone with a bag who looks shifty that if they are caught drinking on board they'll be dragged off by the travelling police and left to their own devices. Most people concealing drink are drunk already and if I really want rid I just refuse on the grounds of unfitness through alcohol.

I've seen enough of my colleagues and passengers be assaulted, and I know through misadventure people have died, so I have zero tolerance for any misbehaviour or contraventions - I hate working these trains and it's one of the rare occasions I refuse to put on a customer service face and pretend otherwise.

On the other hand, I see no reason to require a seemingly well behaved person to turn out their belongings and as the guard I am God in this respect - the police and security guards work to my directions and I don't know any of my colleagues who require bag searches.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An alcohol ban would not cover a gift-wrapped box in an opaque bag that was not opened during the journey if the passenger carrying it was sober and well-behaved, nor is it intended to catch this sort of passenger.

Except that it does. The byelaw wording is being in possession of alcohol. East Coast confirmed I couldn't take it with me and wouldn't refund the courier.

Perhaps the BTP wouldn't have searched me- they normally don't- but that's a bit of a risk with a fifty quid Christmas present.

 

[A-driver]

Except that it does. The byelaw wording is being in possession of alcohol. East Coast confirmed I couldn't take it with me and wouldn't refund the courier.

Perhaps the BTP wouldn't have searched me- they normally don't- but that's a bit of a risk with a fifty quid Christmas present.

Perhaps come out of this 'theoretical' world and into the real world. Forget how stuff is written and use a bit of common sense. They won't be confiscating gift wrapped drink. Not in a million years.

 

[Llanigraham]

Especially if it is secured inside a sealed item of luggage!!

I'm sure Arctic Troll knows that really.

 

[VauxhallandI]

All very well but if you had over £100 in whisky wrapped in your bag (real scenario) and someone asked you if you had alcohol in your bag, what would you say?

Decision time.....the man on the forum said it would be ok even though the bylaw says no.

 

[A-driver]

All very well but if you had over £100 in whisky wrapped in your bag (real scenario) and someone asked you if you had alcohol in your bag, what would you say?



Decision time.....the man on the forum said it would be ok even though the bylaw says no.

Well for a start they wouldn't ever ask you that unless you appeared very drunk. They would tell you it's a dry train and may ask about a carrier bag with what looks like a bottle in but would never ask what is in your luggage etc.

 

[PermitToTravel]

That sounds rather easy to circumvent for those who want to drink on-board...

 

[Flamingo]

That sounds rather easy to circumvent for those who want to drink on-board...

Once you produce the bottle out of the bag (and box and gift-wrapping) then all bets are off...