Rail Enforcement Officers = Private Militia?

[Nursey1]

So DaveNewcastle this is the future of railway security? And you think that's okay? These are not policemen, they have very little training but they have enhanced police powers. They are as I titled the thread a railway private militia
I can see the need for security but surely this is not the way. I can assure you nobody in that carriage felt safer by their presence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nope. Admittedly it doesn't say that they can ask for your date of birth.

I supplied my name and address (and date of birth) but they did not prior to that indicate in any way that they were an authorised person. Wearing a dirty hi vis jacket does not authorise anything

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Welcome to the police state.

I would love to see Rail Inforcement Officers patrol Southeastern or Southern Metro and see what happens when they tell a hardened non-white person to stop smoking on the platform or to remove feet of seats.... (and the colourful language that will follow)

From my experience, they go for the easy targets...

 

[MichaelAMW]

Feet on seats is also captured by Byelaw 6 Section 8 and is regularly enforced with great success.

But it doesn't seem in this case that she either soiled any part of the railway or managed to molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

Perhaps they could have been, but the important point for you to focus your attention on is this:-
Your feet were on a seat. That is an Offence.

Maybe this thread has confused me, but what is the Offence?

 

[telstarbox]

Welcome to the police state.

I would love to see Rail Inforcement Officers patrol Southeastern or Southern Metro and see what happens when they tell a hardened non-white person to stop smoking on the platform or to remove feet of seats.... (and the colourful language that will follow)

From my experience, they go for the easy targets...

Not having that, I travel on SE most days of the week and it's not 'non white' people being a pain in the arse.

 

[island]

So DaveNewcastle this is the future of railway security? And you think that's okay? These are not policemen, they have very little training but they have enhanced police powers. They are as I titled the thread a railway private militia
I can see the need for security but surely this is not the way. I can assure you nobody in that carriage felt safer by their presence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I supplied my name and address (and date of birth) but they did not prior to that indicate in any way that they were an authorised person. Wearing a dirty hi vis jacket does not authorise anything

The law is what it is. Perhaps you should write to your MP about getting it changing.

 

[sheff1]

I said "likely to raise further suspicion".
I wasn't there, but I'm sure we can speculate - Nursery1 had already been asked or instructed to remove his feet from the seat, but had then replaced them on the seat. If an officer finds that a person has deliberately not complied with an instruction, then they might wonder if the name and address they supplied was correct and would seek some means of confirming identity or further details of identity.

I know what you said - I quoted it - and hence didn't think it necessary to repeat the full wording in my question.

I still do not see how failing to supply a DoB, which is completely irrelevant to the alleged offence, might raise further suspicion. Even if it did, I am unsure how supplying a DoB would assist in confirming identity anyway. If they were wondering whether the name and/or address was correct would not asking for some proof of one or both of those be a better route to try ?

 

[Agent_c]

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw out here, but:-
I can assure you that many before you have tried to drive a wedge between their actions and their prosecution by looking for a defect in continuity. Some have succeeded, and the regulatory framework has been found wanting; but since the current, 2005, drafting of the Railway Byelaws, I'm not aware of any railway prosecutions which have failed due to want of authority.

I was trying to point out that simply ranting and saying that you're wrong because someone who is an "official" said X is pointless... Not saying there isn't authority at all, just more a comment on how the poster chose to express themselves without it.

IF we follow Llanigraham's reasoning, if an official tells you to stand on your head, you have to do it.

It might help you to recall that many Byelaw Offences (including the Railway Byelaws) and other Criminal Offences are 'strict liability' Offences. Any person aggrieved by the Offence may prosecute it. Obviously, a Criminal Offence is only rarely prosecuted by an individual, but in theory, a person may do so without any prior authorisation. For example, you could prosecute an absolute offence under environmental Law if you had the evidence, or you could prosecute a common Criminal Offence (from theft to murder) as a Private Prosecution. No prior training or authorisation is neccessary - this is a fundamental principle of allowing all citizens access to the Law which I've commented on previously, here.

Agreed, but if there was no "soiling", then it matters not if its a strict liability offence or not, there is no actus reus.

 

[cjmillsnun]

But it doesn't seem in this case that she either soiled any part of the railway or managed to molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.



Maybe this thread has confused me, but what is the Offence?

If the railway wasn't soiled (the seat was protected - the newspaper was soiled) there is a case to say that the bylaw wasn't breached. Also a swollen knee is a genuine medical reason to elevate the leg, and tell me how else someone is going to elevate their leg on a train?

I would hope on this occasion that there isn't a prosecution, as it appears that the REOs were not being professional.

 

[Nursey1]

I was trying to point out that simply ranting and saying that you're wrong because someone who is an "official" said X is pointless... Not saying there isn't authority at all, just more a comment on how the poster chose to express themselves without it.

IF we follow Llanigraham's reasoning, if an official tells you to stand on your head, you have to do it.

Agreed, but if there was no "soiling", then it matters not if its a strict liability offence or not, there is no actus reus.

Blimey. You two have lost me now
I am simply worried that I am going to end up in court and I feel that would be unjust in these circumstances.
Yes I know now that it contravenes a railway bylaw but now I'm thinking does it? I was quite careful to protect the seat
My other objection is the unprofessional way in which it was done. Is there a rail policy on how to approach passengers breaching a bye law. What should be said, should ID be worn etc?

 

[First class]

Merseyrail prosecute under Byelaw 6(8) for feet on the seats/frame etc, and NOT soiling the railway.

6(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

The thought process being that by obstructing a seat, especially with feet, another person is unlikely to, or want to, be able to sit there. The Enforcement Officer can be the person who was been inconvenienced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some things which may help.

2010ish - Merseyrail vs Feet up girl, bylaw prosecution - Merseyrail lost.


I may be wrong. :P

Merseyrail actually WON that case.

Chester Magistrates Court found her guilty but sentencing resulted in an Absolute Discharge.

After that, Merseyrail started to use Wirral or Liverpool Magistrates' Courts and stopped using Chester, and they haven't had the same issue since.

And in any event, last figures I saw was that around 500 people a year were convicted for Byelaw 6(8) prosecuted by Merseyrail. The remainder paid the £50 or £80 (can't remember which) settlement.

 

[bb21]

Professionalism and Byelaw matters are two separate issues, and I would advise not getting them mixed up.

If you were treated unprofessionally (or you feel that you were), then by all means register a complaint with the train company. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Don't expect much visible to be done about it, if my past experiences were anything were to go by, but you may receive an apology, and possibly some vouchers as a goodwill gesture.

As to contravention of the Byelaws, I cannot possibly pass judgement on that. Should the matter proceed to the magistrates courts (although I hope that it does not get that far if your account of the incident were accurate), it is difficult to foretell how the magistrate would interpret the clause on "soiling".

I don't think it is wise challenging a railway official on any instruction, from my own experience and the experience of other forum members. They do hold some important powers and getting into an argument is very rarely the best course of action. You have my sympathy if the way they spoke to you was indeed like that.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the format of the ID numbers they provided you. The form handed in will have the reporting officer's ID on it.

I don't think there is a good chance of this matter ending in a court of law. I would expect common sense to prevail once you put your side of the story across.

 

[dakta]

If you respond to politeness with attitude, you can expect attitude normally

in my view putting the feet back up was a bit of a display of defiance (no offence intended) so I think this would have gone down like a lead balloon

To say the feet shouldn't have been on the seats is not to endorse the REO's alleged attitude, neither is saying that responding with a similar attitude would be effectively be inviting the situation to get worse.

Without being there, if you genuinely feel like you have been treat badly, especially if it's to the degree that other passengers have asked you if you're okay etc, then I would perhaps write to the TOC or contact the TOC and make a complaint completely seperate to any action the TOC may take on this.

I'll be honest though, I did read this wondering what if the REO in the faded jacket had actually been nothing more than 'highways worker' - putting feet on seats is regarded as a bit...antisocial at the least, especially if the train gets busy (and if mud or dirt did fall off the 'newspaper' how can anyone guarentee it will be cleaned?)

Hardly end of the world situation, but anyone putting feet on seats shouldn't too surprised or affronted if asked by anybody (no high visibility jacket required) to put their feet down simply on the basis of consideration for other passengers.

If the knee is giving greif, would it have been worth being extra polite to the chap and asking subsequently if you can put rest your foot up because of the pain?

You might have got the same treatment but it might have got better too. I'm not saying the REO was right, I don't know but putting your feet back up as soon as he's back was turned is the catalyst in it from what I can read into.

just my 2p

 

[Hardcastle]

This is a interesting thread without being to crude how does the bylaw stand if one travels in soiled workmans clothes or vomits/passes wind on the seat by accident it must happen often.

 

[bb21]

I don't know but putting your feet back up as soon as he's back was turned is the catalyst in it from what I can read into.

Definitely not a good move whatever the circumstance in my opinion.

 

[Nursey1]

Professionalism and Byelaw matters are two separate issues, and I would advise not getting them mixed up.

If you were treated unprofessionally (or you feel that you were), then by all means register a complaint with the train company. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Don't expect much visible to be done about it, if my past experiences were anything were to go by, but you may receive an apology, and possibly some vouchers as a goodwill gesture.

As to contravention of the Byelaws, I cannot possibly pass judgement on that. Should the matter proceed to the magistrates courts (although I hope that it does not get that far if your account of the incident were accurate), it is difficult to foretell how the magistrate would interpret the clause on "soiling".

I don't think it is wise challenging a railway official on any instruction, from my own experience and the experience of other forum members. They do hold some important powers and getting into an argument is very rarely the best course of action. You have my sympathy if the way they spoke to you was indeed like that.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the format of the ID numbers they provided you. The form handed in will have the reporting officer's ID on it.

I don't think there is a good chance of this matter ending in a court of law. I would expect common sense to prevail once you put your side of the story across.

I have made a complaint to Northern Rail which the girl advised me should be a staff complaint.
I did not disagree with them but I think they were annoyed that I asked them who they were and for ID. They seemed to see that as a challenge but I would have thought it was information they should provide if they are not in a railway uniform
I have had the difference in staff numbers explained to me today by customer service but I was alarmed initially at the second guys refusal to show ID and this throwaway four digit number he quoted me.
Thank you
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you respond to politeness with attitude, you can expect attitude normally

in my view putting the feet back up was a bit of a display of defiance (no offence intended) so I think this would have gone down like a lead balloon

To say the feet shouldn't have been on the seats is not to endorse the REO's alleged attitude, neither is saying that responding with a similar attitude would be effectively be inviting the situation to get worse.

Without being there, if you genuinely feel like you have been treat badly, especially if it's to the degree that other passengers have asked you if you're okay etc, then I would perhaps write to the TOC or contact the TOC and make a complaint completely seperate to any action the TOC may take on this.

I'll be honest though, I did read this wondering what if the REO in the faded jacket had actually been nothing more than 'highways worker' - putting feet on seats is regarded as a bit...antisocial at the least, especially if the train gets busy (and if mud or dirt did fall off the 'newspaper' how can anyone guarentee it will be cleaned?)

Hardly end of the world situation, but anyone putting feet on seats shouldn't too surprised or affronted if asked by anybody (no high visibility jacket required) to put their feet down simply on the basis of consideration for other passengers.

If the knee is giving greif, would it have been worth being extra polite to the chap and asking subsequently if you can put rest your foot up because of the pain?

You might have got the same treatment but it might have got better too. I'm not saying the REO was right, I don't know but putting your feet back up as soon as he's back was turned is the catalyst in it from what I can read into.

just my 2p

I didn't put my foot back up when his back was turned as a display of defiance (fgs I'm nearly 60 years old)
He gave this first instruction as he passed me quite fast down the carriage. I took my foot down as a sort of reflex to the barked instruction then I thought. Who the hell was that? And as my knee was hurting, put it back up.
I was very careful not to dirty the seat, there was a cm of newspaper laid on it. If the train was as crowded as the one from KingsX had been of course I wouldn't have taken up another seat but it was nt. it was half empty

Obviously I annoyed them by asking them for ID and who they were but I don't think that should have annoyed them. It's a reasonable request because their role was really not obvious

 

[bb21]

I did not disagree with them but I think they were annoyed that I asked them who they were and for ID. They seemed to see that as a challenge but I would have thought it was information they should provide if they are not in a railway uniform

They might have. In an ideal world, they would be professional and address your concerns regarding their real identity appropriately, but we don't live in an ideal world...

I didn't put my foot back up when his back was turned as a display of defiance (fgs I'm nearly 60 years old)
He gave this first instruction as he passed me quite fast down the carriage. I took my foot down as a sort of reflex to the barked instruction then I thought. Who the hell was that? And as my knee was hurting, put it back up.

He probably wouldn't have seen it like that without a bit of background knowledge.

I think you actions might have inadvertently made the situation worse, not that I am apportioning blame, as I wasn't there, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Obviously I annoyed them by asking them for ID and who they were but I don't think that should have annoyed them. It's a reasonable request because their role was really not obvious

In an ideal world, ...

In reality many people don't like to have their authority challenged. Not that it excuses their behaviour, but such is life. You've registered your complaint now, so there is not much more you can do on that front until you hear a response from them. I would be quite interested to hear what they might say.

 

[dakta]

He probably wouldn't have seen it like that without a bit of background knowledge.

That's what I'm getting at really. On busses (not trains I'll admit) I've seen other passengers get annoyed with others because of feet on seats and ask for them to be put down. I do think people doing this sort of thing, (and other things, like putting bags on seats etc) are as likely to be challenged by anyone, not just rail staff.

A seat is for sitting (whether used at that time or not) so it probably isn't seen as a very considerate thing to do which is why it draws such attention.

The rail staff will simply have seen a situation where he asked a passenger to remove their feet from the seats, came back later and found the feet were back on, probed it further and was demanded his id details and it went downhill from there, predictably.

I'll be honest, whether it was what happened or not but I did think attitude might have had something to do with because it seems to flow well with what was said in the op

I did but then thought who the hell is that? He was not looking at tickets just striding through the train. I put my feet back up.

I might be wrong in my interpretation but what I said about defiance was how the above read to me, there isn't any age restrictions to mannerisms so I'm not judging anyone on that. Like I say I could be wrong but it just sounded like 'i thought who the hell was that and put my feet back up'.

I am not defending rail staff here, but I can see how this didn't end well simply for how it looked.

 

[johnnychips]

...but you do get this nagging feeling that if it wasn't an older lady, who'd taken the trouble to put a newspaper on the seat, but a twenty-six year-old bodybuilder with many tattoos who hadn't, the action may have been different...

But I wasn't there, and we only have one side of the problem.

 

[DownSouth]

I phoned BTP in the morning as I thought they must be part of them but they didn't recognise the numbers and put me on to Northern Rail. They have told me that I will get a letter where I can put my side of the story.
I am pleased in a way to hear from them that it will be on CCTV, if there is audio it will support my side of the encounter but is there audio?
Your thoughts and advice appreciated

CCTV exists for the benefit of the company, not for anyone else. If it is reviewed and found to show things badly for them, you can expect it to get "lost" or "overwritten before it could be downloaded."

If you want to rely on it, you need to bring your own.

 

[jon0844]

How could you record audio and pick out any individual conversation easily from a camera covering half a carriage or more? Do you think it would be analysed by some CIA type using a super computer that can filter with a few random presses on a keyboard?

Also, is this acceptable for feet on seats? As seen on a recent journey.

Seems rather uncomfortable to me.

But arguably better than this lady..

 

[Antman]

How could you record audio and pick out any individual conversation easily from a camera covering half a carriage or more? Do you think it would be analysed by some CIA type using a super computer that can filter with a few random presses on a keyboard?

Also, is this acceptable for feet on seats? As seen on a recent journey.

Seems rather uncomfortable to me.

But arguably better than this lady..

I cannot see the problem with the dog provided the lady removes any excess dog hair from the seat when they get off.

As for the chav

 

[Nursey1]

Totally agree that what's going on in those pictures is wrong. That was nothing like what I was doing. I had put a thick news paper on the seats.
I don't know what I expect from CCTV. Just want some evidence of how they spoke to me.
I think what I was expecting was some degree of acknowledgement that I wasn't sprawled out like that with muddy or wet boots. I had extenuating circumstances and I had protected the seat. I know some people will just says "rules is rules"
I had a day last week with a couple of very difficult patients, I was firm kept smiling, kept my voice low - in other words all the things I had been taught about managing tricky situations
I am a customer, I have paid over a £100 for my ticket. I did not expect to be spoken to in that way for a technical infringement of a bye law I was not aware existed

 

[Antman]

Welcome to the police state.

I would love to see Rail Inforcement Officers patrol Southeastern or Southern Metro and see what happens when they tell a hardened non-white person to stop smoking on the platform or to remove feet of seats.... (and the colourful language that will follow)

From my experience, they go for the easy targets...

As it happens that has been my experience too, an easy target gets a penalty fare where as somebody who looks like trouble is just asked to get off at the next station, that's if they are even asked for their ticket!

 

[Nursey1]

I think the dog should be sitting on the floor or at least she should have brought a dog blanket

 

[Antman]

Had a very nasty encounter the other day with a couple of these guys

Travelling from Kings X up north on East coast rail. I got on to a local northern train about 9 0 clock from Leeds. As background I should mention that I have an old knee injury which has flared up the past couple of weeks. After 3 or 4 hours sitting in economy and a sprint across Leeds station it was quite painful and getting swollen.

On the local train I knew I had to elevate it. I rooted about in my bag found a copy of the Evening Standard to put on the seat opposite then rested my foot on it.

About five minutes later a guy in a faded and dirty yellow vest came walking quite fast up the carriage and quite loudly told me to get my feet off the seat as he passed. I did but then thought who the hell is that? He was not looking at tickets just striding through the train. I put my feet back up.
A couple of minutes later he was back with colleague.
"I've already told you, get your feet off that seat!" I replyed
"Excuse me but who are you and where are your manners?"
Not easily intimidated you see and I was really annoyed by the tone of voice and aggression which would have been more suited to a gang of drunk youths lolling around drinking than a woman approaching 60 travelling alone. I was really angry!
Rail Enforcement officers and we have asked you twice now to get your foot off that seat
I did and said "I want your names and I want to see ID"
I copied the name and number from one but the other guy said he didn't have to give his name and wouldn't show me ID. He quoted a number which was totally different from the format of the other. I explained about my knee and pointed out the protection I had put on the seat
They said "right well we want your name too". I gave it then, pencil poised he said Date of birth. I asked "do you have the right to ask me for personal details?"
I have the right to ask you anything I like and if you refuse it's an offense"
Bear in mind at this point there were two big blokes looming over me. I gave my name address. There was various other conversation in the same sort of vein as they scribbled furiously in their notebooks. At no time did they tell me what was going on or why they were doing that. They withdrew to the end of the carriage and one of the other 3 or 4 passengers in the train whispered through the seat back to me to ask if I was okay. They had remained silent throughout and I think it was because they were a bit scared. I asked as I got out why they wore no ID on their vests and one of them turned round and showed me Rail Enforcement Officer on the back (quite faded) so it wasn't obvious
I phoned BTP in the morning as I thought they must be part of them but they didn't recognise the numbers and put me on to Northern Rail. They have told me that I will get a letter where I can put my side of the story.
I am pleased in a way to hear from them that it will be on CCTV, if there is audio it will support my side of the encounter but is there audio?
Your thoughts and advice appreciated

Well I'm glad they are doing something about feet on seats although I appreciate there were some special circumstances in your case and you did at least put a newspaper on the seat, but a bit of politeness doesn't go amiss!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the dog should be sitting on the floor or at least she should have brought a dog blanket

But the dog may get accidently trodden on, maybe she should have the dog on her lap though?

 

[Nursey1]

Luggage rack?

 

[Haywain]

But the dog may get accidently trodden on, maybe she should have the dog on her lap though?

So might feet. Does that make it alright to put feet on seats?

 

[Nursey1]

I would not object to a quiet dog on a seat if there was plenty of room for other passengers. I do think however she should have brought a towel or blanket so the next passenger didn't get dog hair over their coat
We all have to travel together and it's just about a bit of consideration and cooperation

 

[Llanigraham]

I would not object to a quiet dog on a seat if there was plenty of room for other passengers. I do think however she should have brought a towel or blanket so the next passenger didn't get dog hair over their coat
We all have to travel together and it's just about a bit of consideration and cooperation

Sorry, but that reads very hypocritically, considering you had your feet on a seat, despite being told twice not to do it.

And looking back through your explanations it strikes me you failed the "attitude" test; you were told once and then were caught doing the same thing not long later. A perceived "I'll do what I want" attitude.

Having a thick paper underneath is immaterial. Newspapers are not strong and get easily torn and/or crumpled up, plus they can leave a residue of printers ink on the seat.

Oh, and the price of your ticket is of no consequence; it is what it is.

 

[Nursey1]

Sorry, but that reads very hypocritically, considering you had your feet on a seat, despite being told twice not to do it.

And looking back through your explanations it strikes me you failed the "attitude" test; you were told once and then were caught doing the same thing not long later. A perceived "I'll do what I want" attitude.

Having a thick paper underneath is immaterial. Newspapers are not strong and get easily torn and/or crumpled up, plus they can leave a residue of printers ink on the seat.

Oh, and the price of your ticket is of no consequence; it is what it is.

I have a growing sense of disbelief here. I live in the UK, not a third world olive state. I have to give personal details to two unidentified blokes with a belligerent attitude ( it was they who originally had the attitude, not me) for an offence which has not been explained to me ?? Really?
I'm sorry but having a ticket regardless of the price, makes me a customer. Surely I am entitled to be treated with some respect and politeness and if I'm breaking a rule (bylaw guideline - whatever) have that explained policy to me.