Simply buy an adult solo birth
Was planning on going to Wales at the end of the month to visit family which would involve talking the Sleeper to Crewe. But being 15 and not long coming up 16 I wouldnt be able to do this as Serco dont let under 16s travel alone? Is there a reason for this - when I can easily travel the same journey during the day? I know it's commonsemse to not let younger children go but by the time you reach 14/15 arent you more than capable of making this kind of journey?
If you intend to use the seated portion of the train, then IMHO the fact that the train also has sleeping coaches is of no consequence, and you may travel seated with a valid child ticket just as on any other train.
Whilst it's a shame the poster could not travel, I can understand the operator's ruling on this , in fact , in view of the potential cans of worms, it's a no brainer....
Indeed, I wonder if an unaccompanied junior was involved in some sort of incident on the train whether all those saying how silly it is that they can't travel now would change their minds and blame the TOC for allowing them to travel!
Do you really need me to spell it out? :roll:What sort of incident would happen? Especially if in a solo berth/seated portion.
In that case, if Serco are using the legal definition, why are they allowing 16/17 year olds to travel?...but the fact remains that the OP is still classed as a minor in the eyes of the law, okay he appears to be a very sensible minor but he is still a minor!
A 16 year-old, while still a minor, is considered mature enough to make certain decisions about their body that a 15 year old is not.In that case, if Serco are using the legal definition, why are they allowing 16/17 year olds to travel?
A 16 year-old, while still a minor, is considered mature enough to make certain decisions about their body that a 15 year old is not.
I would beg to differ there are many many 15 year-old that are more mature than a 16 year old.A 16 year-old, while still a minor, is considered mature enough to make certain decisions about their body that a 15 year old is not.
I would beg to differ there are many many 15 year-old that are more mature than a 16 year old.
I see apologises.I suspect he was referring to the age of consent, which is 16 (except for people in legally defined positions of responsibility over a 16 or 17 year old e.g. teachers, for whom it is 18).
I also doubt it's the reason for this rule but it does show that 16 and 17 year-olds are treated differently in law than sub-15's, while still being minors for other purposes.I very much doubt that that is the reason for this rule.
A 16 or 17 year old is also legally a minor.
Depends on what purpose you are considering. 17 year-olds can vote, but can't watch a film classified as suitable only for adults.In England and Wales, yes; in Scotland, no.
Depends on what purpose you are considering. 17 year-olds can vote, but can't watch a film classified as suitable only for adults.
Yes, but the point remains that they cannot: watch an Adults-only film in a cinema, enter a casino, buy alcohol or tobacco, etc. All of these things are defined both as 'adults only' and also '18 year old' - so for some purposes they are adults, for other purposes they are not. It all depends on how 'adult' is defined.In Scotland, a person has full legal capacity at the age of 16.
Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991.
This is not the case in England and Wales.
Yes, but the point remains that they cannot: watch an Adults-only film in a cinema, enter a casino, buy alcohol or tobacco, etc. All of these things are defined both as 'adults only' and also '18 year old' - so for some purposes they are adults, for other purposes they are not. It all depends on how 'adult' is defined.
Yes, but the point remains that they cannot: watch an Adults-only film in a cinema, enter a casino, buy alcohol or tobacco, etc. All of these things are defined both as 'adults only' and also '18 year old' - so for some purposes they are adults, for other purposes they are not. It all depends on how 'adult' is defined.
Neither does the ban on under 16 year-olds travelling unaccompanied. Besides, the rule applies to tickets sold in England as well as those sold in Scotland.None of your examples relates to entering into a contract by purchasing a ticket for a train.
I'm not sure, good question. I know that Holyrood were able to change the rules around alcohol retailing (Sunday morning, post 10-pm ban), but I don't know if lowering the age for purchasing would be in their remit.At the risk of going off topic, would I be right in thinking all these examples are cases of matters reserved to Westminster, rather than being devolved?
For all the stuff that has been posted, the simple answer as to why under 16s cannot travel unaccompanied on the sleeper would have everything to do with under 16s being minors - as established by Scottish law. It will come down to duty of care, as there is no effective way that a child can be protected 100% of the time due to closed cabins.
Protected from what? I fear a game of buzzword bingo.