Wheelchair passenger not allowed to board

[Lampshade]

Urgh, Flyboy again :roll:

 

[wanda]

There is NEVER any excuse for rudeness - why are you so persuaded that the man in the wheelchair is a lying scumbag - don't you know that is rudeness? The film clearly shows 2 great big tall able bodied men refusing to put down a ramp for a wheel chair. They do not explain why not. They tell the man nothing. One tells him it is illegal to film him - it is not - one tells him they have no legal obligation to provide a ramp - yet they do. If you were in the wheel chair, you would not be so sympathetic to the guards. For some reason you identify with them and are prepared to make things up to support your case. You have no evidence. You are just rude and creating inconsistencies in the wheelchair y=users story - I have checked all these and there are none. The train station he referred to is as he says it is, perfectly accessible for his wheelchair - the ONLY thing preventing his journey was the inaction of 2 men. Ask yourself WHY do you feel so strongly that this man is in the wrong? If you have driving licenses, maybe you should hand them in, because maybe you see green traffic lights when actually they are red. I do not wish to discuss this as the only evidence here is the film, and it is really very clear. Only a fool would believe the conductor's behaviour was justifiable.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is he? Who are you on DS, might read through it later. If I have a spare 14 hours

Suprisingly Jonmorris

Might take a little longer than 14 I'm wading my through it right now (in the mid 50s) and its growing faster than I can flipping well read it!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

There is NEVER any excuse for rudeness - why are you so persuaded that the man in the wheelchair is a lying scumbag - don't you know that is rudeness? The film clearly shows 2 great big tall able bodied men refusing to put down a ramp for a wheel chair. They do not explain why not. They tell the man nothing. One tells him it is illegal to film him - it is not - one tells him they have no legal obligation to provide a ramp - yet they do. If you were in the wheel chair, you would not be so sympathetic to the guards. For some reason you identify with them and are prepared to make things up to support your case. You have no evidence. You are just rude and creating inconsistencies in the wheelchair y=users story - I have checked all these and there are none. The train station he referred to is as he says it is, perfectly accessible for his wheelchair - the ONLY thing preventing his journey was the inaction of 2 men. Ask yourself WHY do you feel so strongly that this man is in the wrong? If you have driving licenses, maybe you should hand them in, because maybe you see green traffic lights when actually they are red. I do not wish to discuss this as the only evidence here is the film, and it is really very clear. Only a fool would believe the conductor's behaviour was justifiable.

THE CUNDUCTOR WAS DOING HIS JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I admit he didnt come across well, but:

1) Wheelchairs cannot use the country bound platform at GUI when aligting from a 142 - the guard would have broken H and S rules, and the law should he have allowed him off there.

2) 142 do not comply with current standards for new trains, so are not fully accessable
3) any memeber of staff has the right to request not being filmed in footage.

4) He has a responsiblity to check and let Northern rail know that he is travelling, so if neccessary they can arrange alternatives

 

[jon0844]

My username there is indeed jonmorris (without 0844) and this is my real name, as I don't hide behind aliases on there as a lot of members do - often with names that are in themselves quite controversial. Names like 'trolling_is_fun' and 'wind-up-merchant'.

Not that I am saying aliases are a bad thing, for the benefit of the honest members who chose a nickname or can't reveal their name for professional reasons.

I suspect that given the clumps of posts, and having previous experience of it on DS (which the moderators eventually catch on to), I think there are a few people posting under multiple usernames to support each other. I now have my suspicions about a new member on here, but it would take an admin on here to do some IP checking against IP checks on DS. Seems like a lot of effort!

 

[mrcheek]

There is NEVER any excuse for rudeness - why are you so persuaded that the man in the wheelchair is a lying scumbag - don't you know that is rudeness? The film clearly shows 2 great big tall able bodied men refusing to put down a ramp for a wheel chair. They do not explain why not. They tell the man nothing. One tells him it is illegal to film him - it is not - one tells him they have no legal obligation to provide a ramp - yet they do. If you were in the wheel chair, you would not be so sympathetic to the guards. For some reason you identify with them and are prepared to make things up to support your case. You have no evidence. You are just rude and creating inconsistencies in the wheelchair y=users story - I have checked all these and there are none. The train station he referred to is as he says it is, perfectly accessible for his wheelchair - the ONLY thing preventing his journey was the inaction of 2 men. Ask yourself WHY do you feel so strongly that this man is in the wrong? If you have driving licenses, maybe you should hand them in, because maybe you see green traffic lights when actually they are red. I do not wish to discuss this as the only evidence here is the film, and it is really very clear. Only a fool would believe the conductor's behaviour was justifiable.

The train and station staff were NOT rude. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who rudely kept demanding to be let on a train even after he had been given a reason why he couldnt. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who shouted at the guard in a foreign language. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who accused the guard of assault. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who threatened to get the guard sacked. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who made a libellous complaint. It is the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who is using a fake name.

 

[jimrbrobinson]

There is NEVER any excuse for rudeness - why are you so persuaded that the man in the wheelchair is a lying scumbag - don't you know that is rudeness? The film clearly shows 2 great big tall able bodied men refusing to put down a ramp for a wheel chair. They do not explain why not. They tell the man nothing. One tells him it is illegal to film him - it is not - one tells him they have no legal obligation to provide a ramp - yet they do. If you were in the wheel chair, you would not be so sympathetic to the guards. For some reason you identify with them and are prepared to make things up to support your case. You have no evidence. You are just rude and creating inconsistencies in the wheelchair y=users story - I have checked all these and there are none. The train station he referred to is as he says it is, perfectly accessible for his wheelchair - the ONLY thing preventing his journey was the inaction of 2 men. Ask yourself WHY do you feel so strongly that this man is in the wrong? If you have driving licenses, maybe you should hand them in, because maybe you see green traffic lights when actually they are red. I do not wish to discuss this as the only evidence here is the film, and it is really very clear. Only a fool would believe the conductor's behaviour was justifiable.

"There is NEVER any excuse for rudeness". Certainly not, and I and several other on here have acknowledged that in the abbreviated segment of the whole incident we can see in the video, the Guard could have acted differently and for the better. However, there is also no justification anywhere on the video for your rudeness of calling the staff members 'racist'. There is no evidence of any racism whatsoever in the video.

The video is also clear that something (and we don't know exactly what, and only have the "victim's" version of events for that) occurred before filming commenced. You are condemning the staff on the basis of the video alone and the word of the complainant who has, with respect, lost a lot of credibility. You are criticising us for doing exactly what you are doing. There is a name for that - it is a hypocrite.

 

[Greenback]

I fear that Wanda is misguided in his/her post. The whole point of this thread is that no one knows what really happened. Wanda has fallen into the trap of presuming guilt based on vey limited evidence, probably in a very well intentioned if rather patronising way of trying to protect the disabled. The post is very similar to early ones on the DS forum, in that it makes all sorts of assumptions, but bases itself on the position that the wheelchair user is in the right, so the guard must be in the wrong.

There are so many possibilities about what might have transpired before filming commenced that it is impossible to film them all. Two possible (and extreme) scenarios are:

a) Mr K asks politely and reasonably if he can board the train, and is immediately told to f off. Unable to beleive what he has heard, he asks the guard again. This time the guard is even more abusive, and Mr K wants to film what is said to him, so he gets out his phone and starts recording

OR

b) Mr K has been told by the guard that he can't be taken on this train because the ramp is not suitable for Guide Bridge, that although he has helped him before, he has been told he must follow the H&S regulations to the letter. This is explained several times until the guard suggests he tries Customer Services, who, hopefully, will have better luck in explaining the rule. Mr K comes back, becomes abusive to the guard in order to try and provoke a reaction as he is enraged that he can't get on that train. He then starts filming, hoping to get the guard sacked by provoking him into providing the reaction he wanted.

How can anyone say that either of these is the truth? We simply don't know. It is as daft to presume the guard is guilty of being a racist pig as it is to assume that Mr K is a racist pig.

I really despair for justice in the UK if any of the people who made up their mind on the flimsiest of evidence, and decided the guard should be sacked or disciplined, ever serves on a jury.

 

[Flamingo]

Wanda, you seem to have a very narrow and patronising view of disabled people. A disabled person, in a wheelchair or otherwise, has just as much a right to be a lying troublemaking scumbag as an able bodied person. I fully support the rights of wheelchair users to behave in this manner and be treated accordingly, and I believe other posters on here will also support this. You are the one that is saying that this could never happen, which is oppressive of disabled people and their right to behave in whatever manner they wish (and accept the consequences of this behaviour).

 

[mrcheek]

Not that I am saying aliases are a bad thing, for the benefit of the honest members who chose a nickname or can't reveal their name for professional reasons.

Since the lying scumbag has used a fake name when talking to the media, I think nicknames on message boards are acceptable....

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The train and station staff were NOT rude. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who rudely kept demanding to be let on a train even after he had been given a reason why he couldnt. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who shouted at the guard in a foreign language. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who accused the guard of assault. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who threatened to get the guard sacked. It was the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who made a libellous complaint. It is the lying scumbag in the wheelchair who is using a fake name.

You sir are an Absolute legend! Brilliantly put. over to you wanda.....

 

[O L Leigh]

Wanda: I admire the force of your argument, but unfortunately we may not be the fools you made us out to be.

It is a fallacy that the camera never lies. Just as we may be forced to admit that you are correct in that the train guard acted badly, you also have to admit that you may have been taken-in by the presentation of a misleading snippet of video footage that does not show the entire incident.

Now I haven't read the thread on Digital Spy or comments posted elsewhere, but those of us here that have done so say that this guy is making matters worse for himself because the facts fail to corroborate the content of his video. This being so, it would seem that he is simply out to make mischief no matter how noble his intentions. The fact that he is in a wheelchair does not excuse him from this. In fact, some of the nastiest people I have met have been wheelchair users.

My point being that the railways are not the great enemy you seem to suggest. I have on numerous occasions gone out of my way to assist disabled passengers to use our services, even over-carrying a wheelchair user and his carers beyond the validity of their ticket so they could access the step-free side of the station they wanted on the return trip rather than be faced with a long flight of stairs. Now these guys could have made life difficult for me too if they'd been so minded, but they saw the sense of what I was saying and agreed to my proposed course of action. Had this chap understood what the guard was saying he would also have seen the sense of what was being suggested to him and could have made his proposed journey by rail without incident, albeit a little later than he might have wanted.

However, the railway has to take the safety of all those using it seriously. If the layout of the platforms at Guide Bridge made it unsafe to unload him from this particular type of train it would have been unwise to have agreed to take him. A delay of 12 minutes is hardly a great penalty when compared to the possibility of coming off the ramp badly and potentially even falling.

Really and truthfully this is a storm in a teacup. Many, many people with disabilities are using our railways on a daily basis. Unfortunately we are shouldered with infrastructure and rolling stock from a less caring era which sometimes makes things difficult and requires special arrangements to be made, but we take this issue seriously and do whatever we can with the tools available to us. We are still 10 years away from the requirement for full DDA compliance and things are improving all the time.

O L Leigh

 

[jimrbrobinson]

My username there is indeed jonmorris (without 0844) and this is my real name, as I don't hide behind aliases on there as a lot of members do - often with names that are in themselves quite controversial. Names like 'trolling_is_fun' and 'wind-up-merchant'.

Not that I am saying aliases are a bad thing, for the benefit of the honest members who chose a nickname or can't reveal their name for professional reasons.

Completely agree with you there Jon. Incidentally, this is my real name (but I'm not subscribed to any other forums that this one other than family history ones, and those are under my professional nickname.

 

[Greenback]

Wanda, you seem to have a very narrow and patronising view of disabled people. A disabled person, in a wheelchair or otherwise, has just as much a right to be a lying troublemaking scumbag as an able bodied person. I fully support the rights of wheelchair users to behave in this manner, and I believe other posters on here will also support this. You are the one that is saying that this could never happen, which is oppressive of disabled people and their right to behave in whatever manner they wish (and accept the consequences of this behaviour).

Agreed, 100%. In fact, the attitude of people such as Wanda goes a long way to making others despise the disabled and is, as such self defeating and no real help to the cause of equal rights.

Since the lying scumbag has used a fake name when talking to the media, I think nicknames on message boards are acceptable....

As one who uses a nickname myself, ie ntirely agree. In my case, it;s not to hide anything, that's what people call me when I play darts!

You sir are an Absolute legend! Brilliantly put. over to you wanda.....

Agreed. I await Wanda's response with interest...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Agreed. I await Wanda's response with interest...

There doing a lot of viewing but not much talking. Can we get the big arguments that are about to commence underway quickly gents, some of us want to go to bed

 

[jon0844]

As one who uses a nickname myself, ie ntirely agree. In my case, it;s not to hide anything, that's what people call me when I play darts!

You mean you're not an evil green toad? Oh my god, I feel like I've been deceived all this time!

Do you play darts with Penfold and Danger Mouse?! Thing is, when I play darts everyone just calls me s**t.

 

[Lampshade]

When I play darts my mates call me things such as 'Lethal' and 'Dangerous'

 

[Flamingo]

I see from DS that the "gentleman" involved has been on here. I wonder if he made any posts? Maybe joined tonight and made two posts? Maybe the username was W... No, I'm sure he didn't do that, not with him being in a wheelchair and all...

 

[jon0844]

To the credit of the OP, he hasn't been anywhere near that abusive in what he's written. I don't think it is him, or else he has some sort of split personality.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So you guys reckon wanda was the disbaled guy? Never was going to listen to a word he/she said - she only joined about 1 hour ago!

 

[Flamingo]

Just one of his fan club then. He's now p(bo)asting that you-tube have refused a request from the guard involved to have it taken down.

He really is coming across as a nasty evil little git. Still dodging the difficult questions as well.

ps. Jon, you are pandering to him a bit. This "I'm too scared to leave the house" stuff is playing up the "poor me" image for the camera. He has more attitude than most, read his posts, whoever is scarred to leave the house about this whole thing, it most certainly is not him. He's said on other threads on DS that the Housing Association are contacting him about complaints from neighbours, and his concern is not that he might be antisocial, just can they make it stick.

 

[EM2]

As someone employed to assist disabled passengers as part of his duties, I'm debating whether to weigh in on the DS thread...

 

[ainsworth74]

I think perhaps we should be a little more polite to wanda who has so far been fairly reasonable to us and somewhat brave by walking willing into the lion's den of a railway forum with a view that was always likely to be controversial on here.

Edit: Having read their 3rd post, politeness be damned.

As to Mr K I have no such sympathy.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Speaking in aforeign language gets to me aswell, he could have said anything and the gurad would have been none the wiser and even more confused

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think perhaps we should be a little more polite to wanda who has so far been fairly reasonable to us and somewhat brave by walking willing into the lion's den of a railway forum with a view that was always likely to be controversial on here.

Yeah, i didnt like the unbalanced argument or the fact that near enough she just called us alll unsensetive etc

 

[Lampshade]

Speaking in aforeign language gets to me aswell, he could have said anything and the gurad would have been none the wiser and even more confused

Inboxy

 

[Steamer]

Link to DS thread here: http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1333391&page=17 Hope it is ok!

A few people on that thread, while not condoning the abruptness of the employee and the lack of information that may have contributed to the situation, do not believe the wheelchair user is telling the whole truth about what happened, and has handled things badly. They're not basing that viewpoint on anything other than gut instinct - the story just doesn't ring true to them. It says a lot that not one of the people who've openly said several hours ago that they don't quite believe the man's version has yet turned round and said they've now changed their mind, despite the many posts by this man and other members debating what went went on. One member has said that they thought there was something not quite right about the story at page 4, hadn't changed their mind several pages later and doesn't expect their view to change. The more the thread goes on, the more information comes to light, none of it reflecting well on this man.

 

[yorkie]

I have trouble believing what I am reading here. Some of you seem to have sold yourself the idea that it is ok to deny a person service because they are annoying or irritating.

Has anyone actually said that? If they have, quote the person who said it, and disagree with them.

You also appear to have decided, on the basis of a feeling, that the wheelchair user was a bad person who was in some way abusive - and a variety of other criticisms such as - his experience did not matter because he later went to the press? What is that about please?

I think he did not portray himself in a good light. No-one in the video did (except the lady who appeared at the end).

The conductor on the film did not know any of the later stuff would happen, so he cannot justify his awful rudeness (he turned his back, he loomed over the chair user, he jabbed his finger towards him, he refused to answer him etc). Don't you know that you should NEVER behave like that to anyone - are you badly brought up?

Yes, you are right in this criticism of the guard in my opinion. We don't know what was said to the guard before this though, the guard may have been provoked, and some people are assuming he was. I am inclined to assume that also, but we should keen an open mind. The guard reacted in a way that many people would, but it was unprofessional, and could cost him his job.

There is absolutely no evidence the wheelchair user was rude or abusive to the conductor.

Not abusive, but his tone did appear to be a bit off. Again, we don't know what was said before.

He said . can you put a ramp down for me please. He said if you touch me that is an assault when the man loomed over him and jabbed a finger at him. The other man was also very rude - their body language was hugely threatening.

I can't really disagree with that.

Try being little, in pain and very vulnerable, and you would also be saying - touching me is an assault BEFORE the giant idiot in front of you unwittingly hurts you; just because they do not understand that a body with muscular dystrophy cannot take thethe sorts of casual physical issues that a healthy body can tolerate. If you don't understand this you need an empathy transplant For shame on you.

But it was over-dramatised, and you are over-dramatising now. The general gist of what you say is true, but we don't need these exaggerations.

And under the DDA the train SHOULD have been available to this man - its really not at all relevant that there was another train 12 minutes later, or that taxis/buses are available.

What do you suggest out of these options:
1) Cancel the train
2) Reduce the service as there are insufficient DDA compliant trains
3) Replace all the trains with brand new ones, using money that would otherwise be spent on education and hopsitals
4) Something else - you choose!

I look forward to your response!

We live in a country with legislation to ensure disabled people get the same OR BETTER service than normal bodied people so WAKE UP people -

That's a dangerous statement to make. Where on earth do you draw the line? Do any disabled people go round demanding "BETTER" service than others? The ones I know don't, and wouldn't appreciate a minority going round making such demands in their name.

it is all our jobs to make sure that people like this man can get on a train. If there is an H & S issue, then we deal with it, not by refusing service but by making the train safe. If we don't have a ramp we go get one - we don't run around for 4 minutes being rude and alternately ignoring a man in a wheelchair and then making statements that were rude and unhelpful.

It may not have been explained properly at the time, which is regrettable if so, but it appears that there are reasons why this type of train cannot have a ramp deployed at the destination station & platform, Guide Bridge eastbound.

You don't make the world safer and better by forming a little band of people

What little band of people is that?!

making vague comments about how 'we' 'come across' these 'troublemakers' and how they make our jobs harder, so we can have sympathey with 2 men (not 1) who ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE SEEN acted like bigoted and intolerant,

People get the impression the 'victim' is a 'troublemaker' because of comments he made on the Digital Spy forum. Some of those comments are very cringeworthy and some are completely incorrect.

and personally I think, racist thugs.

There is no evidence of racism, where is this evidence?

Ironically it is you who is going on about lack of evidence on other issues! So where is yours on this issue?

There isn't any other evidence - the wheelchair user saying 'touch me its an assault is NOT evidence of prior intention - it is a sad sign that people in wheelchairs regularly feel unsafe and have to make it clear that you could hurt them far more easily than you are likely to realise.

I doubt he felt that he was going to be assaulted, he was probably concerned that his camera was going to be taken off him. A valid concern, admittedly, but I really don't like these exaggerated claims that you, and the 'victim' are making.

You don't make the railways a credible and safe employment environment by making nasty comments about a person who clearly was treated very badly indeed - you simply side with poor customer service, bullying and bigotry. Knowledge of how the job works does not excuse you - you are in the wrong.

Who is in the wrong? Rather than make such generic statements, find a quote you disagree with and then disagree with it. You're not getting anywhere with such comments.

The wheelchair user was a very small and weak person placed in an impossible position.

What was impossible about this position? He was asked to get a later train, what is impossible about that?

He filmed the situation because no one would believe it if he simply reported it. In fact, even though he filmed it, lots of you STILL don't want to accept what very clearly did happen. Wise up - the 2 staff behaved badly. The wheelchair user not only caught them at it, he exposed it. Good for him. Bullies should not prosper. He has very nobly said he does not want the guard sacked. You should be recognising his genrosity.

But do you deny he should have simply sent it to Northern and not gone to the media?

Please note that last year 3 disabled people a week were physically attacked simply because some people did not like the look of them.

Is this really relevant?

The Muscular Dystrophy charity have reprted that they hear from sufferers being denied access to travel every day.

Rather than more generic quotes, perhaps we can have specific examples. I suspect many of them are exaggerations e.g. a passenger having to get a later train due to crowding or type of train, etc. This may then be 'counted' as a 'denial' of service when in reality it isn't.

Public transport staff need to do a lot better, not just because it is the decent and right thing to do, but because it is the law.

It is the law that a ramp must be deployed at Guide Bridge with that type of train is it? Can you double check that?

 

[jon0844]

He's only just gone and posted a translation that says HE was going to call the police, after his wife said to - when he said before that he had to leave to get the bus because they called the police and he feared they'd take his camera.

This reminds me of posters on here that quickly scarper when they know the game is up. Why isn't this happening there?!

 

[wanda]

There is never any excuse for rudeness. I assume some of you work for the rail companies? This may explain why there are so many complaints about how people are treated on trains - I would remind you that we are all employed to provide a service to our customers who pay our wages - and before you get on a high horse and talk about H & S, that is a red herring and you know it. You have created a littel gang and are backing each other up in making unjustifiable comments for which you have no evidence. I do not think you are insensitive at all. I think you are hyper sensitive to anything that involves a) making an effort to see someone elses point of view b) standing up for what is right (n=much easier to slump back in your chair and cast around for excuses to justify bad behaviour) c) anything that may mean your world view changes.

Mr K is a disabled person trying to travel - he is not 'a lying scumbag' nor is he making things up. The camera does not lie - there is 4 minutes of evidence of the appalling treatment he received. Grow up and face reality. And I am not Mr K -(s0meone is really clutching at straws here to discredit the poor man!)

I started writing this in the hope that some of you will feel shame at your bad behaviour due to the rude and nasty things you have been writing here - but that is up to you. I do hope you are never put in the position of having to beg some stranger to behave decently towards you in order to get home. I think if the stranger was Mr K (in some universe where he was not disabled ) I suspect he would be kind, considerate and efficient.

Think about that. What face are you showing to the world, and how do you think you make people working on the railways appear to the rest of the world. I'll tell you - you are demonstrating that the railways are staffed by people who don't help even the most obviously disabled - I say again, shame on you.