Body cameras for Northern staff

[Undiscovered]

What's the odds that the footage mysteriously goes missing or the device "wasn't activated" in those cases where the passenger is in the right?

You're free to record your own footage, if you wish.

 

[Hadders]

Verbal abuse, assaults, anti-social behaviour, threats of violence etc has increased significantly in the retail industry over the last few years. This has made staff feel unsafe and not want to come to work. Retailers have tried all sorts of measures to try and reduce this sort of crime. I'm sure the same will be true in the rail industry.

Since the introduction of body worn cameras in retail crime has decreased significantly and staff feel much safer. I'm sure the same effect will be seen on the railway.

 

[Stigy]

On the railway it is indeed a criminal matter, if the staff/Police know the law.



There are number of railway trespass offences on the books. In Bletchleyite's example, you'd be looking at using Railway Regulation Act 1840 s16.

Railway Regulation Act 1840

An Act for regulating Railways.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I’ve never known that legislation to be used routinely, although I agree it’s obviously there. You can be asked to leave the railway as its private property, but you’ll usually find the Byelaws are enforced. Because they’re far easier, albeit not specifically referring to trespass.

I believed @Bletchleyite was referring to Trespass on a Railway as per the s.55 BTC act 1949 offence but maybe misinterpreted it

 

[Watershed]

Does a passenger/customer/trespasser need to be informed that such a camera is recording them? And who would have access to the recording? Anyone know?

Yes, if it is reasonably practicable then GDPR requires data controllers (Northern in this case) to provide data subjects (passengers) with information about the personal data being recorded.

Whether or not personal data is being processed (recorded) depends on the individual camera in question, and there may be an argument to say that body cameras are not processing data unless actively recording.

Body cameras are overt, not hidden.

That doesn't change the requirements under GDPR.

I’ve never known that legislation to be used routinely, although I agree it’s obviously there. You can be asked to leave the railway as its private property, but you’ll usually find the Byelaws are enforced. Because they’re far easier, albeit not specifically referring to trespass.

I believed @Bletchleyite was referring to Trespass on a Railway as per the s.55 BTC act 1949 offence but maybe misinterpreted it

There is also the wonderfully archaic Byelaw 13(2) which could be used, prohibiting loitering if asked to leave by an authorised person.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I have visions of a conductor going along the carriage calling out ' tickets, railcards, passes please. You are being recorded, your data controller is Joe Bloggs of Northern House, Leeds....

 

[AM9]

They do already and there’s no law against it. Some staff seem to get funny with being filmed but really there’s nothing they can do about it. I always used to tell people filming staff that it’s fine, but don’t expect the staff member to actually look at you when you’re doing it.

Myself, I haven't had any cause to video staff on trains and as I don't make fraudulent travel a habit I hope that I won't in the future. Nor do I go to great lengths to exploit inconsistences in the ticket system or the rules of their use just to get oneover on the railway.
However, there are instances of staff making the rules re ticket validity up, and occasionally, the hapless passenger being treated as it on offence has been committed. In such an instance, a recording of the incident may be essential to prevent unjustified prosecution, and probably reduce the level of conflict because the passenger will know that accusations would disappear once the TOC was aware that their staff's version of events differs from a simple video recording. Ultimately, such a record of the event might help the TOC to focus on staff (re)education where appropriate.

 

[lordbusiness]

Absolutely support the wearing of these cameras, not just conductors but all customer facing staff.

I did get involved in a slightly farcical situation a couple of years ago when I assisted a conductor having a bit of trouble with a couple of Jack-the-lads.

Conductor was filming them them, both of them were filming her as well with their mobiles. I felt a bit left out so I asked everyone to stop the conversation until I went back to my seat and got my phone so I could film everyone as well. Defused the situation a bit and it all ended relatively amicably.

 

[mwmbwls]

Sooner or later this will turn into a broader "Surveillance Society" debate particularly when the cameras feed into Face Recognition technologies. My personal opinion is that Northern should routinely announce that cameras are in use at stations and/or on trains. Now is the time to buy shares in firms that make "Hoodies" and "Face Masks".

 

[adc82140]

Verbal abuse, assaults, anti-social behaviour, threats of violence etc has increased significantly in the retail industry over the last few years. This has made staff feel unsafe and not want to come to work. Retailers have tried all sorts of measures to try and reduce this sort of crime. I'm sure the same will be true in the rail industry.

Which is depressing. Work needs to be done at government level to try and work out when this sort of aggressive behaviour was normalised and why. I suppose we should be grateful this is an arms war involving cameras in this country, rather than guns.

 

[dk1]

Conductors/Senior Conductors at my TOC have been using them for several years. Recording has already started well before the staff member initiates it at any given time.

 

[falcon]

Conductors/Senior Conductors at my TOC have been using them for several years. Recording has already started well before the staff member initiates it at any given time.

Have there been any incidents were the camera evidence has worked against the employee? Has there been any routine examination of footage to monitor staff performance in respect of conflict management situations ?

 

[dk1]

Have there been any incidents were the camera evidence has worked against the employee? Has there been any routine examination of footage to monitor staff performance in respect of conflict management situations ?

Not as far as i am aware. Just proves what liars & vile individuals some of the people we cart around actually are. So good hearing stories when the guard has advised them that they are switching the camera to record & they say I’m going to say your actions where rude or aggressive towards me before you switched it on. The guard then advises them not to worry as the footage starts around 5 minutes before the device is actually activated. Usually does the trick.

 

[RPI]

I've had a few customer complaints "clarified" in my favour with the body camera footage before.

 

[Stigy]

Have there been any incidents were the camera evidence has worked against the employee? Has there been any routine examination of footage to monitor staff performance in respect of conflict management situations ?

Our policy was quite clear in that the evidence wouldn’t be used for staff monitoring or performance, however, if an incident occurred, naturally if staff conduct was brought in to question it would be investigated. That makes sense. Some staff thought it was a tool for spying on them, but you get that everywhere I guess.

 

[PupCuff]

Have there been any incidents were the camera evidence has worked against the employee? Has there been any routine examination of footage to monitor staff performance in respect of conflict management situations ?

I recall a case of an RPI who was sent to prison after his body worn video camera recorded him discussing the underage girl he had just slept with. But that's a very extreme and unusual case which won't be relevant to most staff. I've known cases where the footage has been used in a debrief session with the blessing of the individual to review how the incident played out, and good practice can be identified or development opportunities suggested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I recall a case of an RPI who was sent to prison after his body worn video camera recorded him discussing the underage girl he had just slept with. But that's a very extreme and unusual case which won't be relevant to most staff. I've known cases where the footage has been used in a debrief session with the blessing of the individual to review how the incident played out, and good practice can be identified or development opportunities suggested.

That's like using your work phone to have a similar conversation - really, if you're talking about non-work stuff while it's on (even if not highly illegal like that) you really are a bit silly.

The concern I guess would be people being pulled up for discussing, say, Union stuff. But there needs to be provision for that while it's not on.

 

[AM9]

That's like using your work phone to have a similar conversation - really, if you're talking about non-work stuff while it's on (even if not highly illegal like that) you really are a bit silly.

The concern I guess would be people being pulled up for discussing, say, Union stuff. But there needs to be provision for that while it's not on.

Assuming the devices can be turned off when not on duty, there shouldn't be an issue with union stuff. It wouldn't seen to be part of passenger-facing duties to hold sensitive discussion on a union matter whilst working.

 

[66701GBRF]

Our policy was quite clear in that the evidence wouldn’t be used for staff monitoring or performance, however, if an incident occurred, naturally if staff conduct was brought in to question it would be investigated. That makes sense. Some staff thought it was a tool for spying on them, but you get that everywhere I guess.

Well it depends how much faith you have in management.

 

[Hadders]

Which is depressing. Work needs to be done at government level to try and work out when this sort of aggressive behaviour was normalised and why. I suppose we should be grateful this is an arms war involving cameras in this country, rather than guns.

I agree with you but if we wait for the Government to deal with it we will wait forever. Meanwhile staff become afraid to come to work, customers feel unsafe, the whole environment appears to be run by criminals.

I'm not in favour of a surveillance society but sometimes there's a bigger picture.

 

[221129]

XC have had them for years, or at least trialled them 4-5 years ago for revenue staff.

Correct, I used one yesterday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming the devices can be turned off when not on duty, there shouldn't be an issue with union stuff. It wouldn't seen to be part of passenger-facing duties to hold sensitive discussion on a union matter whilst working.

Wrong TOC I know, but tell that to the denizens of Coach K!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2021 ==

I agree with you but if we wait for the Government to deal with it we will wait forever. Meanwhile staff become afraid to come to work, customers feel unsafe, the whole environment appears to be run by criminals.

I'm not in favour of a surveillance society but sometimes there's a bigger picture.

There are parts of it that maybe do, but overall that is not the feeling the railway gives to me.

Like the fear of underpasses in MK, it's a perception, not a reality, in a very large number of cases.

 

[robbeech]

They are a good deterrent but sometimes you have to remember to be extra professional yourself when activated.

Imagine the horror of not being able to be unprofessional when recording an interaction between yourself and a passenger. It’s outrageous to think that staff should be expected to behave themselves.

What's the odds that the footage mysteriously goes missing or the device "wasn't activated" in those cases where the passenger is in the right?

I’ve never known video evidence be available to passengers when the guard or other member of staff is in the wrong. Not once. Infact I have known (only one time) video evidence be presented when the TOC THOUGHT the passenger was in the wrong and the evidence was supposed to prove this but proved the opposite. The evidence was lost after this point when it no longer benefited the toc. The operator in question has been mentioned here. Of course the key here is to remember than for every one instance like this there will be hundreds where the passenger is at the very least ‘in the wrong’ and at worst potentially violent.

I’m 100% behind these cameras to improve safety, providing it is the safety of staff AND their passengers. If it becomes a tool to make sure the operator maximises revenue without regard to passenger safety (one of the reasons for having the guard) then it comes across less favourable in my opinion.

 

[LowLevel]

Imagine the horror of not being able to be unprofessional when recording an interaction between yourself and a passenger. It’s outrageous to think that staff should be expected to behave themselves.



I’ve never known video evidence be available to passengers when the guard or other member of staff is in the wrong. Not once. Infact I have known (only one time) video evidence be presented when the TOC THOUGHT the passenger was in the wrong and the evidence was supposed to prove this but proved the opposite. The evidence was lost after this point when it no longer benefited the toc. The operator in question has been mentioned here. Of course the key here is to remember than for every one instance like this there will be hundreds where the passenger is at the very least ‘in the wrong’ and at worst potentially violent.

I’m 100% behind these cameras to improve safety, providing it is the safety of staff AND their passengers. If it becomes a tool to make sure the operator maximises revenue without regard to passenger safety (one of the reasons for having the guard) then it comes across less favourable in my opinion.

It's not just tickets they come in useful for. I had a crap Frank Gallagher lookalike from Warrington (even had the shabby green parka coat!) jump out of his seat once and threaten to duff me up because I asked him to turn the loud music he was playing on his phone off (the best part was that he said no one around me has complained, you're being a jobsworth - I replied that who was going to dare now they'd seen how you have responded to me ) I've had the same over feet on seats.

Anecdotal evidence from colleagues trialling these kind of devices is that this kind of stuff (particularly from regulars who you can easily identify - I find referring to "problem passengers" by name can be one of the most useful tools in disarming them, even if you do it in a friendly manner) dwindles significantly when the person involved knows their conduct is being recorded.

For what it's worth, utter professionalism does not win every war, either. I would like to think from bitter experience that I am excellent at reading, responding to and manipulating other people (which sounds horrible but when you've got a misbehaving drunk that is what you're doing). I find it much more comfortable to potentially have someone with 20/20 hindsight reviewing the outcome if need be, rather than necessarily a blow by blow of how I got there.