Euston visited by a self-appointed “auditor”

[gray1404]

In this video the British Transport Police Officer claims that Euston is a compulsory ticket area. Is that correct?

So today I visited Euston Station and got arrested!

After entering the station, I made my way to a platform where train station staff were checking tickets. I decided to move up the station where I found an empty platform.

After a short time in on the platform I have an interaction with the arresting officer, who attempts to get me to leave the station. He informs me that I was loitering in a "designated ticket holder only area".

Clearly there is nothing to state that the area I entered was for "ticket holders only". Therefore, was not a designated area.

The officer uses this to abuse the powers given to him in the bye laws to physically remove me from the station, and subsequently arresting me.


**UPDATE**

Guys I've read your comments, and I fully appreciate your views. Firstly, as for goading the officer I don't necessarily agree that I was goading him initially. Was I being argumentative? Possibly, but that isn't the same as goading, that being said after we left the station I felt a sense of injustice and that manifested itself in the conversation we had.

As for the Law, the officer began the process of removing me which led to the subsequent arrest on the grounds that I was "loitering in a designated ticket holder only area", The key work being "designated", in the video you can see at the points of entry onto the platform there is no signage stating whatsoever that you were crossing into an area for "ticket holders only", therefore it is undesignated. This is important as other unsuspecting members of the public could inadvertently fall foul of the byelaws. It's the same for a designated smoking area or a designated parking spot etc etc.

Therefore my argument is that the grounds and subsequent actions used based on those grounds were unlawful.

There is the argument however about producing a valid ticket when requested to do so, however after the arrest it was clear that the officers were relying on the grounds that I was "loitering in a designated ticket holder only area".

I hope that helps clear things up. There are certainly things that I will take away from this visit and learn from going forward.

Let me know what you guys think.

Enjoy the video until next time.

 

[the sniper]

Given how many offences these 'auditors' can commit on the railway with even just their basic shenanigans, they're probably best to stick to crusading against librarians, monitoring job centre staff, staring a Prison walls (longingly, from the outside) and loitering in police station car parks...

 

[gray1404]

My concern here is that if the police constables argument is followed then a ticket is required to go on the station platform and take photographs or videos of trains. My understanding is that Euston is not a CTA.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not watching half a hour of someone “audit” the public areas of a station. The police constable is not correct about it being a CTA and should simply have told the “auditor” (lol) to leave. As usual the comments on the video are turned off to prevent sane people from also telling the auditor to leave, but less politely.

These “auditors” are a waste of space and go around making people’s jobs more difficult. There is no value to what they do whatsoever.

 

[CyrusWuff]

My concern here is that if the police constables argument is followed then a ticket is required to go on the station platform and take photographs or videos of trains. My understanding is that Euston is not a CTA.

Not 100% sure, but could the London Overground platforms be a CTA, given the involvement of TfL?

 

[gray1404]

If anyone does watch the video I would suggest they just jump to the police interaction bit. This is honestly put me off going to stations like Euston to take videos and pictures of trains if police are going to make accusations of loitering and then by law offence has been committed by being in compulsory ticket areas without a valid ticket in areas that turn out not to be CTAs.

 

[the sniper]

My concern here is that if the police constables argument is followed then a ticket is required to go on the station platform and take photographs or videos of trains. My understanding is that Euston is not a CTA.

There's a world of difference between the typical experiences of a reasonable person wishing to take photographs or videos of trains and an auditor playing their game, I wouldn't worry about it.

If anyone does watch the video I would suggest they just jump to the police interaction bit. This is honestly put me off going to stations like Euston to take videos and pictures of trains if police are going to make accusations of loitering and then by law offence has been committed by being in compulsory ticket areas without a valid ticket in areas that turn out not to be CTAs.

He wasn't taking videos and pictures of trains...

 

[reb0118]

My concern here is that if the police constables argument is followed then a ticket is required to go on the station platform and take photographs or videos of trains. My understanding is that Euston is not a CTA.

If all you're doing is taking pictures of trains then you generally won't be getting hassle from the BTP.

Start venturing into restricted areas and getting all "audity" on the other hand?...

 

[pt_mad]

This strikes me as a deliberate setup by the person filming to get this sort of reaction.

Could the person have some gripe against the police or station staff?

The way the person filming speaks to the officer towards the end.

What even is 'auditing'?

 

[bramling]

In this video the British Transport Police Officer claims that heuston is a compulsory ticket area. Is that correct?

Doesn’t really reflect particularly well on anyone, and isn’t really the best use of police time.

 

[RJ]

If all you're doing is taking pictures of trains then you generally won't be getting hassle from the BTP.

Hmmm - hasn’t always been the case. They saw me taking a photograph of a HST on the blocks at Paddington as reasonable grounds to carry out a stop and search.

 

[Edsmith]

I've mixed feelings about these auditors, there's often a very thin line between keeping the police on their toes and generally being a pain in the proverbial. If the area isn't a CTA as others have suggested then clearly the officer is wrong and it seems another example of making up the rules as you go along, the auditor is also right in saying that the officer should have told him that his body worn camera is recording. However there was no need for the auditor to be rude to the officer towards the end. I wonder what happened later, was the auditor charged with any offence?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

Hmmm - hasn’t always been the case. They saw me taking a photograph of a HST on the blocks at Paddington as reasonable grounds to carry out a stop and search.

My brother in law said recently that he is concerned about the abuse of stop and search and he is himself a police officer and this sounds like a prime example. Auditors will say this is why they do what they do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

This strikes me as a deliberate setup by the person filming to get this sort of reaction.

Could the person have some gripe against the police or station staff?

The way the person filming speaks to the officer towards the end.

What even is 'auditing'?

Plenty of examples of auditing to be found on YouTube.

 

[BJames]

As others have said, this person is simply out to cause trouble. Briefly skipped through some of this, and a random bit I clicked on happened to be him recording security cameras. This is exactly the kind of suspicious behaviour we are encouraged to report through See it, Say it, Sorted posters.

Seen tons of these videos crop up over the last few years, with people filming police stations etc and then getting into an argument with the police officers who are (rightly) questioning why they're just standing filming the comings and goings of a police station. Obviously this is suspicious behaviour and while their intention is primarily to cause trouble, I don't blame the authorities at all for finding this a situation that they need to make sure is nothing more serious. Most comments on videos like these are not kind to the "auditor", as you may expect - this is one thing that the public are pretty consistently on the side of the police and staff.

 

[LowLevel]

I’m not watching half a hour of someone “audit” the public areas of a station. The police constable is not correct about it being a CTA and should simply have told the “auditor” (lol) to leave. As usual the comments on the video are turned off to prevent sane people from also telling the auditor to leave, but less politely.

These “auditors” are a waste of space and go around making people’s jobs more difficult. There is no value to what they do whatsoever.

They usually seem to be in the same order as online paedophile hunters or those who harangue asylum seekers - people with problems convincing themselves they're doing something important, often whilst not having an actual job anyway.

Some might do some good, if channeled, others are just trying to find some fulfillment and the worst are the types with an axe to grind.

 

[Edsmith]

As others have said, this person is simply out to cause trouble. Briefly skipped through some of this, and a random bit I clicked on happened to be him recording security cameras. This is exactly the kind of suspicious behaviour we are encouraged to report through See it, Say it, Sorted posters.

Seen tons of these videos crop up over the last few years, with people filming police stations etc and then getting into an argument with the police officers who are (rightly) questioning why they're just standing filming the comings and goings of a police station. Obviously this is suspicious behaviour and while their intention is primarily to cause trouble, I don't blame the authorities at all for finding this a situation that they need to make sure is nothing more serious. Most comments on videos like these are not kind to the "auditor", as you may expect - this is one thing that the public are pretty consistently on the side of the police and staff.

Your last sentence is quite an assumption to make, many police officers have no problem with auditors and having a camera shoved in your face is just part and parcel of the job nowadays.

 

[BJames]

Your last sentence is quite an assumption to make, many police officers have no problem with auditors and having a camera shoved in your face is just part and parcel of the job nowadays.

I agree that it is a generalisation but I'm going off comments on videos I've seen recently on YouTube and TikTok. I would definitely note that it depends on how provocative the auditor versus how the police officer deals with it (a really angry or over-aggressive response from the police officer being far less likely to solicit sympathy from the public), but far more often I have found that the "auditor" is the one causing trouble and the police officer being reasonable in their dealings (probably because there are more of these people nowadays - but that's exactly why there's more sympathy). I don't disagree with recording a dealing in which you feel unsafe, but what exactly do you expect to happen if you stand there recording CCTV cameras or police activity from a police station?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

As others have said, this person is simply out to cause trouble. Briefly skipped through some of this, and a random bit I clicked on happened to be him recording security cameras. This is exactly the kind of suspicious behaviour we are encouraged to report through See it, Say it, Sorted posters.

Seen tons of these videos crop up over the last few years, with people filming police stations etc and then getting into an argument with the police officers who are (rightly) questioning why they're just standing filming the comings and goings of a police station. Obviously this is suspicious behaviour and while their intention is primarily to cause trouble, I don't blame the authorities at all for finding this a situation that they need to make sure is nothing more serious. Most comments on videos like these are not kind to the "auditor", as you may expect - this is one thing that the public are pretty consistently on the side of the police and staff.

No it isn't.

Freedom to photograph and film​

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice

 

[Bletchleyite]

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice

The railway is not a "public place" in the context of this part of the law (just as e.g. shopping centres are not). It has chosen not to do so, but the railway is entirely within its rights to totally prohibit photography on its land if it wishes, or to control it in any manner desired. It sort of does the latter in that if someone is behaving unsafely or suspiciously it may ask for it to stop, or at major stations it asks people to sign in first. If you don't, and refuse to leave when asked, it becomes trespass.

In essence as far as the law goes there are three types of place:

Public place - the public highway and related land - this is where the above applies. Here there is a right of access and to remain unless some sort of Court order or specific Byelaw prohibits.
Place to which the public have access - the railway, shopping centres, most but not quite all parks (some come under the first one), even places where only some of the public have access like a Scout hut or a members' clubhouse. Here entry is by permission under conditions and can be revoked for any or no reason.
Private place - your house. Similarly, entry is by permission under conditions and can be revoked for any or no reason.

The above rights apply only to a public place - the first one. In either of the other two, the owner (even if it's a Council) may apply what restrictions they choose on access to and remaining in the premises, provided they wouldn't breach disability laws. If you don't comply to those restrictions (not just on photography - for instance a clothes shop is likely to prohibit food) you're a trespasser and can be asked, and made using reasonable force if necessary, to leave.

Knife carrying law, for instance, applies in the top two (so you can't for instance legally strap your machete to your belt and go wandering round a Scout camp site unless you're on the way to clear some undergrowth, which would be a "reasonable excuse"). In most parts of the top two other than e.g. toilet cubicles, you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy (so e.g. the CCTV can film you).

 

[zwk500]

No it isn't.

Just because you're allowed to do it doesn't stop it being suspicious behaviour. Hostile reconnaissance is a potential threat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just because you're allowed to do it doesn't stop it being suspicious behaviour. Hostile reconnaissance is a potential threat.

Sometimes the railway does take it to extremes, though. I once took a photo of the old whiteboard departure board at Penrith (no longer there I think?) and was promptly accused by the booking office staff member of taking a photo of the CCTV, which was nowhere near it and couldn't possibly have been in shot.

 

[zwk500]

Sometimes the railway does take it to extremes, though. I once took a photo of the old whiteboard departure board at Penrith (no longer there I think?) and was promptly accused by the booking office staff member of taking a photo of the CCTV, which was nowhere near it and couldn't possibly have been in shot.

I agree the training could be better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree the training could be better.

Unsurprisingly it tends to be smaller stations and cheap contract staff who either don't know what the railway's policy is or get a kick out of enforcing their own rules with little chance of anything being done about it.

 

[zwk500]

Unsurprisingly it tends to be smaller stations and cheap contract staff who either don't know what the railway's policy is or get a kick out of enforcing their own rules with little chance of anything being done about it.

Indeed. As I said, the training could be better, and often there is a certain amount of zealotry that is unwelcoming.
On the other hand, I've been show in safety training examples of hostile recce footage taken in the UK that was very definitely not innocent in nature, so the threat shouldn't be disregarded.

 

[BJames]

Sometimes the railway does take it to extremes, though. I once took a photo of the old whiteboard departure board at Penrith (no longer there I think?) and was promptly accused by the booking office staff member of taking a photo of the CCTV, which was nowhere near it and couldn't possibly have been in shot.

This is also true. A bit of common sense needs to come into play from members of staff and agreed upthread that the training could be better.

Freedom of photography is one thing, and I fully support it - but you cannot be surprised if someone asks you why you are taking photographs of CCTV...

 

[DarloRich]

Once gain I fail to understand how posters here have such problems with the authorities. My Flickr is full of pictures taken at stations. Never an issue. One has to ask why? It could be I am a white bloke of increasing middle age or it could be something else like attitude or behaviour. Perhaps it is simple luck. Who knows.

As for these "auditors".....................

If all you're doing is taking pictures of trains then you generally won't be getting hassle from the BTP.

Start venturing into restricted areas and getting all "audity" on the other hand?...

Is the correct answer.

Just because you're allowed to do it doesn't stop it being suspicious behaviour. Hostile reconnaissance is a potential threat.

People here seem to disagree, wrongly, with this assertion.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Once gain I fail to understand how posters here have such problems with the authorities. My Flickr is full of pictures taken at stations. Never an issue. One has to ask why? It could be I am a white bloke of increasing middle age or it could be something else like attitude or behaviour. Perhaps it is simple luck.

I think it is location. My dad doesn't ever have problems, but he has had problems at Euston.

Of course sucking up to the police having a good attitude makes the problems go away sooner, but in my dad's case the "good attitude" required was leaving when he was asked to. Sensible from the point of view of having an easy life, but I can understand why some people would prefer to stand their ground.

People here seem to disagree, wrongly, with this assertion.

"Hostile reconnaissance". Oh please. If you're in a train station with an explosive rucksack I don't think you really care where the CCTV is.

An argument that, even if it were true, is also rather undermined by "Stations Made Easy" and Google Street View.

 

[DarloRich]

"Hostile reconnaissance". Oh please. If you're in a train station with an explosive rucksack I don't think you really care where the CCTV is.

An argument that, even if it were true, is also rather undermined by "Stations Made Easy" and Google Street View.

I don't think you are quite grasping the point about hostile reconnaissance.

Of course sucking up to the police having a good attitude makes the problems go away sooner, but in my dad's case the "good attitude" required was leaving when he was asked to. Sensible from the point of view of having an easy life, but I can understand why some people would prefer to stand their ground.

I certainly don't suck up to the old bill! Years of being treated like $hit for simply going to the match tends to turn you against coppers. I am fairly obstreperous as an individual and still don't have the issues posters here have. Again, I have to ask why.

 

[Watershed]

Any platform which has the TfL Penalty Fare warning signage is technically a Compulsory Ticket Area. I think that just applies to platforms 9 and 10 (and so arguably, by extension, also to platforms 8 and 11) - I can't recall seeing that signage on other platforms.

However, regardless of whether it's a CTA or not, railway staff and police are entitled to tell people to leave the railway under the Byelaws, common law and the many railway trespass laws. The person filming the video clearly doesn't seem to grasp that, and whilst nobody comes out of this looking good, ultimately the situation has arisen as a result of their complete lack of understanding of the fact that there's isn't a public right of way to access the railway (other than specific footpaths etc. - so not relevant at Euston), in the same way there is for a street pavement.

 

[dosxuk]

Suspicious does not equate to prohibited.

Being seen to be intentionally filming or photographing security equipment, procedures or setup is suspicious. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate or acceptable reasons to be doing so, but it is not something that a normal member of the public going about their business is going to be doing. Nobody should feel aggrieved if their behaviour is enquired about if they're doing things that are unusual.

Obviously, some staff will take this to the extreme and want to enquire about everything - that needs dealing with and training out of them - but equally some members of the public like to push the boundaries as far as they can.

 

[43066]

Doesn’t really reflect particularly well on anyone, and isn’t really the best use of police time.

To be honest by wandering about in an area where he had no reason to be this guy was clearly acting in a suspicions way. A little like someone standing on a platform where nothing ever stops. Not prohibited, but clearly grounds for investigation to work out whether the person is either a risk to themselves, or has nefarious intent.

Hmmm - hasn’t always been the case. They saw me taking a photograph of a HST on the blocks at Paddington as reasonable grounds to carry out a stop and search.

Presumably there was something about your demeanour they found concerning.