First Glasgow bans school pupils from local service

[PaulMc7]

Mod note: Originally posted in the First Greater Glasgow thread

Sadly the anti-social behaviour with buses isn't stopping.

Worried mum hits out at First Bus after operator BANS all pupils from local service

A DRUMCHAPEL mum admits she is ‘furious’ after a local bus company BANNED all schoolchildren from getting on one of their after-school services.

www.clydebankpost.co.uk

A DRUMCHAPEL mum admits she is ‘furious’ after a local bus company BANNED all schoolchildren from getting on one of their after-school services.

Donna McCauley received a text on Wednesday afternoon addressed to all parents of pupils at Knightswood Secondary informing them that First Bus wouldn’t pick up any pupils from the school with ‘immediate effect.’

The bus operator told the Post the decision to ban pupils for one day was due to "a significant number of anti-social behaviour incidents".

The message sent to parents from the school read: “Please be advised, we have received a call from First Bus to advise that, with immediate effect, they will no longer be picking up any Knightswood Secondary students on their number 6 or 6A buses.”

The west-bound buses ban meant parents of pupils based in Clydebank, Drumchapel or Yoker had just hours to find an alternative way to get their child home from school.

And, speaking to the Post, Ms McCauley confessed her rage at the text.

She said: “I am absolutely furious. They are just blanketing all children as if they all misbehave.

“It’s probably like anything else in society, it’s a small minority of children that are misbehaving."

Ms McCauley revealed her daughter was ‘panicked’ when she messaged her to tell her she wouldn’t be getting the bus home and pleaded with First Bus to reconsider.

She added: “I work till 5pm. There are lots of parents who work and can’t go and collect their children and some parents don’t drive and can’t go and get their children so what is the alternative for these kids to get home?

“There are so many cameras on buses now, why not be working with the school to pinpoint any unruly children to have them removed from the service instead of blanketing the whole school so no schoolchildren are allowed on the bus?”

A spokesperson for First Glasgow said: “Following a significant number of anti-social behaviour incidents since December, we can confirm we are not allowing pupils from Knightswood Secondary School onboard services 6 and 6A today (Wednesday 26th April).

“This is not a decision that has been taken lightly but is only in place for today.

"We have been liaising with the school in recent months and will continue those discussions alongside the campus police representative to try and reduce the chances of repeat incidents.

“If these incidents do continue, we will be left with no option other than to remove services for pupils from Knightswood Secondary School in future.”

A Council spokeswoman said: "It is unfortunate that the behaviour of a minority of young people has resulted in this action being taken by the bus company.

"Pupils have been reminded that they are ambassadors of their school in the local community and should respect others at all times.

"This is not acceptable behaviour, and we will be working with the bus company."

 

[Spsf3232]

I'm impressed that they are finally taking a stand on the anti social behaviour caused. Bus drivers are not baby sitters and shouldn't expect to tolerate the abuse they get for simply just going to work to earn a living.

 

[PaulMc7]

I'm impressed that they are finally taking a stand on the anti social behaviour caused. Bus drivers are not baby sitters and shouldn't expect to tolerate the abuse they get for simply just going to work to earn a living.

I think First have caught up a bit in terms of actually looking after their drivers to be fair to them. There are certainly more pleasant drivers to deal with than unpleasant ones by a fair amount now. I'm surprised it's taken so long for Knightswood secondary to be subject to bans though. It could have happened years ago with some of the stuff I've seen and heard. It's fairly local to me too and I tend to avoid the 6 and 6A around school times where possible.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Announcing this in the middle of the day, and therefore choosing to leave vulnerable people (kids) stranded, sounds like a court case waiting to happen. There must be a duty of care issue here.

 

[Simon75]

Announcing this in the middle of the day, and therefore choosing to leave vulnerable people (kids) stranded, sounds like a court case waiting to happen. There must be a duty of care issue here.

Kids before have been refused before, if they haven't the correct fare

 

[buslad1988]

Announcing this in the middle of the day, and therefore choosing to leave vulnerable people (kids) stranded, sounds like a court case waiting to happen. There must be a duty of care issue here.

Same situation in Edinburgh in regards to youths and anti-social behaviour. Operators cannot win regardless - at some point they have to make a stand. Arguably the free travel for under 22’s scheme has made the situation worse since it’s introduction.

 

[PaulMc7]

Same situation in Edinburgh in regards to youths and anti-social behaviour. Operators cannot win regardless - at some point they have to make a stand. Arguably the free travel for under 22’s scheme has made the situation worse since it’s introduction.

The amount of people I've seen blaming First and criticising them for protecting their staff and other passengers is tragic to be honest. Sadly, it's going to take something very serious happening to someone for something to change. The under 22 passes are good for those who need it but sadly the minority causing trouble are ruining it for them.

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

The amount of people I've seen blaming First and criticising them for protecting their staff and other passengers is tragic to be honest. Sadly, it's going to take something very serious happening to someone for something to change. The under 22 passes are good for those who need it but sadly the minority causing trouble are ruining it for them.

If eventually push comes to shove then nobody travelling with under 22 passes will come..

 

[GusB]

Let's not turn this thread into another excuse to moan about the under 22 pass scheme. You simply cannot tar a whole generation of people with the same brush because of the actions of a few individuals. It's also unfair to those who do behave in a reasonable manner that they're branded as "feral youth" or whatever the buzzword of the day is. Cast your mind back to when you were young: how would you feel about being punished because of the actions of a few numpties?

Regarding the Knightswood situation, it seems to me that First Glasgow has made a bit of a blunder in not providing sufficient notice that they were withdrawing service from school kids that afternoon. If the situation has been brewing since December, why the seemingly last minute decision?

That said, it appears that First's attempts to liaise with the school have not been successful. Is it possible that it has threatened to deny boarding to Knightswood pupils previously, but those threats were either underestimated, or simply ignored? If this is the case I can see why First would be justified in taking some sort of action. Sadly, the only facts we have to go on are those printed in a local rag; the truth is somewhere out there!

How do we solve it? By weeding out the actual troublemakers. This would require people travelling on the buses and monitoring behaviour at certain times of day. The next question is, "who pays for it?" I suspect that's where the stumbling block lies.

 

[Buzby]

As GusB notes, I would be livid if my journey was barred due to the actions of others. Since all of FG buses are equipped with CCTV, I’m interested in why they have not supplied the school with evidence to allow them to identify the miscreants. Of course if they did and the school did nothing, the problem would simply snowball.

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

Let's not turn this thread into another excuse to moan about the under 22 pass scheme. You simply cannot tar a whole generation of people with the same brush because of the actions of a few individuals.

Then what’s the punishment or penalty to the few who do cause a bad situation and how do you police this minority causing the issues?

It's also unfair to those who do behave in a reasonable manner that they're branded as "feral youth" or whatever the buzzword of the day is. Cast your mind back to when you were young: how would you feel about being punished because of the actions of a few numpties?

Cast my mind back? This only tells me that I would’ve simply got on with life and accepted it for what it is..it’s today young that are in some cases outrageously privileged with no thought of what a consequence is for your actions irregardless of the group causing hassle.

Regarding the Knightswood situation, it seems to me that First Glasgow has made a bit of a blunder in not providing sufficient notice that they were withdrawing service from school kids that afternoon. If the situation has been brewing since December, why the seemingly last minute decision?

If being blunt is the fastest most effective way of the issue being “thrown” at not just the public but also causing hassle for the local authority and the public in general so be it, as opposed to the usual softy-lefty approach.

That said, it appears that First's attempts to liaise with the school have not been successful.

Precisely one of a few reasons why a blunt approach is now favourable.

How do we solve it? By weeding out the actual troublemakers. This would require people travelling on the buses and monitoring behaviour at certain times of day. The next question is, "who pays for it?" I suspect that's where the stumbling block lies.

However, if we go down the “all out” monitoring route we are literally on the way to communism..

 

[PaulMc7]

Let's not turn this thread into another excuse to moan about the under 22 pass scheme. You simply cannot tar a whole generation of people with the same brush because of the actions of a few individuals. It's also unfair to those who do behave in a reasonable manner that they're branded as "feral youth" or whatever the buzzword of the day is. Cast your mind back to when you were young: how would you feel about being punished because of the actions of a few numpties?

Regarding the Knightswood situation, it seems to me that First Glasgow has made a bit of a blunder in not providing sufficient notice that they were withdrawing service from school kids that afternoon. If the situation has been brewing since December, why the seemingly last minute decision?

That said, it appears that First's attempts to liaise with the school have not been successful. Is it possible that it has threatened to deny boarding to Knightswood pupils previously, but those threats were either underestimated, or simply ignored? If this is the case I can see why First would be justified in taking some sort of action. Sadly, the only facts we have to go on are those printed in a local rag; the truth is somewhere out there!

How do we solve it? By weeding out the actual troublemakers. This would require people travelling on the buses and monitoring behaviour at certain times of day. The next question is, "who pays for it?" I suspect that's where the stumbling block lies.

I'm from nearby Knightswood use the 6 regularly; I'm surprised it took this long to happen. I try to avoid it as much as humanly possible. As a kid, I'd have understood that passenger and staff safety comes first and I'm glad First are actually taking action now regarding it. I highly doubt this will be the last time this happens with any school either.

The timing was a bit last minute and it's interesting that only the 6 and 6A are mentioned, yet the M11 runs with the 6A and the X4 and 16 aren't exactly massive walks away from that school either.

I don't know about Knightswood but I know my old school that's a bit down the road from it employ their own police officer now. The problem is that policing is majorly stretched in the area and in 18 and a half years of living nearby, I've probably seen police officers near Knightswood secondary school 3 or 4 times at most and that was when the McDonald's up from Knightswood secondary was having issues with kids too resulting in bans at different times. I didn't actually notice any signs regarding the bans when I was in it yesterday but I'd imagine they still limit the number a lot going into it.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Cast my mind back? This only tells me that I would’ve simply got on with life and accepted it for what it is..it’s today young that are in some cases outrageously privileged with no thought of what a consequence is for your actions irregardless of the group causing hassle.

It's "outrageously privileged" to expect not to be punished for the actions of others? To expect not to be discriminated against on the grounds of age (a protected characteristic under the Equality Act)

By all means take robust action against the individuals who are causing trouble, but this seems disproportionate.

 

[mb88]

Surely if the offending children are using a young scot card when they board it would be easy enough to trace the culprits? I’m assuming the ticketer records the details of each pass scanned which can then be traced back to the owner.

 

[dgl]

I suppose they are hoping that by banning all pupils the parents of the ones who aren't at fault will help sort the situation.

 

[GusB]

If eventually push comes to shove then nobody travelling with under 22 passes will come..

This does not make sense. Do you mean "nobody travelling without under 22 passes will come"?

Then what’s the punishment or penalty to the few who do cause a bad situation and how do you police this minority causing the issues?

That would be up to the school, presumably, and I would hope the parents would also be involved. If any of the actions were criminal, then the police should also be taking action. You police it by having a visible staff presence on the bus; this could be provided by either the school/council, the bus company itself or the actual police, if necessary.

Cast my mind back? This only tells me that I would’ve simply got on with life and accepted it for what it is..it’s today young that are in some cases outrageously privileged with no thought of what a consequence is for your actions irregardless of the group causing hassle.

If being blunt is the fastest most effective way of the issue being “thrown” at not just the public but also causing hassle for the local authority and the public in general so be it, as opposed to the usual softy-lefty approach.

Yes, cast your mind back; you were young once! You may have been happy to accept collective punishment for the actions of others, but I certainly wasn't. "Being blunt" means that those who haven't caused any trouble are being penalised for the actions of those who have. Is that fair? It's not a "softy-lefty" approach to ensure that those who are causing disruption are the ones who suffer for it.

Oh, you missed the word "woke" out.

However, if we go down the “all out” monitoring route we are literally on the way to communism..

Eh?!

 

[Spsf3232]

I suppose they are hoping that by banning all pupils the parents of the ones who aren't at fault will help sort the situation.

I have wondered why this isn't the route that's taken as most people use some form of card to get on the bus why can't this be used to identify the problems.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's "outrageously privileged" to expect not to be punished for the actions of others? To expect not to be discriminated against on the grounds of age (a protected characteristic under the Equality Act)

By all means take robust action against the individuals who are causing trouble, but this seems disproportionate.

Well quite. We all know that kids can be little so and sos. I was one once!

I’m very sceptical that refusing children a bus service on the sole basis of their age - or likewise saying “only two children in the shop at one time” rules, are lawful. Try it with any other protected characteristic and see how far you get.

 

[PaulMc7]

I have wondered why this isn't the route that's taken as most people use some form of card to get on the bus why can't this be used to identify the problems.

The problem is how many kids would get on the bus at once so there isn't anything stopping a banned kid sneaking on while someone that isn't banned is scanning their pass. The drivers can't do much if that happens either because the kids probably wouldn't get off the bus and instead would probably try to create more issues. Unfortunately, banning everyone is the only way to prevent it from getting worse until they find those responsible for the issues.

 

[GusB]

The problem is how many kids would get on the bus at once so there isn't anything stopping a banned kid sneaking on while someone that isn't banned is scanning their pass. The drivers can't do much if that happens either because the kids probably wouldn't get off the bus and instead would probably try to create more issues. Unfortunately, banning everyone is the only way to prevent it from getting worse until they find those responsible for the issues.

The kids should be boarding one at a time anyway, and if someone does sneak past and refuses to leave, there's one easy solution: the bus goes nowhere until that person leaves and the general public will deal with it!

Banning everyone is not the solution. Can you imagine the headlines if one of those kids turned out to have a disability that means they have to use the bus?

 

[PaulMc7]

The kids should be boarding one at a time anyway, and if someone does sneak past and refuses to leave, there's one easy solution: the bus goes nowhere until that person leaves and the general public will deal with it!

Banning everyone is not the solution. Can you imagine the headlines if one of those kids turned out to have a disability that means they have to use the bus?

Should be boarding one at a time and reality are unfortunately two very different things at times from what I've seen on the 6. It tends to become an unorganised scramble to get on.

It's not good but not doing anything until the problem-causing kids are identified doesn't work either and just leaves drivers and other passengers open to more abuse. As someone with a disability I can see your point but I think First are in the right to choose this response, although they should have given more notice.

 

[Simon75]

The kids should be boarding one at a time anyway, and if someone does sneak past and refuses to leave, there's one easy solution: the bus goes nowhere until that person leaves and the general public will deal with it!

Banning everyone is not the solution. Can you imagine the headlines if one of those kids turned out to have a disability that means they have to use the bus?

Can the general public evict kids off a bus for the driver? A driver told me it classed as assault to a minor?

 

[Flying Snail]

The kids should be boarding one at a time anyway, and if someone does sneak past and refuses to leave,

What should happen and what does happen are two very different things.

It's all well and good for the internet warriors to be opining on who should do what but non of you are there. One single solitary bus driver is and he has precisely one weapon at his disposal; ban the schoolkids so it becomes the problem of other people and not his to deal with alone.

there's one easy solution: the bus goes nowhere until that person leaves and the general public will deal with it!

What world are you living in? It certainly isn't the real one where 99.99% of the public will sit meekly looking into space afraid of any confrontation expecting somebody in authority to fix the problem.

Just look at the reaction on here when any sort of anti social behaviour is discussed, a pile on of weak little menbabies all chiming in with the chorus of "I won't say anything, the mean boy might hit me", that is the reality of the public in 2023.

Banning everyone is notthe solution. Can you imagine the headlines if one of those kids turned out to have a disability that means they have to use the bus?

Ah yes, the trademark RailUK Forums Disability Card, it was only a matter of time before that was played. Why are you assuming that if such a student exists that they are entirely innocent, a virtuous victim of circumstance and not part of the trouble, sounds like some kind of reverse discrimination to me.

Even if this saintly disabled child who is now being discriminated against exists, why aren't they reporting to the school the names of the offending students causing the trouble? The same question goes for all the other "my child is perfect it's others causing the trouble" brigade, the bus driver does not know the names of the troublemakers, all the other schoolkids do so why aren't they all reporting the guilty?

 

[mb88]

Why does the school not have teachers stood at the bus stop at kicking out time? Granted this wouldn’t solve any issues whilst the kids are actually on the bus, but it would bring some sort of order to what sounds like an absolutely chaotic situation at this particular school with them all piling onto the bus. This is the norm outside some schools in London, the teachers will line the pupils up, allow any other passengers waiting to board first, and then make sure they board one at a time and in a calm manner. That’s half the battle, surely?

 

[Flange Squeal]

Well quite. We all know that kids can be little so and sos. I was one once!

I’m very sceptical that refusing children a bus service on the sole basis of their age - or likewise saying “only two children in the shop at one time” rules, are lawful. Try it with any other protected characteristic and see how far you get.

Saga do it by not letting anyone under 50 (except a 40+ companion of a 50+ year old) travel on board their cruise ships, so First choosing to not allow people under a certain age (and at that limited to a certain school, not everyone below a certain age) on board their buses is surely similar in principle?

The kids should be boarding one at a time anyway, and if someone does sneak past and refuses to leave, there's one easy solution: the bus goes nowhere until that person leaves and the general public will deal with it!

So you're saying the solution to this long running problem is, rather than expecting the school to assist with their pupils, actually to rely on members of the public to physically remove minors from a vehicle? Give it a try - see how long before videos of you appear all over TikTok and the local "news" website manhandling a child, and Plod turn up for a wee chat. Just verbally telling them "The bus isn't going anywhere with you on it" is unlikely to do much - there's no incentive for them to get off! Having driven school buses and being in a situation whereby a child got on without a pass or money - just an attitude of "I'm not paying, just drive the bus you ?*%$", it was only when I got out the vehicle and found a teacher who was able to summon the headteacher that anything happened. But by the sounds of it, it's been "months" of liaising with this school (and more recently "campus police") and they've seemingly not done much to help, so it's understandable First are reaching the end of their tether and trying to send some sort of message (for one day) to the school that something seriously needs to be done.

Thankfully in my case the operator I worked for backed their drivers up after repeated vandalism and vulgar behaviour, and the school began (like @mb88 described) putting teachers out to oversee the bus stops and loading of buses outside the school. While the teachers weren't travelling on the buses, this simple act seemed to reduce some of the trouble. Although all vehicles had CCTV, and notices highlighting that, one can only presume that knowing teachers were watching who was getting on what bus (even if in reality they're unlikely to remember given teachers were out on a rotation rather than same ones every day), it possibly made the kids feel more 'watched'.

 

[GusB]

So you're saying the solution to this long running problem is, rather than expecting the school to assist with their pupils, actually to rely on members of the public to physically remove minors from a vehicle? Give it a try - see how long before videos of you appear all over TikTok and the local "news" website manhandling a child, and Plod turn up for a wee chat. Just verbally telling them "The bus isn't going anywhere with you on it" is unlikely to do much - there's no incentive for them to get off! Having driven school buses and being in a situation whereby a child got on without a pass or money - just an attitude of "I'm not paying, just drive the bus you ?*%$", it was only when I got out the vehicle and found a teacher who was able to summon the headteacher that anything happened. But by the sounds of it, it's been "months" of liaising with this school (and more recently "campus police") and they've seemingly not done much to help, so it's understandable First are reaching the end of their tether and trying to send some sort of message (for one day) to the school that something seriously needs to be done.

For goodness' sake, calm down. In no way was I suggesting that any physical removal take place.

 

[Flange Squeal]

For goodness' sake, calm down. In no way was I suggesting that any physical removal take place.

Care to tell us what you meant when you said the public will "deal with it" in your "easy solution" then? Just verbally tell them to get off, exactly like the bus driver would have already been doing? If you are a bus driver yourself and located in Elginshire as per your profile location, then unruly children must be a lot more polite and obeying there than in many other parts of the UK. I wish they were in the areas I've driven buses!

 

[GusB]

Care to tell us what you meant when you said the public will "deal with it" in your "easy solution" then? Just verbally tell them to get off, exactly like the bus driver would have already been doing? If you are a bus driver yourself and located in Elginshire as per your profile location, then unruly children must be a lot more polite and obeying there than in many other parts of the UK. I wish they were in the areas I've driven buses!

Anti-social behaviour happens. Driver says "I won't continue on this journey until the relevant offenders leave the bus". Other passengers whose journeys have been disrupted then put pressure on the the miscreants to leave the bus. Offenders get bored and leave.

I'm not suggesting that's likely to happen in all situations, but do not underestimate the power of those who have places to be and things to do to deal with others who disrupt their plans.

I have no idea why you brought up my particular location: anti-social behaviour happens in urban and rural areas.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Anti-social behaviour happens. Driver says "I won't continue on this journey until the relevant offenders leave the bus". Other passengers whose journeys have been disrupted then put pressure on the the miscreants to leave the bus. Offenders get bored and leave.

I'm not suggesting that's likely to happen in all situations, but do not underestimate the power of those who have places to be and things to do to deal with others who disrupt their plans.

I have no idea why you brought up my particular location: anti-social behaviour happens in urban and rural areas.

If you actually read my post, I said why. Because clearly unruly children seem likely to respond to a verbal request where you are, based on what you say stands a good chance of happening, more so than they are in the various parts of the UK I've had the pleasure of driving buses. What would you say your success rate is with the verbal method in your experience as a driver, and passengers successfully encouraging the person to leave vs starting on you or resorting to getting physical? Genuinely interested if I've just been unfortunate with areas I've worked.

 

[GusB]

If you actually read my post, I said why. Because clearly unruly children seem likely to respond to a verbal request where you are, based on what you say stands a good chance of happening, more so than they are in the various parts of the UK I've had the pleasure of driving buses. What would you say your success rate is with the verbal method in your experience as a driver, and passengers successfully encouraging the person to leave vs starting on you or resorting to getting physical? Genuinely interested if I've just been unfortunate with areas I've worked.

It seems that nobody has actually read what I had posted earlier in the thread.

Many assumptions have been made in the course of this discussion, one of them being that I'm a bus driver; I'm not, but having to deal with obnoxious people is not solely the preserve of bus drivers.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• I do not condone anti-social behaviour on buses
• The remedy is to bring the relevant parties together, be it schools, the bus company, police and parents
• All we know about this situation is what the Clydebank Post has reported; there's bound to be more to this than what we've read so far

I stand by my view that a blanket ban on all pupils from a particular school is unnecessary, unfair and probably unworkable.

• You cannot assume that everyone is responsible for anti-social behaviour and, therefore, collective punishment is inappropriate.
• It should not be assumed that someone who is aware of the anti-social behaviour of others is going to "grass" on their peers - surely the implications of this should be fairly obvious
• Someone attending the school may not necessarily live "nearby" - ie, within walking distance
• If the bus company applies a ban to one particular route, how are they going to enforce it on another nearby route? How do they identify that the people concerned attend that particular school?