Filming a conversation on trains & at stations.

[penaltyfines]

With the advent of camera phones etc it's always a good idea to record the situation if the TM is acting unreasonably or illegally. They often pipe down when they realise their bosses may see their behavior, or end up on next week's episode of WatchDog!

 

[cuccir]

With the advent of camera phones etc it's always a good idea to record the situation if the TM is acting unreasonably or illegally. They often pipe down when they realise their bosses may see their behavior, or end up on next week's episode of WatchDog!

Perhaps, but it's always good to avoid acting overly confrontational, which this might be. Indeed, the OP made no comment about the guard/TM's behaviour: it could just be that the guard genuinely thought he was doing the right thing

 

[222007]

With the advent of camera phones etc it's always a good idea to record the situation

Which has potential to make the situation even worse IMHO which in this case the OP did not want to do. I completely agree however the Virgin TM was unreasonable and should have aloud you to travel.

 

[Flamingo]

With the advent of camera phones etc it's always a good idea to record the situation if the TM is acting unreasonably or illegally. They often pipe down when they realise their bosses may see their behavior, or end up on next week's episode of WatchDog!

The advice to video a situation is particularly unhelpful (and smacks of our friend from Guide Bridge). I know that on the two occasions when someone started to video me telling them their advance ticket was invalid, they got charged a full open single, not the excess to supersaver (plus £10) that would have happened if they had been less confrontational.

As it was going to be produced in evidence, I had to be seen to be working according to the CoC.

 

[penaltyfines]

Which has potential to make the situation even worse IMHO which in this case the OP did not want to do. I completely agree however the Virgin TM was unreasonable and should have aloud you to travel.

I don't see how it can make it worse at all, you're perfectly entitled to do so as much as they are to cover trains by CCTV....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The advice to video a situation is particularly unhelpful (and smacks of our friend from Guide Bridge). I know that on the two occasions when someone started to video me telling them their advance ticket was invalid, they got charged a full open single, not the excess to supersaver (plus £10) that would have happened if they had been less confrontational.

As it was going to be produced in evidence, I had to be seen to be working according to the CoC.

If you're in the wrong, then any 'upping the ante' of proving you're right will result in that, just as much as saying you will take them to court.

But I don't see how it can be seen as confrontational, you're in a public space with no reasonable expectation of privacy, why would having a record of what is said be anything but a good thing if you're doing your job properly?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't see how it can make it worse at all, . . . .

I would have thought that Flamingo's response would have been a good enough illustration.
However, as it clearly hasn't helped you, lets just think this through . . .
- you want to record something at the same time as being an 'interested party' - your 'evidence' is dubious because of your bias.
- you expect both parties to behave as if the camera wan't present - they won't. The 'other person' will play by the rules (and not by their instincts nor disposition) and the passenger will be acting as both 'the actor / MoP' and 'the Producer' of the video.
- the surrounding interest in the proceedings is likely to become a factor, and either party is likely to be indifferent/intimidated/excited/irritated by the recording and to react accordingly - not anything to do with an analysis of the NRCoC.

I speak from a little experience, people who have felt aggrieved by their interactions and who have produced a 'home video' of their side of the events as evidence, have never (in my experience) managed to influence a Court in their favour.

In fact the last time I was asked to produce some self-produced video evidence in Court, I can remember clearly the exchange of glances between me and the Court Usher with my cue to dim the lighting, it was that eyes rolling upwards gesture meaning "here we go, this is just going to waste everyone's time, including you and me, isn't it?" It makes the person who made the video feel important for a few minutes.
It also makes them angry for months afterwards while they're paying the costs of the Court case they lost.

Thanks to technological developments, we can all be video producers.
Thanks to reading and writing, we can all be legal experts.
One doesn't lead to the other and we seem to have a slight imbalance between the two at the moment.

 

[Flamingo]

If you're in the wrong, then any 'upping the ante' of proving you're right will result in that, just as much as saying you will take them to court.

Might I remind you of the "fair and balanced" reporting of the incident involving a Northern Guard and a gent in a wheelchair a few months ago. The editing of the video was not exactly showing the full picture.

By all means video me doing the job - then give me a full copy as well. It can be blue-toothed to my phone in a few seconds.

But I don't see how it can be seen as confrontational, you're in a public space with no reasonable expectation of privacy, why would having a record of what is said be anything but a good thing if you're doing your job properly?

You are under a few common misconceptions here
1. The railway is not a public space. It is private property to which the public is admitted
2. I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, to the extent that I do not have to be filmed without my consent.

Our advice is that if anybody starts filming us in these circumstances, then withdraw, and ask for assistance at the next station.

In the light of the incident a few months ago with Northern, I would probably refuse to take the train any further whilst the passenger concerned was anywhere on the train or platform. I would certainly not continue with my safety-critical role whilst worrying about this incident.. However, I would (in the interests of keeping passengers informed), make a PA announcement explaining what had occurred, and why the train was now not moving any further. I would include details of the passenger involved in that announcement.

I don't see how it can make it worse at all, you're perfectly entitled to do so as much as they are to cover trains by CCTV....

CCTV does not include audio, and is not going to be posted in a malicious manner on YouTube and biased stories on local news networks.

 

[All Line Rover]

1. The railway is not a public space. It is private property to which the public is admitted

That's not a very good argument. a. The railways used to be owned by taxpayers (in a sense) and b. a very large proportion of it is still funded by taxpayers!

 

[ainsworth74]

That's not a very good argument. a. The railways used to be owned by taxpayers (in a sense) and b. a very large proportion of it is still funded by taxpayers!

But it is private property and where the funding comes from is irrelevant it's owned by private companies.

 

[Flamingo]

That's not a very good argument. a. The railways used to be owned by taxpayers (in a sense) and b. a very large proportion of it is still funded by taxpayers!

So is the Tower of London. Try waltzing in there after closing time and see what happens

Anyway, this is going off-thread.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

1. The railway is not a public space. It is private property to which the public is admitted

That's not a very good argument. a. The railways used to be owned by taxpayers (in a sense) and b. a very large proportion of it is still funded by taxpayers!

Lets not confuse what we think is the case (or would like to think is the case) with fact.

It is a fact that Railway Property is just that. It is Railway Property; it cannot simultaneously be the property of you, me nor anybody else.

Your opinions are noted. So, I hope, are the facts. They differ.

 

[All Line Rover]

Lets not confuse what we think is the case (or would like to think is the case) with fact.

It is a fact that Railway Property is just that. It is Railway Property; it cannot simultaneously be the property of you, me nor anybody else.

Your opinions are noted. So, I hope, are the facts. They differ.

True, but few members of the public seem to realize that!

I'm not denying that Railway Stations (and the like) are private property. But they don't have the "right" to kick people out for no reason, or to deny filming for any purpose (e.g. for train spotting, which I do not participate in ), just because "we're privately owned property."

These principals apply to "public property" as well (such as parks) in that you can't smoke or loiter about. But you aren't prohibited from filming!

The government could easily remove railway stations from private ownership if it wanted to, in particularly those owned by Network Rail. Of course, it won't, but it would be pretty easy to do so.

 

[yorkie]

The government could easily remove railway stations from private ownership if it wanted to, in particularly those owned by Network Rail.

Out of interest, which ones are not owned by Network Rail? The only one I can think of is Fishguard. (I can discount the TfL/LU stations because they are obviously not in 'private ownership')

I don't think this discussion is helping (and if it continues one of us will have the job of splitting this thread!).

 

[penaltyfines]

You are under a few common misconceptions here
1. The railway is not a public space. It is private property to which the public is admitted
2. I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, to the extent that I do not have to be filmed without my consent.

I'm not going to continue arguing over the rest of the points as it is a matter of opinion, not fact.

But on these points - it is not whether it is owned by a private entity, public sector etc. It is whether it is a public space, and whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You would expect to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home for example. But not, however, in a crowded pub - even if it is owned privately!!!

There is nothing to stop me recording you on a train if I so wish, nor to require me to give you a copy, to stop doing so, etc.

 

[All Line Rover]

Out of interest, which ones are not owned by Network Rail? The only one I can think of is Fishguard. (I can discount the TfL/LU stations because they are obviously not in 'private ownership')

I don't think this discussion is helping (and if it continues one of us will have the job of splitting this thread!).

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/765.aspx?



If you want to respond please do so in a new thread!

 

[CarterUSM]

Out of interest, which ones are not owned by Network Rail? The only one I can think of is Fishguard. (I can discount the TfL/LU stations because they are obviously not in 'private ownership')

I don't think this discussion is helping (and if it continues one of us will have the job of splitting this thread!).

Prestwick International Airport?

 

[yorkie]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/765.aspx?



If you want to respond please do so in a new thread!

Did you mean to say "run" when you said "owned"? And are now giving me the inverse answer?

 

[All Line Rover]

Did you mean to say "run" when you said "owned"? And are now giving me the inverse answer?

Are you implying that Network Rail own all stations and TOC's simply run some of them? I never knew that!

In actual fact it seems very logical since Network Rail own all of the infrastructure.

 

[yorkie]

Are you implying that Network Rail own all stations and TOC's simply run some of them? I never knew that!

In actual fact it seems very logical since Network Rail own all of the infrastructure.

Yes, well, except Fishguard, and perhaps Prestwick, and possibly one or two others...

 

[gnolife]

I can think of Horwich Parkway (TfGM) , and the Heathrow stations (BAA)

 

[thefab444]

Warwick Parkway is owned by Chiltern.

 

[Metrailway]

Warwick Parkway is owned by Chiltern.

I think Aylesbury Vale Parkway is owned by Chiltern as well

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm not denying that Railway Stations (and the like) are private property. But they don't have the "right" to kick people out for no reason, or to deny filming for any purpose (e.g. for train spotting, which I do not participate in ), just because "we're privately owned property."

They have the right to kick anyone out they wish. The public have no right to be on Railway property, but are admitted for the purpose of travelling.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you implying that Network Rail own all stations and TOC's simply run some of them? I never knew that!

In actual fact it seems very logical since Network Rail own all of the infrastructure.

Yes - TOCs manage stations on behalf of Network Rail. Wholesale repairs to railway stations, and major improvement works, are always undertaken by Network Rail.

Network Rail is a strange beast; it's probably most accurate to describe it as a publically-funded, private company.

The public have no right of way on the railway unless they have legitimate railway business; and even if they are on legitimate railway business, the railway can still refuse admittance at will.

 

[Smethwickian]

They have the right to kick anyone out they wish. The public have no right to be on Railway property, but are admitted for the purpose of travelling.

This has been mentioned before on other threads about whether rights of way can exist across stations and/or whether barriers could prevent people using stations as some kind of short cut.

I would agree that, like shopping centres and similar places, railway stations and trains themselves are often open to the public for the purposes of conducting relevant business, but are not public property and no right of way exists nor any right to remain if requested by an authorised person to leave the premises.

By logical extension, and knowing just a little of the law about filming and photographing in 'public' places after 23 years as a journalist, I would say that you would be on a sticky wicket if you refused to stop filming a member of staff, on railway property or a train, when asked to do so.

 

[Anvil1984]

I'm not going to continue arguing over the rest of the points as it is a matter of opinion, not fact.

But on these points - it is not whether it is owned by a private entity, public sector etc. It is whether it is a public space, and whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You would expect to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home for example. But not, however, in a crowded pub - even if it is owned privately!!!

There is nothing to stop me recording you on a train if I so wish, nor to require me to give you a copy, to stop doing so, etc.

Yes there is, it can be claimed as harrassment and if you continue after being asked to finish then I will terminate any dealings with said person and management or even police informed.

 

[90019]

But they don't have the "right" to kick people out for no reason

Yes, they do.

I can't remember if this is right or not (I'm sure someone with better knowledge will confirm or correct it), but aren't they allowed to use 'reasonable force' to make you leave the station if you refuse?

 

[merlodlliw]

Out of interest, which ones are not owned by Network Rail? The only one I can think of is Fishguard. (I can discount the TfL/LU stations because they are obviously not in 'private ownership')

I don't think this discussion is helping (and if it continues one of us will have the job of splitting this thread!).

Rhyl station is owned by Denbighshire County Council. They sublet the buildings to ATW & a few more companies, however NR own the track that runs
between the platforms.

Bob

 

[Flamingo]

There is nothing to stop me recording you on a train if I so wish, nor to require me to give you a copy, to stop doing so, etc.

Try it. See what the outcome is.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If the TM or guard is being unreasonable or is wrong, then I see no problem in videoing them as evidence.
However, if you are wrong yourself, then you are playing a very dangerous game and will probably find yourself in a worse position (as Flamingo has demonstrated).

But if the member of staff is wrong (like the Virgin TM in the thread about being charged £139 because they were delayed by a prior train), then the staff member only has themselves to blame.