TPE kicks woman and child off train

[Tomonthetrain]

That is not known IMHO I feel there is so much more to this than meets the eye like so many other stories that we hear, I certainly will not pass jusgement until all the real facts emerge and not a rant on facebook

NB Daily Mail need not apply!

No, the ethically correct thing to do would be to treat her in the same way as a drunken teenager. Equality works both ways despite what feminists would have you think
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How dare you use common sense and logic in an argument regarding a child

Common Sense? Whats that?

Or there is more to this than you know, someone who follows the rules IS NOT a jobsworth they are someone who is doing there job correctly, they are only a jobsworth to peoplewouldo they either catch breaking the rules or inconvenience

woohoooo I'm a Jobsworth

Me too!

 

[transmanche]

Looking at s158 of the Equality Act 2010, it all depends on whether the guard 'reasonable thinks that a persons gender is a protected charictoristic'.

Different people will have different views on that and it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law.

No I think you're confusing the issue.

You asked whether the AA offering a priority service to lone women with children would contravene the Equalities Act. And I said that s29 & s158 suggest that it wouldn't. So s158 might protect the AA because they're taking 'positive' action in favour of one sex for a valid reason, rather than 'negative' action against the other.

That's not quite the same choice that the guard is making when deciding whether or not to throw the woman off the train.

(Where it might apply is if the guard threw a man off at the station, but not the woman with a child. Then s158 might protect the guard/TOC from a claim being made by the man. Hopefully the difference between the two scenarios is clear.)

 

[Batman]

I think that case related to the fact it was the same service but provided at a different price.

I guess it's too soon for such things to have been tested in the courts, but I think it's permitted under s29 & s158 of the Equality Act 2010. As in this case, the same service is being provided at the same price - just that at busy times certain types of people are being given priority.

I very much doubt the woman in question could use s158 as a defence in court. Protected Charictoristics would not apply in this case because nobody is claiming that she has been discriminiated against because of her gender, or the age of her child.

Now if the guard had asked all the women and children to leave the train, then she obviously would be able to use s158, but nobody is trying to claim that she was kicked off the train for any reason other than not being able to produce a valid ticket and not having the funds to pay for one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No I think you're confusing the issue.

You asked whether the AA offering a priority service to lone women with children would contravene the Equalities Act. And I said that s29 & s158 suggest that it wouldn't. So s158 might protect the AA because they're taking 'positive' action in favour of one sex for a valid reason, rather than 'negative' action against the other.

That's not quite the same choice that the guard is making when deciding whether or not to throw the woman off the train.

(Where it might apply is if the guard threw a man off at the station, but not the woman with a child. Then s158 might protect the guard/TOC from a claim being made by the man. Hopefully the difference between the two scenarios is clear.)

Ok, I understand your point, and to avoid confusion, I wrote post 123 before reading post 122.

 

[Batman]

No I think you're confusing the issue.

You asked whether the AA offering a priority service to lone women with children would contravene the Equalities Act. And I said that s29 & s158 suggest that it wouldn't. So s158 might protect the AA because they're taking 'positive' action in favour of one sex for a valid reason, rather than 'negative' action against the other.

That's not quite the same choice that the guard is making when deciding whether or not to throw the woman off the train.

(Where it might apply is if the guard threw a man off at the station, but not the woman with a child. Then s158 might protect the guard/TOC from a claim being made by the man. Hopefully the difference between the two scenarios is clear.)

Although I agree with the general point you have made, can I just add another point to it by saying that in that hypothetical senario, the guard guard may be able to use s158 as a defence in court, but it is not a water-tight defence. The man who was thrown off the train may still be able to argue that under the circumstances a woman and child would be at no greater disadvantage than a man. And I can think of ways of being able to put that argument across.

 

[Barn]

Looking at s158 of the Equality Act 2010, it all depends on whether the guard 'reasonable thinks that a persons gender is a protected charictoristic'.

Different people will have different views on that and it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law.

No, it doesn't say that. Sex is a protected characteristic. The judgement to be made is whether women suffer a particular detriment, have particular needs, or are poorly represented in an activity. And the court does not decide whether those are the case, only if the person's belief was reasonable or not.

 

[spacehopper]

Can I just say that the "DFS" option never ever works!

"My mate will pay for it at the other end"- never had a mate turn up and on the one occasion I did they had a Solo card :roll:

They've even put the mate on phone to say they will be at station to pay- surprise surprise- open local door- so where's your mate then? Followed by being barged out the way as they leg it out of the local door.

This is after they have given a fake address, don't have purse on them or any ID- except a Gala Bingo card!

If you fail the 3 fails and refuse to cooperate and get abusive- then you "will be asked to leave the train".

 

[Batman]

No, it doesn't say that. Sex is a protected characteristic. The judgement to be made is whether women suffer a particular detriment, have particular needs, or are poorly represented in an activity. And the court does not decide whether those are the case, only if the person's belief was reasonable or not.

So if the conducter explained in court that when reaching their decision to kick the woman off the train, at no time did they base that decision on the womans gender of the age of her child, they'd be able to get away with that?

 

[junglejames]

But anyone would seem "happy" to pay by any means if they had been caught, regardless of whether it was a case of intended evasion or not. Presumably the latter is probably true in this case.

The issue is, anyone can make a similar claim and more often than not, this claim would be someone trying it on. Are staff expected to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in this situation, or pick and choose depending on the situation i.e a woman and child? That is what is clouding judgement here for many, simply because it was a woman and child involved and surely all women with children are upstanding citizens and wouldn't dream of breaking the law. :roll:

[youtube]S-xeStoNHFY[/youtube]

No the point was, that she never refused to pay.

 

[SS4]

No the point was, that she never refused to pay.

How do you know that?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think if I was the guard and this was happening to me, I'd call Control for their support before making the decision. Would take the heat off you and you'd have the support of your employer...well you'd hope.

 

[northwichcat]

Update: Lucy C, the woman who claimed she and her child had also been thrown off a TPE train (not the original person mentioned who hasn't posted on Facebook herself- just some who witnessed it) has uploaded an Advance Single ticket with a Family railcard discount for Scarborough - York. So we know what journey one of them was making and with what ticket, but not the other.

I find the reply from Megan Fox amusing saying if you forgot your plane ticket you wouldn't still expect to go on holiday. With most airlines now you would.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

No the point was, that she never refused to pay.

Yep how DO you know that?? or are you assuming?..hang on its all about assumption, guesswork with no real facts
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Update: The woman who, on Facebook, claimed she and her child had also been thrown off a TPE train (not the original person mentioned who hasn't posted on Facebook herself- just some who witnessed it) has uploaded an Advance Single ticket with a Family railcard discount for Scarborough - York. So we know what journey one of them was making and with what ticket, but not the other.

and proves??

Give me 5 mins on a train I can find many different tickets

I just want some proof of the womans claim nothing more, I have a thing about facts..I like them before making a decision, however in my years of guarding I have seen MANY parents WITH Children attempting to fare evade and with every incident I use my experience and knowledge to make an informed decision on my next course of action

 

[northwichcat]

and proves??

Give me 5 mins on a train I can find many different tickets

I just want some proof of the womans claim nothing more, I have a thing about facts..I like them before making a decision, however in my years of guarding I have seen MANY parents WITH Children attempting to fare evade and with every incident I use my experience and knowledge to make an informed decision on my next course of action

As it's an Advance booking TPE can use that to check if a woman + child was thrown off the train they were booked on via the 185's CCTV.

Also as it was purchased on a different day to when it was used, it means the chance of forgetting a railcard is higher.

 

[junglejames]

And I think there lies the problem, perception. Out of interest, why couldn't you believe that she'd be a regular fare evader? What makes you think that way? No axe to grind, I'm genuinly interested?

Because she brought a ticket. Do regular fare evaders often buy railcard reduced tickets without having a railcard full stop? Oh ok, yeah perhaps they do. Sorry, probably a poor perception that one!

However, she has gone onto a facebook page which TPE have full access to and are reading (obviously), and has said that she has already provided evidence of her railcard to TPE. Its also been said that TPE are investigating it, so she must have gone to them again in an official way, ie through customer services. Would you claim on TPEs facebook page that you have provided this evidence, and then lodge a complaint? Because its quite obvious if your claim is untrue, TPE will see this, and throw the complaint out.
OK if you just wanted to unfairly make TPE look like animals in public, then yes, you may say this, but not if you then followed it up with a complaint, as the complaint would be a waste. Or are we saying its all a set up, and when TPE throw the complaint out, she comes back making them look even worse? Either she isnt a regular fare dodger, or she is, and also quite vindictive. Thats one large case growing against her now if so.

Nope, I reckon she did have a railcard, but it had just been mislaid. Im not saying whether or not the rest of the story is true or not, but I do reckon the bit about misplacing the railcard is true. Hence not a typical fare dodger.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

What if she was honest, and a UPFN would have done the job? Assuming it wasnt.
OK it would seem strange if it wasnt, but its unfair to assume she is lying. We shall probably never know....

I don't know if she is/was lying, but I really think she is omitting things in this rather too brief account of events.

Update: Lucy C, the woman who claimed she and her child had also been thrown off a TPE train (not the original person mentioned who hasn't posted on Facebook herself- just some who witnessed it) has uploaded an Advance Single ticket with a Family railcard discount for Scarborough - York. So we know what journey one of them was making and with what ticket, but not the other...

Dated 5th September 2011? I thought this was recent!

EDIT: Actually, looking at it, why would the guard squiggle on it if he wasn't happy with it? That seems a little odd to me.

 

[CarterUSM]

To be honest, I don't think it is appropriate to put anybody off at an unmanned station at that time of night for a ticketing matter.

 

[junglejames]

I don't know if she is/was lying, but I really think she is omitting things in this rather too brief account of events.



Dated 5th September 2011? I thought this was recent!

Nope, the incident with Lucy was last year. She mentioned this, and said that her original complaint was basically thrown out. However it seems as though they are investigating it again.

I assumed Lucy's case was the one they started talking about to start with, and someone had brought up the old story? I dont know. Anyway, either way, we are all talking about Lucy's case now, and yes it was last year.
This will be the second time TPE have apparently looked into her case.

 

[northwichcat]

Dated 5th September 2011? I thought this was recent!

The original story is recent and is told by someone who witnessed it, not the person who was thrown off. A second person has come in and said the same thing happened to her last year.

 

[Batman]

To be honest, I don't think it is appropriate to put anybody off at an unmanned station at that time of night for a ticketing matter.

I've seen that happen before where the offending passenger has left the train without kicking up a fuss. I saw it happen about two years ago where a man on a late night train realised he'd lost his wallet only after he'd asked the conductor for a ticket.

He simply said "OK" when the conductor told him he'd have to leave the train at the next station, and thats exactly what he did.

 

[northwichcat]

EDIT: Actually, looking at it, why would the guard squiggle on it if he wasn't happy with it? That seems a little odd to me.

Can you read the destination clearly? It looks like it could be York, but it could also be Yarm. If it's Yarm then possibly the first conductor missed the railcard requirement for the ticket by the time he/she checked the reservation coupon.

 

[CarterUSM]

I've seen that happen before where the offending passenger has left the train without kicking up a fuss. I saw it happen about two years ago where a man on a late night train realised he'd lost his wallet only after he'd asked the conductor for a ticket.

He simply said "OK" when the conductor told him he'd have to leave the train at the next station, and thats exactly what he did.

Yeah, I've done it myself many times. Asking someone to leave is a last resort, but I won't do it at night at an unmanned station, whether I'm right or wrong, I'd be surprised if I got backed up.

 

[transmanche]

So if the conducter explained in court that when reaching their decision to kick the woman off the train, at no time did they base that decision on the womans gender of the age of her child, they'd be able to get away with that?

No. Again, that's the wrong way round.

The purpose s158 is to provide protection for some form of 'positive discrimination' (for the want of a better phrase).

So if the TOC's staff instructions said something like; "In the case of a ticketing irregularity, you must not leave a lone woman and child at an unstaffed station. Instead they should be asked to leave the train at the next staffed station." - then s158 is likely to protect the TOC from a charge of discrimination. It doesn't work the other way round.

In short, s158 might protect from any action taken by someone else as a result of deciding not to kick the woman off the train. It won't be of any use to defend a decision to kick the woman off the train.

 

[bnm]

Applying the letter of the law with complete rigour in a situation like this (if that is what happened), has more than a whiff of North Korea about it

It's time Godwin's Law was updated to include references to North Korea. :roll:

 

[Batman]

Yeah, I've done it myself many times. Asking someone to leave is a last resort, but I won't do it at night at an unmanned station, whether I'm right or wrong, I'd be surprised if I got backed up.

So is it policy across all TOCs not to kick passengers off trains at un-staffed stations at night? Or is it at the discretion of the conducter?

 

[transmanche]

It's time Godwin's Law was updated to include references to North Korea. :roll:

On this forum, it probably needs to include the NRCoC, Railway Byelaws and the RoRA too...

 

[asylumxl]

I enjoy winding these people up, particularly on their poor spelling and grammar !

 

[Batman]

No. Again, that's the wrong way round.

The purpose s158 is to provide protection for some form of 'positive discrimination' (for the want of a better phrase).

So if the TOC's staff instructions said something like; "In the case of a ticketing irregularity, you must not leave a lone woman and child at an unstaffed station. Instead they should be asked to leave the train at the next staffed station." - then s158 is likely to protect the TOC from a charge of discrimination. It doesn't work the other way round.

In short, s158 might protect from any action taken by someone else as a result of deciding not to kick the woman off the train. It won't be of any use to defend a decision to kick the woman off the train.

But moving away from hypothetical senarios and back to real life.

Do you think the conducter in the real life case in question would be able to put up a good defence if the case comes to court? Or would it be one of those cases where they don't have a leg to stand on (for want of better words)?

 

[junglejames]

How do you know that?

I dont, im basing it on what we have seen, which i always have done. I said that from the start.
People saying she is a fare dodger etc, and i was just saying, that for what we can see, she has never refused to pay outright.

 

[transmanche]

But moving away from hypothetical senarios and back to real life.

Do you think the conducter in the real life case in question would be able to put up a good defence if the case comes to court? Or would it be one of those cases where they don't have a leg to stand on (for want of better words)?

Well I don't think the Equalities Act would be an issue at all.

However I'd hope that all TOCs would have something like "In the case of a ticketing irregularity, you must not leave a lone woman and child at an unstaffed station. Instead they should be asked to leave the train at the next staffed station." - with perhaps it saying "vulnerable people (such as those with disabilities or women with children who are travelling alone)" in their staff instructions.

 

[142094]

Now back with a PC so I can actually respond.

Now, as always we only have one side of the story. However, I'd be very worried if a TOC were to remove someone from a train at an unstaffed station possibly late at night, especially with a child. People might think stations are safe - but that it down to an individual's perception.

Secondly, although some have pointed out that some stations will have a phone or one nearby, who can tell if it is working correctly? I know one unmanned station in the NE where the phone hasn't been working for a good few years, the nearest phonebox is over a mile away (if you can find it) and it too often suffers from vandalism.

Perhaps this shows that whatever procedures are in place for certain types of passenger need looking at - perhaps in this case it would have been more appropriate for the conductor to radio control asking for BTP at York to collect the woman and deal with her.

It also brings the point of a duty of care (again, as seen with the Merseyrail incident). Very hard to know, but what if something had happened to this woman and her child due to being stranded? Potential ramifications for the industry and staff concerned?