• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Bad publicity for "the railway"...

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,910
Location
0036
Another possibility could be for the payment for TOD to only be deducted when the tickets are collected.
That's a complete non-starter as there is no guarantee the account will have funds available at the point of collection, or people will complain the charge took the money they needed to buy food, or caused them overdraft fees, or whatever.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

From her point of view it was a valid ticket. She'd handed money over to the railway and had proof of payment.
Her point of view was wrong. She did not have a ticket. Simples.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Cuthbert

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2024
Messages
321
Location
United Kingdom
Just reason #866,438 as to why TOCs should lose the right to bring private prosecutions. The options should be: penalty fare or BTP referral.
And nothing will happen with a BTP referral. They are running on a skeleton crew as it is. They will not have time to look through all referrals from the different ToC's. They don't even want to know about fraudulent behaviour if it is under £20k (and probably higher since the last Fraud Forum meeting I was involved with years ago).
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
One who knows the rules.
As I've just edited my previous post to say, I bet you one shiny Manx Pound that the RPI wouldn't have done that to a white middle-aged man. Or a little old lady.

It's almost as though RPIs have discretion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

And nothing will happen with a BTP referral. They are running on a skeleton crew as it is. They will not have time to look through all referrals from the different ToC's. They don't even want to know about fraudulent behaviour if it is under £20k (and probably higher since the last Fraud Forum meeting I was involved with years ago).
Then Penalty Fare it is then.

Works in Scotland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Her point of view was wrong. She did not have a ticket. Simples.
Yet, after a media enquiry, CrossCountry's prosecution team have decided that this case didn't pass the public interest test and merit prosecution.

Which calls into question the decision-making of everyone involved in the process, from the RPI upwards.

Are XC still using the bottom-feeders at Transport Investigations, or is it in-house again now?
 

Discuss223

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2024
Messages
375
Location
Rowsley
It's almost as though RPIs have discretion.
The discretion is based on circumstances surrounding not having a valid ticket, not someone's demographic or personal circumstances.

Discretion is not guaranteed.

Being pregnant does not absolve someone of being bound by the law.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Then Penalty Fare it is then.
CrossCountry does not operate a Penalty Fare scheme.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
One who knows the rules.
Yes, but not one who exercises discretion. I don’t think I’d have resolved this situation by way of MG11 had I been the RPI.

When I worked at XC, train managers would come across this issue sometimes and call Control/customer relations. We could establish the booking was legitimate, that the ticket indeed hadn’t been collected, and place a note on the booking to ensure it couldn’t be refunded. This effectively protected the company’s revenue.

Ideally staff could print tickets on the move - I saw this happen on Lumo before - and it would solve the problem even more neatly.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,599
From her point of view it was a valid ticket
If she had actually read what was presented to her when booking then she's have known it wasn't.

At some point people need to accept they are to blame for a mistake, not someone else.

Some parts of railway ticketing are complicated and confusing, and some apps or websites are legitimately poorly designed and make it easy to miss some important bit of information. I'm not convinced this case falls into that category given the trainline app clearly and obviously tells the user they need to collect their tickets from a station.
 

dcbwhaley

On Moderation
Joined
4 Aug 2018
Messages
834
Having offered my seat to a lady I thought might be pregnant only to get shouted at (‘I’m not f…..g pregnant!’) I’m certainly cautious.
Did you reply "then you are very obese"?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

What sort of person travels on a train without being in possession of a valid ticket?
The sort of person who believes, reasonably but mistakenly, that having payee for a ticket for a rail journey she was entitled to take that journey
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,599
The sort of person who believes, reasonably but mistakenly, that having payee for a ticket for a rail journey she was entitled to take that journey
Who also happened to ignore the pretty obvious messaging shown to her when paying.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,910
Location
0036
Ideally staff could print tickets on the move - I saw this happen on Lumo before - and it would solve the problem even more neatly.
Yes, the capability to issue ToDs on train seems to be growing. However, that would not have helped here: CrossCountry guards only have PRT printers and therefore cannot fulfil a ticket with cross-London marker.
 

Edvid

Established Member
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
2,504
Is there any news of when the cross-London ticketing issue will be resolved? There was talk of TfL planning to install barcode readers at selected interchanges, is this going ahead?

Extract from TfL's Ticketing and Revenue Update (issue 154) quoted in the linked post:
 

spotify95

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
300
Location
Northamptonshire
Seven months pregnant and no one gave up their seat for her?
Indeed. I'd happily give up my seat for someone who was pregnant, or had a higher need for the seat than myself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The discretion is based on circumstances surrounding not having a valid ticket, not someone's demographic or personal circumstances.

Discretion is not guaranteed.

Being pregnant does not absolve someone of being bound by the law.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


CrossCountry does not operate a Penalty Fare scheme.
IMO Cross-country should join the penalty fare scheme. There's no need for TIRs to be handed out here, especially if they still use the dreaded TIL that require up to 3 begging letters just for a settlement offer.

In any case, I would have pled non guilty and had the evidence for the judge when it came to court day.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
In any case, I would have pled non guilty and had the evidence for the judge when it came to court day.
Which would have been daft as you’d have had no defence and would lose any discount on the fine for an early guilty plea. The teacher here was undoubtedly guilty of the offence; there is no question of that.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,682
I'd happily give up my seat for someone who was pregnant, or had a higher need for the seat than myself.
Out of interest how do you know that someone has a higher need than you, or that they are pregnant?
 
Joined
5 Sep 2018
Messages
232
Seven months pregnant and no one gave up their seat for her?
On this rolling stock, it's very likely that no one with a seat actually saw her, unless boarding or alighting. She could have forced her way into a carriage and announced that she was 7 months pregnant and asked for a seat. However, there would then be a real fear she wouldn't be able to get back to the toilet as needed.

My wife (also 7 months pregnant) doesn't like to make a fuss. In a similar situation on a Crosscountry train, when we were standing in the gap between carriages it was so crowded, I had to shout through asking if whoever was in the toilet queue could give us a holler when it was free. About 10 minutes later they did, which was really lovely and she was very grateful.

In our case it wasn't worth the effort to ask someone for a seat as we were only on the train for half an hour or so.

I remember once getting on a crowded Southern train with our small baby only for a woman to announce to the whole carriage in a booming voice "will someone give this lady a seat immediately, can't you see she's got a baby" About 5 people jumped up at once, they were so shocked!
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
6,104
E-tickets do not have to be printed.

The issue here is that the person's ticket was presumably involving London or Liverpool and, therefore, the ticket had to be printed at a railway station. This is because Merseyrail and TfL have made the decision to not accept e-tickets because they won't/can't be arsed installing aztec code readers.
I doubt her journey was either via London or Liverpool, as it was from Slough to Sheffield, with a change at Reading, and the incident occurred on a XC service.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
I doubt her journey was either via London or Liverpool, as it was from Slough to Sheffield, with a change at Reading, and the incident occurred on a XC service.
If the ticket was valid via London (regardless of what the itinerary said) it would not be fulfillable via eticket.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,764
As I've just edited my previous post to say, I bet you one shiny Manx Pound that the RPI wouldn't have done that to a white middle-aged man. Or a little old lady.

It's almost as though RPIs have discretion.

I think the more accurate version is they wouldn’t have done that to someone who didn’t fail the attitude test. And we don’t know the interaction the lady concerned has with the RPI
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
I think the more accurate version is they wouldn’t have done that to someone who didn’t fail the attitude test.
Amazing how middle aged white men always pass the attitude test and other people don’t.

Also interesting how you assume that she was rude to the RPI/guard.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

as it was from Slough to Sheffield, with a change at Reading
If it was an ANY PERMITTED then it will have been valid via London, and therefore not eligible to be fulfilled by e-ticket.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

At some point people need to accept they are to blame for a mistake, not someone else.
Thankfully XC's prosecution team have, eventually and after media pressure, decided that they made a mistake and have withdrawn the prosecution as it is clearly not in the public interest.

It is regrettable that nobody with a brain cell looked at this matter before the Observer got involved, but we are where we are.

Which would have been daft as you’d have had no defence and would lose any discount on the fine for an early guilty plea.
A not guilty plea also takes it out of the Single Justice Procedure and puts it before an actual bench of Magistrates.

So whilst you may- theoretically- lose the early plea discount, you would also have the matter looked at properly by an actual person. And that includes the setting of any punishment, e.g. by allowing the bench to understand your financial position.

It may also have encouraged XC's more senior prosecution staff to re-consider the public interest test before presenting the case before the Court. People ignoring Court paperwork is common. People actively defending a case is much less common, and would require someone to start preparing a full case bundle.

And, as we've seen, those XC prosecutors have now decided they made an error in deciding this matter passed the public interest test.
 
Last edited:

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,456
Amazing how middle aged white men always pass the attitude test and other people don’t.
Do you know this for a fact, or is this your assumption, a cheap jibe against revenue protection and white middle aged males in general?
 

Tetragon213

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2024
Messages
695
Location
West Midlands
Amazing how middle aged white men always pass the attitude test and other people don’t.

Also interesting how you assume that she was rude to the RPI/guard.
Do you know this for a fact, or is this your assumption, a cheap jibe against revenue protection and white middle aged males in general?
I sadly have to concur with Tetchtyke on this one, speaking as an British-born Chinese man who has spent more time travelling with XC for work purposes than I would like to. I also noticed similar things when South West Trains when I commuted in the past, though as I was a spotty-faced teenager back then, one could give the benefit of the doubt on that one.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
Do you know this for a fact
The "angry black woman" trope is - regrettably and depressingly- a real and actual thing.


To learn more about the angry Black woman stereotype, we conducted two experiments that looked at reactions when people express anger at work. In our first experiment, we asked more than 300 undergraduate business students to watch one of eight videos, in which they observed a male supervisor to one of his employees. In each video, there were three factors at play: race, gender, and emotional response of the employee. (The employee was either Black or white, male or female, and angry or neutral.) When the employee was angry, their tone began to increase, eventually shouting and yelling at the supervisor.

After watching the video, participants of the study answered a series of questions, including questions about attributions (like was the employee’s anger internal or external?) performance evaluations (such as is this employee a good performer?) and leadership capabilities (for example, would this employee be a good leader?).

Our results found participants were more likely to attribute the anger of Black female employees to internal characteristics, or her personality. This had negative consequences because internal attributions translated into lower performance ratings and leadership evaluations. It’s important to note the demographics of the study’s participants didn’t affect the results; whether man or woman, Black or white (or other races), participants were more likely to attribute a Black woman expressing anger to her personality.
In our second experiment, the sample included 253 adults working across industries in the United States. Participants were asked to imagine they were a sales representative at a marketing company, and that one day on the job, another employee at the same marketing company came to their desk to talk. Then, participants listened to one of four audio recordings from their coworker. The recordings portrayed either a Black actress or a white actress, and either anger was expressed, or it was not. We used audio clips instead of video clips to avoid any distractions, such as how the employee looks. The employee in the audio clip who approached the desk had either a traditionally Black name, Lakeisha, or a traditionally white name, Claire.

In the recording, either Claire or Lakeisha told participants she had seen them come into work late, and how she had mentioned many times before that their tardiness was unprofessional. In the recordings that included expressions of anger, Lakeisha or Claire expressed a stern and hostile tone, raised their voices, and sounded noticeably annoyed and indignant about the participant’s tardiness. These voice affectations were absent in the other recordings. After listening to the clip, participants answered questions about stereotypes, such as: Are Black women aggressive? They also answered a series of questions about attributions, performance evaluations and leadership capabilities.

In the second experiment, participants were more likely to attribute the Black female employee’s anger to internal characteristics (her personality) because the behavior brought to mind the stereotype of an angry Black woman. Once again, this reaction had negative consequences for the Black woman, leading to poorer performance evaluations and lower assessment of her leadership capabilities, even when controlling for the gender and race of the study’s participants.

So yes, I am fairly comfortable in reaching a conclusion that had I, a middle aged white man, been in the same situation then none of this would have happened.
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,764
Amazing how middle aged white men always pass the attitude test and other people don’t.

Also interesting how you assume that she was rude to the RPI/guard.


Amazing how some people on here selectively quote and draw the wrong conclusion. I specifically said we don’t know how their interaction went
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
I also noticed similar things when South West Trains when I commuted in the past, though as I was a spotty-faced teenager back then, one could give the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Possibly off-topic, but I'll not forget sitting on a TPE train from Manchester Piccadilly to the Airport back in 2022. The RPI (in this case a woman) started screaming at a young Chinese student that she was on the wrong train and that she'd be written up for prosecution until I- a middle aged white man- intervened to say that, actually, several Northern trains had been cancelled and we'd been advised to get this one. Suddenly the RPI just huffed and walked off.

Similarly I've been on the Airedale Line in Yorkshire and seen the same. Ticket issued with a smile to the old lady, Penalty Fare book out for the lad in his late teens, even though both had got on at Keighley. Both were equally polite.
 

fandroid

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2014
Messages
2,563
Location
Hampshire
Yes, the capability to issue ToDs on train seems to be growing. However, that would not have helped here: CrossCountry guards only have PRT printers and therefore cannot fulfil a ticket with cross-London marker.
That's a fantastically ridiculous excuse, in that once on the XC train she was never going to validly go through London with the same ticket, so didn't need anything more than an authorised scrap of paper from the RPO. It's another example of the railway being so bound up by its own queer sets of rules that it can't just do the basic customer service stuff.

Normal people think, quite rightly, that once they've made a payment, and got a receipt to prove it, they're entitled to the service that they've contracted for. The last thing in their minds would be that they'd get taken to court on what is, fundamentally, a minor technicality
 

jumble

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,494
1. You have more faith in the competence of Cross Country's prosecution team than I do.
2. You have more faith in the competence of Royal Mail than I do.
3. You have more faith in the competence of HM Courts and Tribunals Service than I do.
4. See point 2 about Royal Mail.

As for your point about pleading guilty/not guilty, actually in this case it may have been useful for the person- had Royal Mail and/or HMCTS not lost the not guilty plea. It would then be listed for a proper trial before a proper bench and, as part of the preparations, it would have made XC's prosecution team look at the case again and reconsider the statutory public interest test.

And clearly XC now believe the prosecution doesn't pass the public interest test because, after a media headline, they're withdrawing the prosecution.

Just reason #866,438 as to why TOCs should lose the right to bring private prosecutions. The options should be: penalty fare or BTP referral.


What sort of RPI issues an MG11 to a pregnant woman on an overcrowded train because of this?

ETA to add: I bet one shiny Manx Pound the RPI wouldn't have done this to a white middle-aged man.
Public interest test or public backlash and bad publicity test?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,560
Location
Isle of Man
Public interest test or public backlash and bad publicity test?
If a media article is enough to make you reconsider a criminal prosecution then you probably shouldn’t have brought that criminal prosecution in the first place.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,910
Location
0036
That's a fantastically ridiculous excuse, in that once on the XC train she was never going to validly go through London with the same ticket, so didn't need anything more than an authorised scrap of paper from the RPO. It's another example of the railway being so bound up by its own queer sets of rules that it can't just do the basic customer service stuff.
You may feel that way, but it is anything but "fantastically ridiculous". They can't give out "scraps of paper" willy-nilly to people who claim to have a purchase receipt, for the simple reason that it would permit multiple passengers to travel on the same purchase, anything but "a minor technicality". The vast majority of passengers who have ToD bookings manage to collect their tickets before travel just fine. This passenger could and should also have done so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

As for your point about pleading guilty/not guilty, actually in this case it may have been useful for the person- had Royal Mail and/or HMCTS not lost the not guilty plea. It would then be listed for a proper trial before a proper bench and, as part of the preparations, it would have made XC's prosecution team look at the case again and reconsider the statutory public interest test.

And clearly XC now believe the prosecution doesn't pass the public interest test because, after a media headline, they're withdrawing the prosecution.
The "public interest test" applies to CPS but not to private prosecutors. It is in fact the "bad publicity test" as mentioned in post 58 that was applied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top