Euston visited by a self-appointed “auditor”

[skyhigh]

Does the status of railway trespass being criminal apply to only the track, or could they then prosecute him if he entered any railway premises having been so banned?

Withdrawal of Implied Permission would cover this. BTP use them fairly regularly for those who cause issues on stations. The subject gets a letter which bans them from entering any specified railway property for 6 months. If the subject is seen to be in the specified area they can then be arrested for trespass.

Photo shows poster with wording:

Withdrawal of Permission to enter the Station

Network Rail and British Transport Police are working in partnership to reduce anti social behaviour at Network Rail Managed Stations.

Network Rail's stations are private property and members of the public have an implied permission to enter the station, to conduct their business.

If an individual engages in persistent criminal activity, or activities which breach the railway byelaws, a letter withdrawing permission to enter the station for 6 months may be issued.

If you enter the station after a letter has been issued withdrawing your permission to be on the station you may be arrested or reported for criminal trespass/refusing to quit and/or the 6 month period may be extended.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Withdrawal of Implied Permission would cover this. BTP use them fairly regularly for those who cause issues on stations. The subject gets a letter which bans them from entering any specified railway property for 6 months. If the subject is seen to be in the specified area they can then be arrested for trespass.

I guess that confirms that all railway trespass is criminal and not just that involving going trackside?

 

[Cloud Strife]

About time an employer wrapped one of these auditors up in a long expensive legal case, after all they like the workings of the law so much.

They would be on a hiding to nothing. The right to photography/film is defended quite fiercely in England.

Well the 'auditors' like legal detail, I'm sure the employers could find something. I'm not convinced the 'auditors' are as bright as they think they are so it would be nice so see one being lead into doing something that ends up in court.

Many of them aren't that bright, but this one knows the law and sticks to it. You can see that clearly in how he launches the drone from the public highway, and there are a surprising amount of people who cheerfully recognise him and invite him to do his stuff.

The thing is: there's one video where an employee threatens to smash his drone and then comes and has a go at him before backing down. If I was his employer, he'd be out of a job after seeing that, because threatening violence is never the answer. On the other hand, this one also shows a lot of decent staff who simply don't want any bother. There is one very stereotypical Karen though, who goes on about the GDPR without having the faintest idea of what it involves.

Does the status of railway trespass being criminal apply to only the track, or could they then prosecute him if he entered any railway premises having been so banned?

From what I understand, trespass includes any railway property, not just the tracks and platforms.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2023 ==

Withdrawal of Implied Permission would cover this. BTP use them fairly regularly for those who cause issues on stations. The subject gets a letter which bans them from entering any specified railway property for 6 months. If the subject is seen to be in the specified area they can then be arrested for trespass.

A question here: does this act as a ban from travelling, or would they be likely to turn a blind eye if the person was demonstrating a genuine intent to simply travel?

 

[Yew]

I'm sure most police officers are used to having cameras "shoved in their face", it's part and parcel of the job nowadays. How do you differentiate between that and photographing trains etc? And I don't what legal case you think an employer can bring?

Many police officers have a camera strapped to their chest these days.

 

[Scott1]

Many police officers have a camera strapped to their chest these days.

Yes, but their footage doesn't end up on YouTube.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but their footage doesn't end up on YouTube.

Quite often it does, often in response to a complaint or YouTube video so police release the bodycam footage to show their side.

 

[Scott1]

Quite often it does, often in response to a complaint or YouTube video so police release the bodycam footage to show their side.

In the UK that's fairly unusual, and is edited or redacted to ensure people's identity is protected as is appropriate. There are a large number of safe guards in place. Unlike some wind up merchent with a camera phone.