Euston visited by a self-appointed “auditor”

[driverd]

...and whilst nobody comes out of this looking good...

I disagree here, I think the police officer was excellent. Very calm and polite and doing his best to deal with someone who was clearly looking for conflict.

In a way, its a shame he got arrested really as it just gave him the click bait he wanted - but I think it totally reasonable.

People like this need de-monitising on YouTube, to think their making an income from wasting police time and impersonation of what staff are routinely trained to identify as a terror threat is just wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

Once gain I fail to understand how posters here have such problems with the authorities. My Flickr is full of pictures taken at stations. Never an issue. One has to ask why? It could be I am a white bloke of increasing middle age or it could be something else like attitude or behaviour. Perhaps it is simple luck. Who knows.

I make a living filming in public and very rarely have any problems at all. But then I am white, mid 30s, walk like I own the place everywhere I go and generally have body language which I suppose makes me look "together" and not easily challenged.

I hear all the time from people, especially young and non-white people, that they have issues doing similar things to what I am doing.

As for these "auditors".....................

They're idiots and/or losers without exception. They engineer conflict and hope for it.

 

[43066]

in my dad's case the "good attitude" required was leaving when he was asked to.

In any situation, if you’re on private property, you need to leave when asked (even more so on the railway), so I dont think that’s “sucking up”. Perhaps people should consider what it is about their behaviour/demeanour has promoted the response, when others in the same situation have no issues.

I hear all the time from people, especially young and non-white people, that they have issues doing similar things to what I am doing.

There is a worrying tendency these days for people to automatically assume discriminatory intent when challenged, again without considering that the answer might well lie in the attitude/demeanour they project.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is a worrying tendency these days for people to automatically assume discriminatory intent when challenged, again without considering that the answer might well lie in the attitude/demeanour they project.

I know many of these people, it has nothing to do with their attitude.

 

[LOL The Irony]

What even is 'auditing'?

I believe it started/got popularised in the US where it's protected under one of the amendments. I'm guessing that some places weren't allowing filming and started this off. This is a good place to start to understand the purpose of auditing.

 

[Edsmith]

This is also true. A bit of common sense needs to come into play from members of staff and agreed upthread that the training could be better.

Freedom of photography is one thing, and I fully support it - but you cannot be surprised if someone asks you why you are taking photographs of CCTV...

Auditors don't seem to mind being asked about what they're doing, in fact if they were just ignored completely there would be little point in doing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

To be honest by wandering about in an area where he had no reason to be this guy was clearly acting in a suspicions way. A little like someone standing on a platform where nothing ever stops. Not prohibited, but clearly grounds for investigation to work out whether the person is either a risk to themselves, or has nefarious intent.



Presumably there was something about your demeanour they found concerning.

Or maybe the BTP officers at Paddington thought it would be a nice easy stop and search to fill their quota?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

I disagree here, I think the police officer was excellent. Very calm and polite and doing his best to deal with someone who was clearly looking for conflict.

In a way, its a shame he got arrested really as it just gave him the click bait he wanted - but I think it totally reasonable.

People like this need de-monitising on YouTube, to think their making an income from wasting police time and impersonation of what staff are routinely trained to identify as a terror threat is just wrong.

Excellent? He claimed it was a CTA when it wasn't. He was quite friendly but why didn't he just leave the auditor to carry on what he was doing? It would be interesting to know what happened after his arrest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2022 ==

I make a living filming in public and very rarely have any problems at all. But then I am white, mid 30s, walk like I own the place everywhere I go and generally have body language which I suppose makes me look "together" and not easily challenged.

I hear all the time from people, especially young and non-white people, that they have issues doing similar things to what I am doing.


They're idiots and/or losers without exception. They engineer conflict and hope for it.

Really? Well they seem to make quite a bit money out of it.

 

[43066]

Or maybe the BTP officers at Paddington thought it would be a nice easy stop and search to fill their quota?

Do BTP have any such “quota”, or is that just something you’ve made up?

 

[falcon]

However, regardless of whether it's a CTA or not, railway staff and police are entitled to tell people to leave the railway under the Byelaws, common law and the many railway trespass laws.

Which laws are those ?
To my knowledge there is no powere to remove anyone from a railway station unless they are in breach of a law of some sort?

Bye law?
Common law?
and tresspass law?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which laws are those ?
To my knowledge there is no powere to remove anyone from a railway station unless they are in breach of a law of some sort?

Bye law?
Common law?
and tresspass law?

A railway station is not a public place, it is a place to which the public have access. Thus, if those managing that space don't want someone there for any reason they like (or none), other than one that would breach equality laws, they can ask them to leave. If they don't, they can use reasonable force to make them leave. This is historic common law applying to anywhere that isn't the public highway.

I've even seen signs confirming this in some stations.

 

[AlterEgo]

Really? Well they seem to make quite a bit money out of it.

Affirming to hear if you make money on YouTube this is a defence against being a loser and an idiot.

 

[ainsworth74]

A railway station is not a public place, it is a place to which the public have access. Thus, if those managing that space don't want someone there for any reason they like (or none), other than one that would breach equality laws, they can ask them to leave. If they don't, they can use reasonable force to make them leave. This is historic common law applying to anywhere that isn't the public highway.

I've even seen signs confirming this in some stations.

It is also covered by the Railway Byelaws. Specifically 13(2):

13. Unauthorised access and loitering​

No person shall:

1. [...]
2. loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person

And the power to remove someone using reasonable force is given by Byelaw 24(2):

24. Enforcement​

1. [...]
2. removal of persons:
   1. any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person
   2. any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these byelaws
   3. no person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these byelaws or any other enactment
   4. in exercising powers conferred by Byelaws 24(2)(i) and 24(2)(ii) the authorised person shall state the nature of the breach of any of these byelaws in general terms prior to exercising the power conferred upon him

 

[falcon]

A railway station is not a public place, it is a place to which the public have access. Thus, if those managing that space don't want someone there for any reason they like (or none), other than one that would breach equality laws, they can ask them to leave. If they don't, they can use reasonable force to make them leave. This is historic common law applying to anywhere that isn't the public highway.

I've even seen signs confirming this in some stations.

Right. So there is no byelaw or trespass law, it's just if you are say talking photos of trains and you are then asked to leave the law is then in force from that point and you must leave. Thanks. Got it now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Right. So there is no byelaw or trespass law, it's just if you are say talking photos of trains and you are then asked to leave the law is then in force from that point and you must leave. Thanks. Got it now.

@ainsworth74 has pointed out that there are indeed Railway Byelaws as well, but trespass law is standard common law and applies to all property that isn't a public right of way (public highway or footpath, and on the latter stopping for lunch technically isn't legitimate use) or legally defined common land.

 

[falcon]

It is also covered by the Railway Byelaws. Specifically 13(2):



And the power to remove someone using reasonable force is given by Byelaw 24(2):

I don't think that applies because loitering is "Without purpose"

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think that applies because loitering is "Without purpose"

Without legitimate purpose. Which in this case is using the services of the railway (i.e. travelling on a train, arranging to travel on one, meeting someone from one, taking someone to one or purchasing from the retail facilities, to the extent necessary to do those things*), not standing around for your own purposes.

Legitimate purpose for being in a "place where the public has access" is defined wholly by those who own/manage the space. In the case of Network Rail stations that does include photography/spotting and similar but only if you sign in at the station reception and comply with all their instructions (which may be that it can't be allowed on that day or in particular areas, or that certain things e.g. CCTV installations must not be photographed). If you do sign in you get a visitor badge to show to e.g. any security guard who may question the matter.

* If you have a ticket for the first train of the day, for instance, you've no entitlement to hang round in the station all night, and indeed most major stations are locked up overnight to reduce the homelessness and vandalism issues posed by leaving them open.

 

[Scott1]

Right. So there is no byelaw or trespass law, it's just if you are say talking photos of trains and you are then asked to leave the law is then in force from that point and you must leave. Thanks. Got it now.

You have an 'implied right of access' to a railway station, but the right can be withdrawn at any point by an authorised person, or access can be denied. The Railway Bylaws cover various situations, such as unauthorised access through a ticket barrier, loitering etc. It's all rather technical though and a good dose of common sense usually deals with these things instead. The right does not apply where there is a clear barrier or notice (like CTA) , or you have no reason to need access. So you don't have a right to enter a station with no ticket if ticket barriers exist unless given said permission (which we all know generally is).

Not really related but the implied access right applies to all sorts of things, like the post delivery. They are walking up and down private property all day, but have a good reason to do so, so unless specifically told not to they have an implied right to do so.

 

[pt_mad]

Guidelines for taking photos at stations - Network Rail

What you need to know about taking photos and films at our stations to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Before you go on the platform​

When you arrive at a station, please let the staff at the Network Rail Reception Desk know that you are there. This will keep station staff informed, so that they can go about their duties without concern about why you are there.

You may require a platform ticket to access platforms.

Photography and film at stations​

You can take photographs at stations provided you do not sell them on to a company or stock image agency. That is considered commercial photography.

If you are filming for quite a while or might be using bulky equipment you should let our station staff know so that the reasons for your filming are clear.

Remember:​

• You are not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment, such as CCTV cameras.

Continues...

• Please respect the fact that some people may not want to be photographed.

• General​

  Train companies must put the safety of their passengers and staff first.
  
  You may occasionally be asked by station staff to move to another part of the station or to leave the station altogether. Station staff should be happy to explain why this is necessary.
  
  If you are travelling by train, they may ask you to remain in the normal waiting areas with other passengers. If this occurs, please follow their instructions with goodwill as staff have many things to consider, including the safety and security of all passengers, and are authorised to use judgement in this regard.

Seems pretty conclusive, and not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately this doesn't cater for someone who chooses to be obstructive to the above and asking for specific laws as to why the above should be carried out or adhered to.

Where there is it likely to be deemed at all acceptable to film security equipment and when asked why or the reason for filming, keep saying personal questions are not answered?

The other videos from this Youtuber make for similar interesting viewing to say the least.

To anyone who might reply saying these are guidelines, they are clearly intended to be adhered to, otherwise Network Rail would not have devised them.

 

[Watershed]

Which laws are those ?
To my knowledge there is no powere to remove anyone from a railway station unless they are in breach of a law of some sort?

Bye law?
Common law?
and tresspass law?

In terms of the Byelaws, there is Byelaw 13. If the member of staff has reasonable belief that this is being breached, they can remove the person using reasonable force under Byelaw 24. Even if a judge later found that the person was not, in fact, loitering - there only has to be reasonable belief on the part of the member of staff. That's a much lower bar than you are suggesting.

Under common law, every person who owns or has possession of a piece of land (in this case, Network Rail own and possess Euston station) can ask someone who is there by virtue of the 'implied right of access' to leave. If the person fails to do so, they become a trespasser and so 'self-help' - i.e. reasonable force - can be used to remove them.

There are many trespass offences specific to the railway. In this situation, section 16 of the Railway Regulation Act 1840 makes it an offence to wilfully trespass - again, this is triggered when the person is asked to leave and fails to do so. S16 also gives railway staff - and anyone else they call to assist them (so even potentially a member of the public) - the power to detain such trespassers until the police arrive.

 

[Scott1]

Wonder which byelaw applies to 'you tube wind up merchent'...

 

[falcon]

Without legitimate purpose. Which in this case is using the services of the railway (i.e. travelling on a train, arranging to travel on one, meeting someone from one, taking someone to one or purchasing from the retail facilities, to the extent necessary to do those things*), not standing around for your own purposes.

Legitimate purpose for being in a "place where the public has access" is defined wholly by those who own/manage the space. In the case of Network Rail stations that does include photography/spotting and similar but only if you sign in at the station reception and comply with all their instructions (which may be that it can't be allowed on that day or in particular areas, or that certain things e.g. CCTV installations must not be photographed). If you do sign in you get a visitor badge to show to e.g. any security guard who may question the matter.

* If you have a ticket for the first train of the day, for instance, you've no entitlement to hang round in the station all night, and indeed most major stations are locked up overnight to reduce the homelessness and vandalism issues posed by leaving them open.

I think you have that one wrong.
The word loitering is just means "not having a purpose" it does not mean that the loitering must be legitimate because how does one define legitamate, it it is not legit then an offence must be being committed? Where does the burden of proof lie with the determination of legit?

Standing around for your 'own purpose would be legal'. People who train spot are standing around for their own purposes. There needs to be no purpose for loitering. I dont't think it needs to be established that the reason is legit.

It's the right to ask people to leave that I think has the precedent.

 

[pt_mad]

Wonder which byelaw applies to 'you tube wind up merchent'...

Hardly a laughing matter when this Youtuber threatens many of the different staff in the different videos they have filmed with formal complaints.

There is one with a job centre where he says something like let's go in and see if we can have a laugh. He insults staff regularly in the other videos also, despite most of them appearing not to insult him. Hardly acceptable is it? Some of them you get glimpses of his appearance and it's a mask, hood up and dark sunglasses inside buildings. Why would it appear there is an effort here for the person filming to hide their own identity yet insist on staff identifying themselves for the videos?

 

[Edsmith]

Affirming to hear if you make money on YouTube this is a defence against being a loser and an idiot.

You might not approve of auditing but it hardly makes them losers or idiots does it?

 

[Scott1]

Hardly a laughing matter when this Youtuber threatens many of the different staff in the different videos they have filmed with formal complaints.

There is one with a job centre where he says something like let's go in and see if we can have a laugh.

Sadly I deal with people like this more regularly than I'd like, but they want a rise and if you don't give it they tend to go one of two ways, either give up or cross the line so you can have them removed.

Jokes aside they are very irritating and don't just waste the staff times but often cause a worse service for the punters too since 1 or 2 staff can be tied up by a so-called auditor for a while. My particular dislike is when they start involving themselves with other passengers buisness too, even when said passenger asks them to go away.

 

[pt_mad]

Sadly I deal with people like this more regularly than I'd like, but they want a rise and if you don't give it they tend to go one of two ways, either give up or cross the line so you can have them removed.

Jokes aside they are very irritating and don't just waste the staff times but often cause a worse service for the punters too since 1 or 2 staff can be tied up by a so-called auditor for a while. My particular dislike is when they start involving themselves with other passengers buisness too, even when said passenger asks them to go away.

Check out the other videos by this Youtuber. There doesn't even appear to be an attempt to seek any service from the job centre other than to deliberately start some sort of trouble from what I have seen.

I believe most of us are happy we have policing by consent. For that to work, if the police or someone in authority you know to be genuine, on their premises, asks you a reasonable question about why you are doing something which could be interpreted as suspicious, you should answer or leave if asked. They admit they are trespassing on some of the videos but try to tie the police in red tape by saying they can't enforce civil trespass. What other intentions could there be for that other than bad ones?

 

[falcon]

In terms of the Byelaws, there is Byelaw 13. If the member of staff has reasonable belief that this is being breached, they can remove the person using reasonable force under Byelaw 24. Even if a judge later found that the person was not, in fact, loitering - there only has to be reasonable belief on the part of the member of staff. That's a much lower bar than you are suggesting.

Under common law, every person who owns or has possession of a piece of land (in this case, Network Rail own and possess Euston station) can ask someone who is there by virtue of the 'implied right of access' to leave. If the person fails to do so, they become a trespasser and so 'self-help' - i.e. reasonable force - can be used to remove them.

There are many trespass offences specific to the railway. In this situation, section 16 of the Railway Regulation Act 1840 makes it an offence to wilfully trespass - again, this is triggered when the person is asked to leave and fails to do so. S16 also gives railway staff - and anyone else they call to assist them (so even potentially a member of the public) - the power to detain such trespassers until the police arrive.

The common law one is the one I think that applies and is enforcable, the other two require other factors to be in play before enforcement can take place.

Section 13 requires that loitering is taking place. Must be 'without purpose' The auditor did have a purpose.

The 1840 section 16 is for obstructing an officer of the railway, again there is the definition of obstruction and evidence needed to enforce that regulation. I don't think that would apply in the auditors case looking at the video.

 

[Scott1]

Check out to other videos by this Youtuber. There doesn't even appear to be an attempt to seek any service from the job centre other than to deliberately start some sort of trouble from what I have seen.

They don't tend to be getting a train either. As I say, wind up merchents.

 

[Doveymain158]

I never had a problem i always ask at Customer reception. Sometimes they get me sign in the book and just give briefing about no flash photography and not to go near platform edge.

 

[pt_mad]

They don't tend to be getting a train either. As I say, wind up merchents.

Its more serious than a wind up though. What kind of a wind up threatens uniformed staff with formal complaints over a situation a person appears to have attempted to setup?

Would such a complaint be taken seriously? Common sense shows here that the staff were almost certainly bound to find this behaviour suspicious, requiring further investigation and questions to be answered. Being hostile and obstructing that process is not going to lead to a positive response. Although tbf the person had chance after chance to leave voluntarily but refused. I couldn't imagine any complaints investigation would come to any other conclusion?

 

[Scott1]

Its more serious than a wind up though. What kind of a wind up threatens uniformed staff with formal complaints over a situation a person appears to have attempted to setup?

Would such a complaint be taken seriously? Common sense shows here that the staff were almost certainly bound to find this behaviour suspicious, requiring further investigation and questions to be answered. Being hostile and obstructing that process is not going to lead to a positive response. Although tbf the person had chance after chance to leave voluntarily but refused. I couldn't imagine any complaints investigation would come to any other conclusion?

I doubt a complaint would get anywhere with a reasonable manager. These kind of complaints are not unheard of and tended to be treated in a similer way to complaints about staff when, for example, they are investigating fraudulent tickets. They are looked into, but the complainer has a motive to get the employee 'in trouble' so that's always going to reduce any credibility from the start.

 

[pt_mad]

I doubt a complaint would get anywhere with a reasonable manager. These kind of complaints are not unheard of and tended to be treated in a similer way to complaints about staff when, for example, they are investigating fraudulent tickets. They are looked into, but the complainer has a motive to get the employee 'in trouble' so that's always going to reduce any credibility from the start.

Thank goodness common sense prevails.

Also, what about if Revenue Inspectors are at the platform entrance at the station? Presumably a person would be expected to show a ticket or explain another reasonable reason why they wish to enter the platform? When would an explanation of I don't answer personal questions, while filming the staff, ever be acceptable in that scenario?

People in front line roles in all industries would probably shudder at the thought of such an exchange.