Filming a conversation on trains & at stations.

[cuccir]

Slightly long-winded general response:

Social science researchers (like me!) come up against issues of recording behaviour in public regularly. We have to fill out ethics forms etc before all research which deal with this. Generally, you have permission to photograph/film/record in public spaces and anything visible from a public space (contrary to what some PCSOs will have you believe).

That said, you begin to hit dodgy waters if you focus your recording on someone, something or a group for any length of time. Ethically, our guidelines tell us not to focus our recording on an identifiable individual. Legally, you can do more than this, but focusing on someone for a long time or after they've asked you to stop does start to push you towards harrasment etc (DaveNewcastle and other lawyers may know more of the specifics here).

We tend to classify private spaces into two types - those, like pubs, the railway network and shopping centres, which are private but where public access is generally presumed, and those which are private and into which you need to be invited. In the former, which interest us here, you can take reasonable recordings without permission, but if you are asked to stop by a representative of the owners then you must and the same guidelines as above about focusing on individuals would apply. I think that filming a member of staff for any length of time, for any purpose, is likely to get you asked to stop and certainly isn't going to help in any case with regards to ticket validity.

More broadly - it's not always a good idea to respond to people who are being unreasonable (I refer to the original thread here) by acting confrontationally yourself!

 

[Flamingo]

I've had passengers on three occasions filming me. All were on advance tickets on the wrong train. I offered to excess (plus admin charge) to all of them, and they decided they were going to film me with the expressed comment they were going to post this on youtube, give it to watchdog, etc.

Two ended up paying full open fares (they both said "I'll get it back off your customer services along with an apology" - I don't think they did!). The other ended up leaving the last train several stops short of their destination, with the assistance of security.

If they hadn't had an attitude and pushed a camera in my face, they would have got home a lot better off financially. The three of them put me in a position that I had to do it by the book.

They were all prior to last years incident with the Northern guard. After that, myself and many of my colleagues discussed it, and decided that in line with company recommendations, we will immediately walk away - and have the person removed by security/BTP at the next station, as the passenger will undoubtedly be on an invalid ticket. The train will not be moving past the next manned station with the passenger on board.

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.

I still don't see what videoing it will do, except for exacerbate the situation. If you think the guard is wrong, stay calm, explain why you think they are wrong (we all make mistakes, I certainly have). If they won't follow the argument, then take names, times, and train details, and sort it out with a grown-up next day. Customer Services (at least FGW's) have a reputation for being a soft touch, and the chances of having a final outcome that is satisfactory is much greater when it is dealt with by someone sitting behind a desk, with access to all route information, fares manuals, etc., and not so "personally" involved.

 

[Ferret]

I completely agree Flamingo. Shoving a camera in someone's face in that scenario is tantamount to intimidation, esp with the mention of Watchdog. Nailed on to be required to leave the train as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WelshBluebird]

They were all prior to last years incident with the Northern guard. After that, myself and many of my colleagues discussed it, and decided that in line with company recommendations, we will immediately walk away - and have the person removed by security/BTP at the next station, as the passenger will undoubtedly be on an invalid ticket. The train will not be moving past the next manned station with the passenger on board.

In the circumtances you mentioned, I agree with you.
But what if the person is not on an invalid ticket and it is the member of staff that is in the wrong?

 

[Flamingo]

In the circumtances you mentioned, I agree with you.
But what if the person is not on an invalid ticket and it is the member of staff that is in the wrong?

As I said, take names and details. They will either be selling a new ticket or issuing a UPFN, and this can be easily traced back to them and produced with the original documentation.

I've had MANY circumstances where passengers insisted I was wrong. One the other day, with an Advance ticket (six hours late). They guy initially insisted very vociferously that he had a flexible ticket, (name-dropped that he worked for a media company and the implied threat of bad publicity) and that his PA had told him so. He came back to me twice saying he had spoken to his PA and she had said she bought a flexible ticket (First Class, Pad-Cdf for £30! That was over £110 of a discount!).

I told him to ring her back, and tell her to check the e-mail with the ticket. Every time I went past him after that, his eyes were closed - he obviously didn't want to continue the conversation.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As I said, take names and details. They will either be selling a new ticket or issuing a UPFN, and this can be easily traced back to them and produced with the original documentation.

I've had MANY circumstances where passengers insisted I was wrong. One the other day, with an Advance ticket (six hours late). They guy initially insisted very vociferously that he had a flexible ticket, (name-dropped that he worked for a media company and the implied threat of bad publicity) and that his PA had told him so. He came back to me twice saying he had spoken to his PA and she had said she bought a flexible ticket (First Class, Pad-Cdf for £30! That was over £110 of a discount!).

I told him to ring her back, and tell her to check the e-mail with the ticket. Every time I went past him after that, his eyes were closed - he obviously didn't want to continue the conversation.

I do not need examples of people obviously taking the mick. It is obvious that does happen.
What I do have a problem is genuine passengers being treated like crap by members of staff who are wrong. It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.
And I fail to see why a passenger who has done nothing at all wrong, and is travelling on a ticket that they are well within their rights to travel on, should essentially be treated the same as someone who is trying to take the mick (by having to pay for a new ticket, which they may not be able to afford, or by having to have a UPFN and then chasing that up), just becasuse an incompetent or poorly trained member of staff.

 

[cuccir]

I do not need examples of people obviously taking the mick. It is obvious that does happen.
What I do have a problem is genuine passengers being treated like crap by members of staff who are wrong. It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.
And I fail to see why a passenger who has done nothing at all wrong, and is travelling on a ticket that they are well within their rights to travel on, should essentially be treated the same as someone who is trying to take the mick (by having to pay for a new ticket, which they may not be able to afford, or by having to have a UPFN and then chasing that up), just becasuse an incompetent or poorly trained member of staff.

It's bad when that happens.

But that still doesn't making filming - essentially provoking the situation - a. legally valid; b. morally/ethically correct; c. beneficial to the passenger

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's bad when that happens.

But that still doesn't making filming - essentially provoking the situation - a. legally valid; b. morally/ethically correct; c. beneficial to the passenger

In a case where the member of staff is being clearly unreasonable, plain wrong and simply incompetent in doing their job, I would disagree.

Of course, as I said, the cases where that is the situation are few and far between. But it does happen.

I would probably agree that the vast majority of the time, the person doesn't have a leg to stand on and is just being an idiot. Even in my experience of the railways (I always seem to be get held up in delays or cancellations, all the time, prretty much without fail - I am very unlucky!!), I do think nearly all members of staff are very good at their jobs and are usually very nice to deal with. However, there is a minority who simply should not be in a customer facing job at all.

 

[Flamingo]

We'll have to fail to agree on this one. As has been said, in my experience people start filming the situation in an effort to intimidate the guard.

If the passenger is in the right, and the guard wrong, it can be sorted out at a later date. If the guard is rude, obnoxious, aggressive, is filming them going to make them change their course of action? I think not. Dealing with it through customer services the next day is much more likely to have a good outcome.

If the passenger is not in possession of a valid ticket, then filming the situation is not going to make the guard allow them to travel on an invalid ticket, and can escalate the situation to the point where it all ends in tears.

I'm afraid I can't think of any situation where producing a camera will help - regardless of certain wheelchair users claiming they were doing so for any purpose other than self-publicity. Even though Northern stopped short of calling the chap an obnoxious troublemaking waste of oxygen, that was the eventual opinion of most people who looked past the Daily Wail headlines. He didn't do himself any favours.

 

[cuccir]

I'm afraid I can't think of any situation where producing a camera will help - regardless of certain wheelchair users claiming they were doing so for any purpose other than self-publicity.

Tangentially, recording/photographing broken ticket machines, departure board info, PA annoucements, etc, are all good times to use recording equipment I'd have thought if you feel that staff down the line might be disbelieving/uninformed about a situation

 

[WelshBluebird]

We'll have to fail to agree on this one. As has been said, in my experience people start filming the situation in an effort to intimidate the guard.

If the passenger is in the right, and the guard wrong, it can be sorted out at a later date. If the guard is rude, obnoxious, aggressive, is filming them going to make them change their course of action? I think not. Dealing with it through customer services the next day is much more likely to have a good outcome.

If the passenger is not in possession of a valid ticket, then filming the situation is not going to make the guard allow them to travel on an invalid ticket, and can escalate the situation to the point where it all ends in tears.

I'm afraid I can't think of any situation where producing a camera will help - regardless of certain wheelchair users claiming they were doing so for any purpose other than self-publicity. Even though Northern stopped short of calling the chap an obnoxious troublemaking waste of oxygen, that was the eventual opinion of most people who looked past the Daily Wail headlines. He didn't do himself any favours.

I don't disagree that sometimes people are just doing it do intimidate the guard. And if they are doing it for that, then they deserve for it to "end up in tears".

I think where we differ (and this is probably due to you being staff and myself just being a passenger) is that I do not think "sorting it out the next day" is reasonable. Why should a genuine paying passenger with a valid reason be punished? You have said that with FGW, the UPFN would only be issued to the next station, if it is issued at all. So what if the person did not have the means to pay the whole walk up fare and sort it out after? (which is easily possible considering some of the prices of walk up tickets).

And while it may not stop a guard being rude etc, it may certainly make them think. Which sometimes is all that is needed.

Out of curiosity, what happened with that guy? I most I saw was the story on the BBC where Northern apologised.

Tangentially, recording/photographing broken ticket machines, departure board info, PA annoucements, etc, are all good times to use recording equipment I'd have thought if you feel that staff down the line might be disbelieving/uninformed about a situation

Certainly. I have learned that the camera on my phone is very helpful in some cases. I had a situation last year where I was getting the train from Oldfield Park to Bath Spa (yes I know, but I had a lot of luggage with me and getting the bus or walking wasn't really an option). It was early morning so the small ticket office at Oldfield Park should have been open. It wasn't. The journey only takes 2 minutes and the guard was nowhere to be seen, so couldn't buy a ticket onboard either. Trying to explain to the staff at the gates at Bath spa was a nightmare, and would have been so much easier if I had a photo of the ticket office being closed. Eventually they just let me through, but did suggest a photo on my phone would be a good idea in the future.

But I think Flamingo was talking more about members of staff than about things like ticket offices / machines.

 

[Flamingo]

I don't disagree that sometimes people are just doing it do intimidate the guard. And if they are doing it for that, then they deserve for it to "end up in tears".

I think where we differ (and this is probably due to you being staff and myself just being a passenger) is that I do not think "sorting it out the next day" is reasonable. Why should a genuine paying passenger with a valid reason be punished? You have said that with FGW, the UPFN would only be issued to the next station, if it is issued at all. So what if the person did not have the means to pay the whole walk up fare and sort it out after? (which is easily possible considering some of the prices of walk up tickets).

And while it may not stop a guard being rude etc, it may certainly make them think. Which sometimes is all that is needed.

I'm not saying that in this case the guard was right, I'm just saying that filming it won't help, and may cause the situation to escalate further.

Sometimes, the guard may be wrong but genuinely think they are right. Usually this happens with weird combinations of tickets, rovers and routing guides. Some of the posts on here with the combinations mentioned, I think "I wouldn't have a clue" - and I'm one of the better ones. That happens to me once every 5-6 months, and I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt when I come across them.

I come across passengers on practically every train who are convinced they are right (or at least put on an act that they believe what they are doing is acceptable), and they are 100% wrong. What I find is the more they bluster and argue, the more holes appear in their story. In those cases, I am going to charge them - if they are genuine, they can contact customer services and ask for a refund, but the bottom line is they will have had an incorrect ticket for the train, plus a story. If Customer Services chose to believe the story, that's up to them.

If I was to allow every passenger who said "The man on the platform said it would be OK", or who "Doesn't speak English", or who "Left the ticket / railcard in my other wallet", then not only would I not be doing my job, there would be no point in my or any other guard doing anything more than walking through the train saying "Does anybody want to buy a ticket".

Out of curiosity, what happened with that guy? I most I saw was the story on the BBC where Northern apologised.

NorthernGuard might be able to fill in more details. I believe he was given an apology, not (as I think he should have had) an ASBO.

Certainly. I have learned that the camera on my phone is very helpful in some cases. I had a situation last year where I was getting the train from Oldfield Park to Bath Spa (yes I know, but I had a lot of luggage with me and getting the bus or walking wasn't really an option). It was early morning so the small ticket office at Oldfield Park should have been open. It wasn't. The journey only takes 2 minutes and the guard was nowhere to be seen, so couldn't buy a ticket onboard either. Trying to explain to the staff at the gates at Bath spa was a nightmare, and would have been so much easier if I had a photo of the ticket office being closed. Eventually they just let me through, but did suggest a photo on my phone would be a good idea in the future.

But I think Flamingo was talking more about members of staff than about things like ticket offices / machines.

In a situation like that, the ideal thing is to take a picture / video of it.

Edited to add: Most passengers who claim the railway staff was "Rude" just mean "Wouldn't accept my BS story, and/or didn't give the answer i wanted to hear"

 

[IanXC]

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....

Are you an approved Data Controller in compliance with the Data Protection Act? Do you display the relevant notices to this effect?

CCTV does not include audio,

It can do! There is provision similar to the disclosures on phone lines to call centres, its just not very often useful so not worth the investment.

 

[Flamingo]

It can do! There is provision similar to the disclosures on phone lines to call centres, its just not very often useful so not worth the investment.

Fair enough. I've known traincrew record conversations on their mobiles / iphones that were later used in evidence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Personally, I think we should be issued with those "clip-on" cameras, so we could record the abuse and arguments we have on a daily basis.

The TOC's don't want to invest in them, as apart from the cost, they would then have to face up to the issue of the amount of abuse that we take from the travelling public, which is the elephant in the room when we start getting "Customer Care" lectures.

The unions don't want them as it would be hard evidence in cases of alleged improper behaviour by train staff.

The lack of them is being used to protect the guilty, IMHO.

 

[Turbocharger]

I have not read any replies as I wish to simply post my thoughts on the original topic.

When filming in public, it would be wise to advise the people you want to film for legal reasons. It is a very grey area at the moment.

However as demonstrated by a cyclist in London recently, it has it's advantages.
However! when it comes to law, your phone/equipment may not be suitable for legal requirements in giving official evidence.

Although bringing your film to the attention of someone's superiors may assist your cause if that person has a record of poor customer service/relations etc.

It is not something I would recommend in general. But as a member of the public and if you want to champion your rights using such evidence, then there is nothing at the moment to legally stop you to the best of my knowledge.

Look at the footage of a mobile phone from the riots in London and the death of Ian Tomlinson. But that is far flung from the use you suggest. Good luck.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm just saying that filming it won't help, and may cause the situation to escalate further.

That extract from a longer post is worth highlighting - its not a technicality nor a point of law, but it is a very good summary of how conflicts develop.
Lets remember that.

 

[penaltyfines]

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.

Do you know what harrassment means?

It would need to be persistent over a period of times, or agressive in nature, with intent, to be classed as harrassment.

This case wouldn't come close.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I completely agree Flamingo. Shoving a camera in someone's face in that scenario is tantamount to intimidation, esp with the mention of Watchdog. Nailed on to be required to leave the train as far as I'm concerned.

How did recording the conversation, in a non-confrontational and polite manner, turn into 'shoving a camera in someone's face'...'intimidation'...?!?!

Going way off topic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the circumtances you mentioned, I agree with you.
But what if the person is not on an invalid ticket and it is the member of staff that is in the wrong?

Ah back to the original point!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you an approved Data Controller in compliance with the Data Protection Act? Do you display the relevant notices to this effect?

Eh? I'm not installing CCTV equipment!! Where did you get that idea?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

How did recording the conversation, in a non-confrontational and polite manner, turn into 'shoving a camera in someone's face'...'intimidation'...?!?!

It's certainly not polite to be filming someone without asking! It's debatable as to whether it's intimidation, but if you tell the guard that you're filming it in order to publish it on YT to illustrate how rubbish (insert TOC here) is, then yes, it is intimidation. Again, using it to get an advantage (i.e. hoping the guard will drop it if you film it) is intimidation.

 

[penaltyfines]

Fair enough. I've known traincrew record conversations on their mobiles / iphones that were later used in evidence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Personally, I think we should be issued with those "clip-on" cameras, so we could record the abuse and arguments we have on a daily basis.

The TOC's don't want to invest in them, as apart from the cost, they would then have to face up to the issue of the amount of abuse that we take from the travelling public, which is the elephant in the room when we start getting "Customer Care" lectures.

The unions don't want them as it would be hard evidence in cases of alleged improper behaviour by train staff.

The lack of them is being used to protect the guilty, IMHO.

So hang on, you think it's a good idea for train managers to record conversations? But not passengers?

I think I've lost interest in this conversation... recording in a public space is obviously legal, go have some fun on Google! Any it's obviously useful as you have just proved in your post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's certainly not polite to be filming someone without asking! It's debatable as to whether it's intimidation, but if you tell the guard that you're filming it in order to publish it on YT to illustrate how rubbish (insert TOC here) is, then yes, it is intimidation. Again, using it to get an advantage (i.e. hoping the guard will drop it if you film it) is intimidation.

I didn't say any of that.

Recording the conversation whilst saying "I'm recording this conversation to retain an accurate record of what has been said" isn't harrassment, isn't intimidation, isn't illegal, isn't anything other than useful and logical in a situation where you are right and the guard is wrong.

It's not rocket science!!!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

recording in a public space is obviously legal, go have some fun on Google!

A train and a station are not a public space. They are both private property - perhaps you need to have a bit more fun on Google to find that?

 

[penaltyfines]

A train and a station are not a public space. They are both private property - perhaps you need to have a bit more fun on Google to find that?

Have you read this thread? Want to read it again?

The word 'space' is different to the word 'property'.

So:

- Public Space isn't the same as Public Property
- Public Space isn't the same as Private Property
- Public Space isn't the same as a banana

Get where I'm going?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Enlighten me then. Please point me towards the relevant statute where it confirms that you can film anything you like on private property if it is considered to be a public space?

 

[90019]

The word 'space' is different to the word 'property'.

You're filming on private property, whether you consider it a public space is irrelevant.

Try going into a gallery, filming everything, and when asked to stop say 'It's a public space so I can film it if I like' and see how long it is before you get kicked out.

 

[Flamingo]

OK, try filming / recording the next time you are bullying your way past ticket inspectors at Southall who are lawfully trying to inspect your ticket.

Let us know how it goes.

I could do with a laugh.

Until then, tootle off and find someone else to bore.

 

[Mike395]

Have you read this thread? Want to read it again?

The word 'space' is different to the word 'property'.

So:

- Public Space isn't the same as Public Property
- Public Space isn't the same as Private Property
- Public Space isn't the same as a banana

Get where I'm going?

Don't really want to get involved in the debate here too much, but public space isn't what matters - for example, the interior of a museum is public space, but as it's Private Property, if the museum owner says you can't take photos, you risk being ejected from the premises if you do. People who own/run Private Property, of which railway stations and trains are such, can refuse admission for any reason if they feel intimidated.

If I was a guard in such a situation as described here, I would regard having a camera pulled out and filmed as intimidation - I would have no clue whether said clip was going to end up on Youtube or not, regardless of what was said by the passenger as reasoning. Intimidation could be regarded as a form of harassment, which is an arrestable offence

 

[ralphchadkirk]

which is an arrestable offence

No such thing anymore, any offence has the capacity for someone to be arrested, so the distinguishing is not needed anymore.

 

[the sniper]

A lot of people going down the lines of 'harassment' on this thread, which may be suitable, but I don't know how easily a court would except using a camera to be 'disorderly behaviour' for the purposes of S.5 of the Public Order Act. I also wonder whether you could prove intent to harass for S.4A of that act, or without an admission prove that the person with the camera knew they were perusing a course of action which they knew or ought to have known amounts to harassment of the other, for Prohibition of harassment under the 1997 Harassment Act. I honestly don't know how easily you'd get these to stick in an instance like this.

What would be easy to prove though would be S.6(8) of the railway byelaws:

(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

I'd say you'd be uncomfortable if someone refused to stop filming you on request, and a guard/conductor as an Authorised Person can enforce this themselves, so they can take a name and address to report them with and remove the person from the railway using reasonable force (Though the latter point is normally against TOC policy and is rightly left to BTP).

Whichever way you look at it, the situation for the person doing the filming can turn sour.

 

[Smethwickian]

Have you read this thread? Want to read it again?

The word 'space' is different to the word 'property'.

So:

- Public Space isn't the same as Public Property
- Public Space isn't the same as Private Property
- Public Space isn't the same as a banana

Get where I'm going?

Yes, I get where you're going - in the wrong direction.

Private property remains private property, no matter how many members of the public you allow access within certain times or to conduct certain business or for other specific reasons.

Owners of trains, railway stations, shopping centres etc, and persons authorised by them, can refuse access, tell people to leave, ask them to stop causing a nuisance, ask them to stop playing the bagpipes, ask them to stop eating smelly fish and chips or, indeed, ask them to stop filming or recording.

I repeat, as a journalist of 23-plus years with some basic understanding of the law relating to filming or photographing in 'public' places or 'places to which the public has access' or 'places where persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy' - however you wish to phrase it - that you are on a slippery slope to confrontation if not a hiding to nothing if a member of railway staff objected to being filmed on railway property or on board a train and you declined to stop filming or recording. You risk being accused (whether or not justified) of causing a breach of the peace or public order offence, let alone the S.6(8) of the railway byelaws mentioned by The Sniper, above.

 

[lyesbkz]

CCTV is one thing. It's just there, filming everything all the time for everyone's safety and few people will feel 'intimidated' by it.

Can you imagine if the guard whipped out a mobile phone and started filming you, the passenger, every time there was the slightest query with your ticket?

'This is going on YouTube!'

 

[squeak]

Enlighten me then. Please point me towards the relevant statute where it confirms that you can film anything you like on private property if it is considered to be a public space?

So what you are saying TfL have got it completely wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14650757

Transport for London (TfL) said that all commuters on the Underground were considered to be in a public area, making photographing them legal.