Merseyrail Feet on Seats Query

[DaveNewcastle]

Because a crime has been committed which is a criminal offence. I don't believe the victim should necessarily get to decide on whether the due legal process is followed, least of all by way of deciding their own punishment when the law prescribes what the punishment should be. . . . .

I think there might be some confusion here, though understandable confusion.
There is Criminal Law (generally brought forward by the Police and CPS), and there is Civil Law, generally brought forward by individuals or corporate bodies.
But it is perfectly reasonable for an individual or corporate body to prosecute a Crime, just as it is for the Police, CPS or NCA to prosecute another party under whatever legislation, Common Law, European Law or other framework that is appropriate. It is perfectly correct for the party bringing the action forward to make their assessment of the remedy they seek. There are guidelines and frameworks for many crimes, but they don't constrain a litigant in the majority of cases. Case Law will.

As for the suggestion that Sentencing in Law is a matter of "deciding [a] punishment", then I despair. I spent a long day in 3 Courts today (the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Queens Bench), with all 3 considering complex and very high value sentences. But at no point did the concept of 'punishment' ever enter into any of them. I am at a loss to see what this drivel about "punishment" relates to. Not UK Law as applied to passenger rail travel, I'm sure.

 

[jon0844]

People wearing head-cameras to catch their employer's customers with feet on their seats? This is, and always has been an absurdity. It is wholly un-British.

We aren't a police state.

What's wrong with that? If it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone did something, it makes things so much easier (and cheaper) for all.

I don't much like sitting on dirty seats. I doubt anyone else does. Even those who put their feet up, but would soon complain if they got on a train with muddy seat edges - blaming the TOC for being incompetent and not having enough cleaners.

 

[AlterEgo]

What I find 'wholly un-British' is some people's lack of respect for others, their comfort and property and the inability to accept and abide by a simple rule.

That and Robocops, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor feet on seats too. But this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. CCTV-wearing enforcement officers with fixed penalties indeed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's wrong with that? If it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone did something, it makes things so much easier (and cheaper) for all.

I don't much like sitting on dirty seats. I doubt anyone else does. Even those who put their feet up, but would soon complain if they got on a train with muddy seat edges - blaming the TOC for being incompetent and not having enough cleaners.

If you want to live in a CCTV society, where it gets used for:

- Finding people who haven't put their bins out
- Catching people who've got their feet on a seat
- Catching people who drop litter

and other minor offences,

....then be my guest. It won't make any of us happier to live in such a pervasive society.

 

[trainophile]

I consider it on a par with people who don't clear up their dog's mess, and I don't think anyone would be laissez faire about that.

 

[Puffing Devil]

If you want to live in a CCTV society, where it gets used for:

- Catching people who've got their feet on a seat
- Catching people who drop litter

and other minor offences,

....then be my guest. It won't make any of us happier to live in such a pervasive society.

I'd be very happy for any of these to be enforced by CCTV. We are living in less respectful society where a small, obnoxious, selfish, minority behave in a way that impacts others disproportionately.

(Though I'm not sure that failing to put your bin out is a crime......)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Though I'm not sure that failing to put your bin out is a crime......)

He probably meant putting it out a bit early, which I think is by Byelaw in some places.

I would like more enforcement of littering, personally, though I'd rather it was from police on the streets who could see it, make them pick it up *and* book them. And (going on topic) as stations now generally have the clear sack bins, there's no excuse for it there either. (Not that there was anyway, you just take it home)

 

[35B]

As for the suggestion that Sentencing in Law is a matter of "deciding [a] punishment", then I despair. I spent a long day in 3 Courts today (the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Queens Bench), with all 3 considering complex and very high value sentences. But at no point did the concept of 'punishment' ever enter into any of them. I am at a loss to see what this drivel about "punishment" relates to. Not UK Law as applied to passenger rail travel, I'm sure.

At the risk of going way off topic, if sentencing doesn't involve a punitive element,what is it for?

 

[AM9]

He probably meant putting it out a bit early, which I think is by Byelaw in some places.

Which in most cases is a perfectly reasonable rule, either to reduce obstruction of a footpath or to minimise the time that refuse is at risk of fox and other wildlife attack.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which in most cases is a perfectly reasonable rule, either to reduce obstruction of a footpath or to minimise the time that refuse is at risk of fox and other wildlife attack.

Depends. If you work odd hours, it can leave you with a real problem of being unable to use the service. The idea of putting it out on the morning is only really suitable to 9-5 workers.

Not before dark on the day before is reasonable, anything else is just being awkward, IMO. Obviously if the foxes attack you need to clean it up yourself but that goes without saying.

 

[Camden]

That and Robocops, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor feet on seats too. But this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. CCTV-wearing enforcement officers with fixed penalties indeed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you want to live in a CCTV society, where it gets used for:

- Finding people who haven't put their bins out
- Catching people who've got their feet on a seat
- Catching people who drop litter

and other minor offences,

....then be my guest. It won't make any of us happier to live in such a pervasive society.

The CCTV used by the enforcement officers is incidental to their task. It provide corroborative evidence for use, if necessary, to back up their version of events when and if they have had cause to take someone to task over their behaviour. It isn't used to spy on people, nor is it used to "catch" people. Nor, as it should be clear by this thread, are fixed penalties issued.

The use of enforcement officers to stamp out bad behaviour has overwhelming support in Liverpool, and causes only nuisance to those who exhibit the bad behaviour. Merseyrail has been transformed over the past ten years or so, largely thanks to this policy. I expect you've never used it, by calling the enforcement a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have both before and after the enforcement policy was in place. These days it's a joy to use, it's safe to use, it puts other cities transport in the shade. I can guarantee this has made a lot of people happier.

 

[trainophile]

Some of the trains have been reupholstered in much nicer fabric too, and even have rubbish bins between some of the back-to-back seats!

Re. the household bins - it's a problem for those who have no need to get up early for work, as our bin men come anytime after about 6.30 a.m., so if we weren't allowed to put it out the night before we'd have to get up at 6.00 just to do that. Luckily our council aren't so fussy, and everyone puts them out the night before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the trains have been reupholstered in much nicer fabric too!

Re. the bins - it's a problem for those who have no need to get up early for work, as our bin men come anytime after about 6.30 a.m., so if we weren't allowed to put it out the night before we'd have to get up at 6.00 just to do that. Luckily our council aren't so fussy, and everyone puts them out the night before.

Yes, the night before is usual practice here as well, and it really isn't an issue. And we use plastic sacks - with wheelie bins which are far harder for small animals to access, it's even less of an issue.

The obsessive, zero-tolerance enforcement of things like that seems to be a London thing for some reason, most probably by underfunded Councils after a revenue stream. But MK is very pragmatic on waste - they've even started sorting the black sacks at their recycling plant to catch suitable recycled items thrown into them by mistake, and they also sort all other recycling from a mixed pink sack (except glass for safety reasons). So recycling is done well, and because people don't feel the Council is out to get them they take part properly.

And we have very low Council tax. Much of that is probably down to the lack of duplication, though, as MK is a unitary authority. These seem much more efficient than the traditional two-level structure.

 

[damo44]

As for the suggestion that Sentencing in Law is a matter of "deciding [a] punishment", then I despair. I spent a long day in 3 Courts today (the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Queens Bench), with all 3 considering complex and very high value sentences. But at no point did the concept of 'punishment' ever enter into any of them. I am at a loss to see what this drivel about "punishment" relates to. Not UK Law as applied to passenger rail travel, I'm sure.

Sorry, but can you step through this please. How can punishment not be exactly what a court sentence is, let alone it being drivel.

I'm completely at a loss to understand what you're talking about

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sorry, but can you step through this please. How can punishment not be exactly what a court sentence is, let alone it being drivel.

I'm completely at a loss to understand what you're talking about

A sentence will fulfill some or all of these functions:-
- a deterrence (to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of the crime)
- protection (to protect the public and offenders from the impact of the crime)
- reformation (to assist in the reformation of offenders)
- safety (to protect others from harm)
- retribution (to show public revulsion for the crime)
- reparation (to compensate the injured party)

Some Decisions by a Court will also carry a "punitive" element and many have absolutely none, such as:-
- to remedy a wrong
- to compensate
- to prohibit
- to regulate
- to give directions
- to clarify a meaning

The most powerful of all of these elements are surely 'deterrence' (which regulates how society behaves) and 'remedy' to put right a wrong.

 

[damo44]

A sentence will fulfill some or all of these functions:-
[SNIP]
The most powerful of all of these elements are surely 'deterrence' (which regulates how society behaves) and 'remedy' to put right a wrong.

Wow. We're so far apart as to what the priorities of our courts should be that it's pointless even carrying on with the discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question though

 

[Fare-Cop]

The most powerful of all of these elements are surely 'deterrence' (which regulates how society behaves) and 'remedy' to put right a wrong.

I agree Dave, it is always said that the 'driver' of our prosecution processes is re-education first, compensation second.

 

[najaB]

How's this for a classic example on the train I'm currently on (the sign reads "Thank you for keeping your feet off our seat")

 

[trainophile]

How's this for a classic example on the train I'm currently on (the sign reads "Thank you for keeping your feet off our seat")

Judging by the state of its clothes, its feet are probably no worse!

 

[jon0844]

I've been on a train where a guy saw the sticker and peeled it off!

 

[timbo58]

Maybe the company could 'reserve' a couple of muddy, **** stained, soaking wet seats for the type caught with their feet up on other seats to be placed in for the rest of their journey?
They can do what they like then!

scumbags.

 

[Camden]

How's this for a classic example on the train I'm currently on (the sign reads "Thank you for keeping your feet off our seat")

Just the whole attitude of it all, as if she's in a litter strewn, fag ash stinking living room glued in front of Jeremy Kyle. Can you believe that I actually sat next to someone who was so similarly self absorbed and self entitled they proceeded to do that right next to me?

And no I didn't sit there and say nothing! Obnoxious in the extreme behaviour doesn't deserve polite deference.

 

[gray1404]

I travel on Merseyrail a lot, they serve my local station. I do not agree for one moment people should put their feet on the seats. I find it very annoying. I have an issue with this on London Midland too. Particularly on the sets they use on the Liverpool to Birmingham and Crewe to Euston, in which they are 3-3 facing with no table in the middle.

I don't like it though when the Merseyrail Civil Enforcement Officers get on Merseyrail and start storming though the train with their head set video recorders and high viz jackets. They tend to be large bully boy types and there is something about them I don't like. I perhaps with they were more covert and maybe pain clothed and also more formal about it. They don't exactly attract the articulate types in that job.

I've seen them "book" some people for having their feet on the seats. My understanding is that you have to provide your name and address. But these representatives were saying that the passenger had to provide their date of birth and sign the paper.

Yet I've never put my feet on the seats in my life and hate it when people do. So I guess this is the price you have to pay.

 

[trainophile]

I think having the heavies march through the train occasionally just might make frequent offenders realise that their luck will run out eventually. I've noticed the normal guards (as opposed to Byelaw Enforcement Officers) walking through and scanning all the occupants in a way that is fairly obvious they are looking for feet on seats.

What I will never understand is WHY people feel the need to immediately park their legs and feet horizontally, as if they are settling in for a night in front of the telly. I do wonder whether they do it at home, although I bet they do unless the home owner (e.g. parent) tells them not to!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder whether they do it at home, although I bet they do unless the home owner (e.g. parent) tells them not to!

Never with shoes, but I do very often sit either crosslegged or with stockinged or bare feet up on the sofa in some way, and I'm by no means the only one. And ISTR that Merseyrail enforce for *any* feet on seat, whether shod or not?

On trains I tend to choose airline seats, but I very often do put my foot on the heating conduit, and again that's quite common because otherwise the conduit takes up foot-room, especially on trains with 3+2 seating. Though ISTR Merseyrail units have underseat heating instead of side conduits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think having the heavies march through the train occasionally just might make frequent offenders realise that their luck will run out eventually.

Possibly so, and it does seem to be effective, though I'd rather they employed people with, shall we say, a more professional appearance and used a more formal uniform than those who appear to be "rent-a-thugs" (however professional they actually are, the presence is intimidating).

I don't like "rent-a-thug" heavies in any form, they just make things feel unpleasant (for example I would choose not to go to a pub with thuggish bouncers, as if they are there that identifies that the pub has a problem with its clientelle that requires their presence). I vastly prefer the far more professionalised security industry in places like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Lets look at it from another angle.....

When you walk into your own hoise, do you leave your shoes on when you sit upon your own sofa and put your feet up? NO! So why do it on my train? Or indeed on the back seat of a bus?

Convenience! Its a handy foot rest!

In your own home you take your shoes off first. If everybody did that I wouldnt have a problem, but some people and quite frankly their attitude is all about themselves and flick off everyone else. When you have took your dirty muddy or dog turd stained shoes off the chair someone else has to sit on that seat. Would you want to sit on a seat that someone elses turd covered shoes have been on?

My point exactly. So heres the deal, you want to put your feet up, take your shoes off. To be honest, its far more comfortable that way! And yes it is in the individual companies byelaws, often stickers on the windows indicate this and its common sense and courteous.

 

[gray1404]

It still needs to be implemented in a better way then the status quo. (i.e. not sending the heavies, aka under achievers on a power trip, though the train)

 

[island]

Or, you know, people could show common courtesy...

 

[trainophile]

It still needs to be implemented in a better way then the status quo. (i.e. not sending the heavies, aka under achievers on a power trip, though the train)

I think that's a bit unkind. Have you had a bad experience with them? They are only doing a job that is sadly necessary.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It still needs to be implemented in a better way then the status quo. (i.e. not sending the heavies, aka under achievers on a power trip, though the train)

I always smile when I recall hearing our old chief inspector in the office years ago saying to a new inspector who had transferred from another area "Do you know, I reckon that you only catch the idiots" to which came the reply, "It's a bloody good job there's so many of them out there then 'cos it doesn't need Einstien to spot 'em boss!"

 

[Camden]

It's more than a bit unkind, it's an absolutely disgraceful thing to say about people. Withdraw the services these people provide and see how he rates his Merseyrail journeys after a year, when the "heavies" are no more, and the real thugs have taken back over. I bet he wouldn't be tarring them as "under achievers" then.

Regarding other points made, the uniforms they wear are no more "thuggish" than your average police uniform, and I believe they also contain a measure of self-protection. While these people are dealing with wrong doers to keep the Merseyrail network pleasant for the ungrateful, not one ounce of consideration has been given to the positions these people will find themselves in from time to time.

The alternative to them being in these situations (of being confronted by real thugs and turfing them off the network), is that people like Gray1404 find themselves confronted by them instead. I remember what Merseyrail used to be like, and if it became like that again I wouldn't use it, let alone someone who has to make the choice every day.

As for those doing the job, I've never found them anything other than professional, polite and friendly people doing a great job.

To label people you don't know "under achievers" is disgraceful at any time, but certainly I happen to think they achieve a great deal.