Passenger removal

[Ian Hardy]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

The problem we have in this country is that a very large proportion of the population think that getting intoxicated is something clever to do and they don't realise how stupid they look.
Sometimes I think that they ought to be filmed and that film be passed to their family, their employer and / or the DHSS (if on benefits), and see what reception they get from them.

 

[Haywain]

It can be. I've had a seriously drunk person fall down a Tube escalator onto me,

Walking unsteadily or falling is part of what I am referring to as behaviour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

Sometimes I think that they ought to be filmed and that film be passed to their family, their employer and / or the DHSS (if on benefits), and see what reception they get from them.

What does what people do in their own time have to do with employers or the DHSS?

 

[PLY2AYS]

It’s always good to get the rest of the carriage on your side but even if not it’s not nice to be in the middle of nowhere if they kick off again with little chance of assistance.

Agreed.
Actively announcing to the carriage or train that specific behaviours or conduct aren’t acceptable is a surefire way to illustrate the culprit being the reason for a delay and worded well can rally passengers to the cause.
I’ve noticed it most notably with deliberate PassCom activation or forcing doors open, as well as playing obnoxiously loud calls or music in the Quiet Zones.

 

[saismee]

To me "you are an effing idiot" is clearly abuse whether with the "effing" or not, but "this is just not effing good enough" isn't really, as it's complaining about a situation, not abusing the individual.

Depends on the tone and whether it's being shouted at an individual. If someone shouts the second one at you, responding politely by asking them to lower their voice will very quickly differentiate between complaining about the situation and abusing staff.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

Though one exception would be racist/sexist/homophobic language which is always abusive used in public regardless of context.

And I've seen trains be held and people be removed for racist comments to other passengers. I find that most of my colleagues can easily handle racist/homphobic abuse, but once you start abusing other passengers you are OUT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends on the tone and whether it's being shouted at an individual. If someone shouts the second one at you, responding politely by asking them to lower their voice will very quickly differentiate between complaining about the situation and abusing staff.

The latter isn't a very good way of dealing with a person who is justifiably angry. With some it will cause them to get abusive even if they weren't before. The absolute worst thing you can ever do to an angry person is to tell them to calm down - the first step to defusing a situation is empathy in most cases. Note that empathy doesn't mean giving them what they want, but it does mean acknowledging that their upset is justified, even if it's brought on themselves and there'll be no resolution without them paying a chunk of money.

"Can you just calm/quieten down please" could very much go either way.
"Yes, I can see the problem there, can we just talk about it and we can see how it can be resolved" might be more effective, while not actually conceding anything (the resolution could for instance be the full price sale of a new ticket if the reason for the anger is having missed the train on their Advance).

Some staff genuinely aren't very good at this and thus will experience a lot more abuse than others. TOC training really should be covering this kind of thing in some depth - call centre training certainly does. And staff consistently doing it badly despite training probably need to be considered for other non-public-facing roles. (You can probably easily tell by comparing complaint numbers and nature between staff in the same role in the same location).

Of course anything physical is abuse and is likely to justifiably move onto BTP attendance. Touching another person without their express consent is never acceptable, and getting overly close to them is certainly aggression.

But there are some staff who will sell that £300 Anytime or issue that PF and get a "thank you" back, and there are some who will either fail to sell it or at least get fingers stuck up as they walk away, and that wholly depends on how they respond to someone who has a reason (regardless of whose fault it was) to be angry.

 

[John Luxton]

My personal view is that the obviously intoxicated or abusive should not be allowed on public transport, and at periods when there are likley to be a lot around there should be either BTP at stations or the normal police at busy bus stops/stations to enforce it.

Obviously they cant be everywhere or all the time

Whilst I am 100% in favour of stopping those intoxicated to the extent that the cause unpleasant travelling for others there needs to be a way in some situations of proving intoxication or non intoxication. I recall an incident reported in the Merseyside press of someone who was denied travel on Merseyrail as they appeared unsteady on their feet. They were not drunk but were disabled and it caused a bit of a furore. Security and gate staff perhaps should be given a breathlizer kit which can be used to clarify such situations?

 

[saismee]

The latter isn't a very good way of dealing with a person who is justifiably angry. With some it will cause them to get abusive even if they weren't before.

Oh absolutely, I'd never tell someone to calm down without attempting to offer a resolution or reassurance first, unless they're already getting abusive and I'm firmly felling them to stand back and lower their voice.

Most of the situations I find are that people are justifiably angry at serious delays, but their anger is channelled into "open the gates you [...]" because they're grumpy that they have to take an extra 30 seconds to queue and scan their ticket before leaving.

 

[The exile]

Whilst I am 100% in favour of stopping those intoxicated to the extent that the cause unpleasant travelling for others there needs to be a way in some situations of proving intoxication or non intoxication. I recall an incident reported in the Merseyside press of someone who was denied travel on Merseyrail as they appeared unsteady on their feet. They were not drunk but were disabled and it caused a bit of a furore. Security and gate staff perhaps should be given a breathlizer kit which can be used to clarify such situations?

I doubt breathalysing someone who turns out to be disabled, not drunk, would cause any less of a furore. The question is more whether any explanation was given and accepted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh absolutely, I'd never tell someone to calm down without attempting to offer a resolution or reassurance first, unless they're already getting abusive and I'm firmly felling them to stand back and lower their voice.

Agree, this sounds like how it should be done.

Most of the situations I find are that people are justifiably angry at serious delays, but their anger is channelled into "open the gates you [...]" because they're grumpy that they have to take an extra 30 seconds to queue and scan their ticket before leaving.

It's interesting how that varies between stations. Euston 8-11 opens them when two trains arrive at once as otherwise it can take several minutes to get out. It is a bit rude of the railway to allow such queues to build when trains are severely delayed, to be honest.

Directly calling a member of staff "you <expletive>" is very clearly abuse, but if there were serious delays at Euston, 4 trains came into 8-11 at once and the gates weren't opened I would entirely expect a load of passive aggressive comments about it being insulting to them to delay them further checking tickets when the service that day hasn't been worth what they paid for it - and they are 100% right in that view. The railway is sometimes its own worst enemy...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

I doubt breathalysing someone who turns out to be disabled, not drunk, would cause any less of a furore. The question is more whether any explanation was given and accepted.

This was the incident I was referring to and if it was me I would certainly have pursued legal action. It was disgraceful from their Carlisle contractors who, in my experience, are largely very poorly trained, of poor skill and often quite rude, very different from their directly-employed staff (but similar to the Carlisle staff on Northern - personally I'd never give that company any business). I still can't get over the one who had no idea what a Saveaway was and tried to palm me off with a Daysaver despite me clearly asking for what I wanted (the booking office at my origin was closed). That's an example of someone who might have walked away accepting being told it was the same thing and ended up abusing a bus driver or Northern gateline staff when it was refused later... (No, I wouldn't, but I could just see it happening with someone else...)

A short conversation (and thus ability to smell the person's breath and tell if they are slurring etc, and if they quickly volunteered information about a medical condition that no drunk would ever think of) would be enough to work this out properly, or indeed to establish if they were having a stroke or similar and actually needed an ambulance, not telling to go away.

 

[John Luxton]

I doubt breathalysing someone who turns out to be disabled, not drunk, would cause any less of a furore. The question is more whether any explanation was given and accepted.

I can't see why it should as it provides evidence to back up the claim if there is any doubt.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

This was the incident I was referring to and if it was me I would certainly have pursued legal action. It was disgraceful from their Carlisle contractors who, in my experience, are largely very poorly trained, of poor skill and often quite rude, very different from their directly-employed staff. I still can't get over the one who had no idea what a Saveaway was and tried to palm me off with a Daysaver despite me clearly asking for what I wanted (the booking office at my origin was closed).

A short conversation (and thus ability to smell the person's breath and tell if they are slurring etc, and if they quickly volunteered information about a medical condition that no drunk would ever think of) would be enough to work this out properly, or indeed to establish if they were having a stroke or similar and actually needed an ambulance, not telling to go away.

Using Merseyrail quite a lot one encounters the Carlisle people quite a bit - but personally I have not had any problems with them.

I will concede they do have a bit of a reputation as they have also done when they have been used by local authorities for civil enforcement of things such as littering.

Whether that is right or wrong is open to debate but perhaps making people wary of them is one way of enforcing discipline? In schools some teachers have an aura about them which sends signals to children that they have to be obeyed. Other teachers lack this and sometimes they have problems. A little bit of fear often brings comliance.

True smelling the breath can be a solution - that happened to me about 20 years ago on a Friday night in December.

Was stopped at random by a Mersey Tunnel Police officer leaving the Birkenhead Tunnel. The tunnels are favourite choke points for this sort of thing not just for police but other enforcement agencies.

He asked me if I had been drinking - I said not and told him I would never drink and drive. He then asked where I worked. By then he had obviously had chance to small my breath and believed me. He then asked me to take some leaflets to my work place about drinking and driving!

I think the important thing is that rail travel should be pleasurable for those that follow the rules and if on occasion someone is offended well that it the price to pay for the well being of the greater public.

 

[Ian Hardy]

What does what people do in their own time have to do with employers or the DHSS?

If it becomes known that the person is an employee of firm X then it could bring that firm into disrepute, therefore the employee should get disiplined for that act.
The DHSS should remove benefits from those people to make them think about their behaviour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using Merseyrail quite a lot one encounters the Carlisle people quite a bit - but personally I have not had any problems with them.

The ones wandering about on board doing people for feet on seats seem to just be like any security guards, some personable, some less so. But revenue protection is just too complex a thing to work well with contract security guards - Northern is exactly the same.

I will concede they do have a bit of a reputation as they have also done when they have been used by local authorities for civil enforcement of things such as littering.

I'm all for strict enforcement of that to be honest! It's mostly smokers throwing fag ends on the floor and then playing victim when caught.

I think the important thing is that rail travel should be pleasurable for those that follow the rules and if on occasion someone is offended well that it the price to pay for the well being of the greater public.

I think that's quite a low bar and we can do a lot better. Curiously there seems to be a much higher average level of professionalism among contract security staff in places like Germany and the Netherlands than here.

 

[saismee]

Agree, this sounds like how it should be done.

At my TOC we were all given conflict awareness training very early on and we were shown real examples from other TOCs. Sadly, it hasn't seemed to have stuck with some colleagues but most are pretty good at it, and the especially bad ones didn't last long.

It's interesting how that varies between stations. Euston 8-11 opens them when two trains arrive at once as otherwise it can take several minutes to get out. It is a bit rude of the railway to allow such queues to build when trains are severely delayed, to be honest.

It really depends on the passenger load. Events will require us to open the gates as the queue won't be able to die down before the next train comes in and worsens the crowding. In disruption it tends to just be a 4-coach train of grumpy people and our gateline can cope easily... some people can't though!

 

[bleeder4]

I do agree that someone who appears visibly intoxicated should not be allowed to board a train. I think most airlines have a similar policy don't they? Specific exceptions could be allowed, such as trains after big sporting matches that will be full of rowdy fans returning home etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do agree that someone who appears visibly intoxicated should not be allowed to board a train. I think most airlines have a similar policy don't they?

A pretty high bar in my observation. If you mean "have visibly consumed alcohol" I think that's probably excessive. If you mean "falling all over the place" I would probably agree, there's a high chance of them injuring themselves or someone else.

 

[RJ]

I had to check it wasn't April 1st when I read that BTP actually attended.

The BTP will definitely attend if there's a situation where a member of staff is unfamiliar with the ticket presented to them and takes offence because it's explained out to them that the rulebook permits the ticket to be used for the journey. They will be certain to dispatch 3-4 officers pretty quickly in these cases and tend to hang around for a while.

This means they're unavailable if there is criminal activity requiring intervention happening. But some staff are of the mindset that it's a good thing for BTP resource being used in this way, even if it means depriving colleagues who might need that resource for assistance. I don't support it personally.

 

[andy33gmail]

I doubt breathalysing someone who turns out to be disabled, not drunk, would cause any less of a furore. The question is more whether any explanation was given and accepted.

There’s also the problem of what if someone is unstable due to disability and chooses to drink moderately - now they appear drunk, have consumed alcohol - but have done nothing wrong

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2026 ==

At my TOC we were all given conflict awareness training very early on and we were shown real examples from other TOCs. Sadly, it hasn't seemed to have stuck with some colleagues but most are pretty good at it, and the especially bad ones didn't last long.

I remember seeing a member of platform staff at Kings Cross getting increasingly frustrated and slightly angry with a passenger who was calmly challenging him on why the platform was still not displayed despite the train being there & the due time being reached.

 

[Krokodil]

I had to check it wasn’t April 1st when I read there were three of them.

Well they weren't going to leave the office without someone to hold their hand.

If it becomes known that the person is an employee of firm X then it could bring that firm into disrepute, therefore the employee should get disiplined for that act.

If that becomes known (say it comes out in court) then the firm will know about it. No need to proactively tell the employer that one of their employees was a bit rowdy on Saturday night, so long as they weren't yelling "I work for Burger King and I'll gob in your food!"

 

[bleeder4]

If that becomes known (say it comes out in court) then the firm will know about it. No need to proactively tell the employer that one of their employees was a bit rowdy on Saturday night, so long as they weren't yelling "I work for Burger King and I'll gob in your food!"

I'm reminded of an occasion when I was a on a rush hour service on a Monday morning, travelling into work like everyone else. There was one chap who was being incredibly abusive to a number of us, effing and blinding etc. However, he was wearing a polo shirt for a construction company, so I assumed he worked there and was heading to work as well. I surreptitiously filmed a clip of his abusive behaviour on my phone and emailed it over to the email address on the company's website. A few days later I got an email back to say he'd been sacked. So the moral is that if you're going to be an idiot on a train, don't do it while wearing your employer's kit!

 

[Macwomble]

Was it REALLY necessary to mention (in post#1) that the "offender" was Scottish?

I can imagine the reaction if I, a Scotsman, had posted about someone English.

 

[BeijingDave]

Was it REALLY necessary to mention (in post#1) that the "offender" was Scottish?

I can imagine the reaction if I, a Scotsman, had posted about someone English.

I really read that as a mere description without intention to offend... same as I might have written 'a Mancunian gentleman' (for example)

 

[WillC]

I think this conversation highlights how nuanced this all is. Pleasantly tipsy or offensively wasted? I'd like to think rail staff are trained on how to deal with this soft of thing, from the firm and light-hearted warning to the 'get BTP here ASAP'. I was once somewhat inebriated on a New York subway platform. Perhaps someone raised a concern because a pair of large and armed NYPD officers turned up and asked if 'everything was OK'. Sobered me up pretty quick.

 

[GordonT]

I think this conversation highlights how nuanced this all is.

That's true and occasionally (not necessarily in this case) a staff member may have had previous problems with an individual passenger or may be in possession of information not apparent to onlookers but which warrants their removal.

 

[AlterEgo]

Was it REALLY necessary to mention (in post#1) that the "offender" was Scottish?

I can imagine the reaction if I, a Scotsman, had posted about someone English.

How would anyone know you were Scottish?

 

[saismee]

I think this conversation highlights how nuanced this all is. Pleasantly tipsy or offensively wasted? I'd like to think rail staff are trained on how to deal with this soft of thing, from the firm and light-hearted warning to the 'get BTP here ASAP'. I was once somewhat inebriated on a New York subway platform. Perhaps someone raised a concern because a pair of large and armed NYPD officers turned up and asked if 'everything was OK'. Sobered me up pretty quick.

Sometimes the "pleasantly tipsy" ones can be a bit shouty/rowdy, but in a friendly enough way that they may be some of the nicest people staff deal with in a night. Wouldn't want to spend a long train ride in the same coach as them though.

 

[dk1]

Agreed.
Actively announcing to the carriage or train that specific behaviours or conduct aren’t acceptable is a surefire way to illustrate the culprit being the reason for a delay and worded well can rally passengers to the cause.
I’ve noticed it most notably with deliberate PassCom activation or forcing doors open, as well as playing obnoxiously loud calls or music in the Quiet Zones.

I have assisted the conductor with a passenger refusing to become a customer. Some others offered to pay for him to which I asked why on earth would you want to do that as he tries it on all the time. Stopping the diesel engines helped too as he realised we weren’t going to move.

 

[saismee]

Some others offered to pay for him to which I asked why on earth would you want to do that as he tries it on all the time.

This is the most infuriating one when it comes to obvious county lines drug runners/kids trying it on. No, they aren't stranded and trying to get home, they may well be trying to run away!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stopping the diesel engines helped too as he realised we weren’t going to move.

The classic "newspaper method"...The Sun* out as well I hope?

* Other rags are available

 

[Macwomble]

How would anyone know you were Scottish?

I think my screen name and location gives more than the hint of a clue

 

[dk1]

This is the most infuriating one when it comes to obvious county lines drug runners/kids trying it on. No, they aren't stranded and trying to get home, they may well be trying to run away!

Exactly. They are just feeding the fire.