Passengers forcing their way off stranded trains

[Old Timer]

Doesn't the 'I've had 200 years working on the railway so I know everything and you know nothing' line get boring after a while?
This is an anonymous internet forum. How do you know I'm not the guy that trains the track safety trainers? How do you know I'm not the country's top horticulturalist specialising in dangerous plants? How do you know I'm not that guy who recently walked the length of the Amazon who would find the lineside a piece of **** by comparison? As it happens, I'm none of them, but you are making that assumption. The fact that you are assuming things weakens your arguments.

I'm sure there are some nasty plants in the secluded parts of the lineside. However there are those same nasty plants in other secluded places, its kinda irrelevant.

You derided the fact that poisonous plants can be found on the lineside, suggesting to all and sundry that this was a nonesense.

I happen to know for a fact that not only is it NOT a nonsense but actually poses a serious risk to heath for infratsructure staff, to the point that every Company has procedures and instructions about the hazards. These include the requirement to wear full skin covering clothing.

If for example I derided a comment that you had made from your own working environment, would you not be rather ****ed off, especially when you know from your own experience that the hazard is genuine and real ?

You accept now that this may be the case but pass it off with a dismissal that its irrelevant because they are in secluded places. THAT of course IS the issue. Railway lines are secluded places.

People do not go out to secluded areas of the countryside necessarily dressed in the way that some may be dressed when travelling on a train. The hazard comes from the skin brushing the plant. The likelihood of someone coming into contact skin-to-plant in a secluded environment is pretty low, but in the walking along the track scenario the likelihood of exposure to such plants is increased much more.

It is a serious risk and not one that should be laughed off with snide comments.

Moving on, surely the 'failed train' risk assessment must include the self-detraining passenger risk? Is it not considered a high enough risk to do something to prevent it (other than laws, which obviously aren't working)?

I have no doubt that this issue will now receive much more attention than previously if only for the fact that recent incidents have led to extended and well publicised delays.

Who knows but RAIB may recommend more effective door locking ?

It does not always pay to wish for what you want.

..Is the cost of employing some people on call with a stash of water bottles higher than the extra delay cost caused by having unauthorised people lineside? It may be, but I haven't seen anyone say either way, just that 'on call people are expensive, would you want to pay for it?' Well no, but i don't want to pay for extra delays either, so which is cheaper?

We have entered a situation where the theft of lineside cables is causing the sort of failures that very rarely occurred previously. By their nature they are incredibly hard to locate because obviously the criminal fraternity will go to the most secluded location whenever they can.

Cable can be cut into small sections and taken out by a smaller vehicle than is needed to get a cable drum to site. There is also the need to locate and
transport the correct type of cable to site (12/37/54, etc etc cores) then there is the need to position it on cable drum jacks so that it can be unrolled .

Then there is the jointing and finally the extensive testing of the signalling circuits to ensure that everything works OK.

Sometimes when reconnections are made and power is applied, equipment will fail to work because it has been damaged by a short circuit current and this will not have been apparant beforehand.

The repairs are very time consuming and the amount of work necessary must not be underestimated. In this Network Rail do have my sympathy.

It is unfortunate that it now takes considerably longer to move stranded trains but I have to say to misquote, the media and vocal passenger groups have gotten the Railway they deserve through their demands for soundbite solutions to complex problems. They demanded absolute safety, now they have it and they dont like it.

 

[bluenoxid]

Nope. This thread has just gone the way of all such threads and covers no new ground. All you're doing is driving off track into the realms of theory and seeing how far you can pee up the wall by picking holes in each other's arguments.

As diverting as all this is, the bottom line remains that the safest place to be is on the train. An evac, whether controlled or otherwise, just makes a bad situation 10 times worse because suddenly you've got potentially hundreds of passengers out of a safe, contained environment and into a dangerous one where they are free to do as they wish. Once off the train it's just a hop, skip and a jump before they all wander off to find their own way.

Plus, what then do you do with all these people now that they're no longer on-board? If the power is off it won't just be one train's worth but several. How many MOMs and TOC staff are going to be needed on a busy commuter mainline like the approaches to Waterloo if the plan is to tip all the passengers out lineside? What do you do then when the power is restored? You've already exposed hundreds of passengers to a lengthy and risky train evac, do you expose them to these delays and risks again by forcing them back up the ladder and into the train?

I'm sorry, but I'm not swayed. With the exception of a major incident the BEST solution for a speedy resolution is for the passengers to stay put. They are safe (if uncomfortable), not exposed to unnecessary additional risks and as soon as whatever problem has brought the service to a stand has been resolved the train can be on it's way immediately.

So I'm sorry, but no I won't calm down. Please don't patronise me. If you think I've got it wrong please address my points (because currently no-one has) and then we can talk about what's reasonable.

O L Leigh

In all honesty, you haven't. My preference would be to keep people on a train...

... that's moving. In a situation that is progressing. My concerns are a lack of leadership and a lack of proactivity. It is too easy to resort to leaving passengers on trains because it is the "safest" place. Doing nothing is safe. But this worries me. Comfort is denied, care is lost and welfare is dismissed as an inconvenience.

My worry is that in some situations, decisions are being bogged down because there is no decision point. No one says that 3 hours is enough, 5 hours is enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is unfortunate that it now takes considerably longer to move stranded trains but I have to say to misquote, the media and vocal passenger groups have gotten the Railway they deserve through their demands for soundbite solutions to complex problems. They demanded absolute safety, now they have it and they dont like it.

The damning comment on the money wasted on TPWS, says it all.

 

[Old Timer]

The damning comment on the money wasted on TPWS, says it all.

Good Lord we agree on something !

Something must be wrong !

Anyway I have no wish to spoil your early night.

For the sake of clarity I do not wish to denigrate everything you say, but I am one of the few on here who has actual experience of detraining people and I write from that expereience and perspective. I do not do so lightly.

You may find my comments wearisome but I have seen the results of knee-jerk decisions many times over the years and almost always they were the wrong response.

Sometimes the best answer for action is actually to take NO action.

As the Americans "say **** happens" and sometimes one just has to accept it and move on.

 

[talltim]

I agree that the safest place to be is on the train. However, from recent events it appears that not every thinks that way. Thus its no good the 'railway' sticking its head in the sand and merely repeating that mantra.
It has to accept that without change these detrainments will continue to happen, thus there needs to be some change. Now whether that is prosecution or bottles of water, its got to be in everyone's best interest, the passenger will be safer and get a better servicew and the TOCs will suffer shorter delays, ultimatly saving money.
I can't help feeling that those that do not try and understand the thought processes of the renegade passengers will not come to a workable solution. Its no good just calling them idiots, even if they are as thick as two short planks the TOCs still need to make sure that they do not get to a state were they think jumping off is the best solution.

 

[bluenoxid]

I agree that the safest place to be is on the train. However, from recent events it appears that not every thinks that way. Thus its no good the 'railway' sticking its head in the sand and merely repeating that mantra.
It has to accept that without change these detrainments will continue to happen, thus there needs to be some change. Now whether that is prosecution or bottles of water, its got to be in everyone's best interest, the passenger will be safer and get a better servicew and the TOCs will suffer shorter delays, ultimatly saving money.
I can't help feeling that those that do not try and understand the thought processes of the renegade passengers will not come to a workable solution. Its no good just calling them idiots, even if they are as thick as two short planks the TOCs still need to make sure that they do not get to a state were they think jumping off is the best solution.

This is actually really good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good Lord we agree on something !

Something must be wrong !

Anyway I have no wish to spoil your early night.

For the sake of clarity I do not wish to denigrate everything you say, but I am one of the few on here who has actual experience of detraining people and I write from that expereience and perspective. I do not do so lightly.

You may find my comments wearisome but I have seen the results of knee-jerk decisions many times over the years and almost always they were the wrong response.

Sometimes the best answer for action is actually to take NO action.

As the Americans "say **** happens" and sometimes one just has to accept it and move on.

Cheers OT. Fantastic wrap up

 

[Old Timer]

...I can't help feeling that those that do not try and understand the thought processes of the renegade passengers will not come to a workable solution. Its no good just calling them idiots, even if they are as thick as two short planks the TOCs still need to make sure that they do not get to a state were they think jumping off is the best solution.

In most cases though, the detrainment can be seen as an extension of our emerging culture where everyone has rights but no responsibilities, where everyone wants instant satisfaction and where it is now a case of "me" above and before all others.

There is a growing impatience in this Country to wait for anything and a growing agressiveness based on the "me uber alle" attitude.

Because I am in and out of the UK so much I am seeing it develop - possibly better than those who are exposed to it each day.

The UK is becoming a less nice place to be more and more these days. You can see it in more aggressive driving standards, people pushing in front at queues and in pubs and if you dare to challenge them they are quick to either threaten you or tell you to F. Off. They do not see the necessity for THEY having to wait, everyone else can but "they" have the right to push in regardless because they consider themselves far more important than anyone else.

It is this type of attitude that is the underlying cause of detrainments in my view.

 

[O L Leigh]

In all honesty, you haven't. My preference would be to keep people on a train...

... that's moving. In a situation that is progressing. My concerns are a lack of leadership and a lack of proactivity. It is too easy to resort to leaving passengers on trains because it is the "safest" place. Doing nothing is safe. But this worries me. Comfort is denied, care is lost and welfare is dismissed as an inconvenience.

My worry is that in some situations, decisions are being bogged down because there is no decision point. No one says that 3 hours is enough, 5 hours is enough.

A situation is always progressing. God above, surely you don't think we sit around drinking tea all day just hoping everything runs to plan, do you...?

The duration of an incident is an issue, which is why a speedy resolution is always sought. But so what of the duration? Yes it can get uncomfortable, especially in hot weather on a crowded train. I know that from personal experience. But the question is not at what point do you carry out an evac but if one is going to be necessary and if it can be done safely. There's no point having a 3 hour cut-off (for example) if deciding to evac all affected trains will lead to increased risk to the passengers.

Just because you don't see decisions being made or that there has been no word about an individual train being either moved or evacuated it doesn't mean that nothing is happening.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that the safest place to be is on the train. However, from recent events it appears that not every thinks that way. Thus its no good the 'railway' sticking its head in the sand and merely repeating that mantra.

OK, so will YOU address the points I've raised?

It has to accept that without change these detrainments will continue to happen, thus there needs to be some change. Now whether that is prosecution or bottles of water, its got to be in everyone's best interest, the passenger will be safer and get a better servicew and the TOCs will suffer shorter delays, ultimatly saving money.
I can't help feeling that those that do not try and understand the thought processes of the renegade passengers will not come to a workable solution. Its no good just calling them idiots, even if they are as thick as two short planks the TOCs still need to make sure that they do not get to a state were they think jumping off is the best solution.

I would suggest that the change has to come from the passenger side rather than from the industry side. So far no-one has fully engaged with my points regarding the merits of staying on the train, only that a resolution should be expected to come within a certan timescale.

Yes I can completely understand why people might want to bail-out of a stranded train, but they clearly do not understand the consequences of bailing out. Perhaps you fail to understand that you only have to be stopped 5 minutes extra (in a platform) before the renegade element is up at the window demanding a taxi or a replacement bus. There is always a "cheerleader" on every train who wants to whip everyone else up into a frenzy, and sometimes more than one. And what of personal responsibility? What about passengers carrying their own water?

There's no point accusing me of sticking my head in the sand because I keep saying that the safest place is to remain on the train, because by constantly bleating that the TOCs must do better you are guilty of exactly the same charge. As a driver my responsibility is my train and the passengers on it, so please will someone address the safety questions I have raised before.

O L Leigh

 

[strange6]

so please will someone address the safety questions I have raised before. O L Leigh

What needs to be addressed? You're correct in what you say. No way would you find me walking about on the trackside with live metal everywhere, especially if it's damp as well

 

[O L Leigh]

Well I keep being told that I don't understand the situation by people who don't seem to understand it either.

The primary concern is safety, and the best place of assuring that is on the train and not on the lineside. In the event of a train failure it also helps to speed up the resolution to the problem for the benefit of everyone, as I have already said many, many times.

O L Leigh

 

[strange6]

Well I keep being told that I don't understand the situation by people who don't seem to understand it either.

The primary concern is safety, and the best place of assuring that is on the train and not on the lineside. In the event of a train failure it also helps to speed up the resolution to the problem for the benefit of everyone, as I have already said many, many times.

O L Leigh

I thought you were trained extensively for situations such as this? I think you know more than the average punter about it.

 

[OxtedL]

I think the point we have firmly established now is that evacuation of any kind = really bad news.

That doesn't change that commuters will still do their own thing, so I now ask the panel: what can be done to improve the situation?

 

[O L Leigh]

It's down to the media to convey the message. The problem is that they're too busy reporting these stories from the passenger's perspective to be of any educational value. It's all about the perceived incompetence of H&S pedants and the triumph of commonsense over petty rules.

If the Thameslink incident with the stranded Cl377s or the Foxton dewirement had been reported properly and included the fact that passengers who had bailed out had delayed the arrival of assistance and made matters worse for those remaining on the train, perhaps the general travelling public would have a better idea about the consequences of their actions.

But unfortunately the role of personal responsibility and acting for the benefit of the common good has been lost these days. Today people are more interested in what "you" are going to do about it.

O L Leigh

 

[talltim]

Well I keep being told that I don't understand the situation by people who don't seem to understand it either.

The primary concern is safety, and the best place of assuring that is on the train and not on the lineside. In the event of a train failure it also helps to speed up the resolution to the problem for the benefit of everyone, as I have already said many, many times.

O L Leigh

I'm not (and I'm sure no-one else here is) saying that you personally don't understand the situation. As a driver you are not in a position to make any of the changes that would be necessary. The lead needs to come from the TOC and Network Rail leadership. Like it or not, people are detraining after a period of time stuck on a train. Something needs to be done to prevent it. (I don't think organised evacuation is the way to go). The solution is probably a combination of penalties, education (difficult when the customers can change daily) and better communication and discomfort alleviation. Oh, and speedier resolution by removing the incompatibilities between stock.
As OT says, the 'me first' attitude is becoming more prevalent. However I don't think the railways are in a position to make an impact on changing that, therefore they need to allow for it instead.

And on the subject of OT, I would like to apologise to him. While I don't agree with absulutely everything he says (and I'm sure he wouldn't want me to.) I was just picking an argument for no reason.

 

[O L Leigh]

The lead needs to come from the TOC and Network Rail leadership. Like it or not, people are detraining after a period of time stuck on a train. Something needs to be done to prevent it. (I don't think organised evacuation is the way to go). The solution is probably a combination of penalties, education (difficult when the customers can change daily) and better communication and discomfort alleviation.

I don't agree, as I have already outlined.

The BTP aren't going to "ping" an entire train for trespass in the event of a mass breakout and, frankly, there isn't much more that can realistically be done about discomfort alleviation. By the time you've organised for the distribution of hundreds of bottles of water to stranded trains (even were such a plan to exist) the chances are the problem would have been resolved and the train be on it's way again. As for passenger education, that has already been touched on with regard to on-train notices. How many people really take the time to read or understand them?

Communication and dissemination of information is also problematic. I think most people would prefer an on-site engineer to be busy fixing the problem rather than having to update his controller every 10 minutes. The problem is that situations are fluid and always changing. I will pester my controller for updates (assuming I can get through on the phone) and pass on what snippets I get but I won't be drawn on timescales. An engineer on the way is not an imminent fix, nor is an engineer on-site. Faults have to be located and assessed before they can be fixed, and there's simply no way of knowing how long that will take or what it might involve. If it's a fault with my train I can be a bit more realistic because it comes down to me, but external issues are outside of my remit and I will not be drawn into giving information I don't have.

O L Leigh

 

[moggie]

I find it facinating that those who on here who advocate their 'right' to unilaterally leave a train without authorisation have probably not attempted to think through the logical conclusion of their actions, if as seems this behaviour trend becomes increasingly viewed by passengers as a reasonable response to a train detention.

First of all, what point does it become 'reasonable' for an individual to leave the train - 10 mins, 30 mins, 1 hour, 2 hours? If a consensus is say 1 hour, that becomes a benchmark which another person acting under duress will always find a 'justifiable reason' in their own mind to contravene the policy. Logically it is therefore impossible for a rail company to devise a policy or plan because a time value cannot be defined that will satisfy all scenarios, ignoring the practical side of things which many on here do anyway.

A time value can only be reasonable if it is appropriate for the most vulnerable person on board in their individual circumstance. A person with a dicky ticker will clearly find a situation intolerable far quicker than a fit young 20 something. How can policy in terms of time be determined around this variable?

Should the rail authority spend time establishing the nature of those on board during the initial period of each and every event that could ultimately lead towards a decision to evacuate the train, thus detracting from the core probelm which could be resolved reasonably quickly. Would this activity be a greater priority than vital operational communications with the single member of train crew (driver)?

Evacuation to lineside (where a ballast shoulder exists the drop from the train is potentially 6 to 8 feet) is clearly usuitable for many. Those who are most vociferous will be those with misplaced confidence for their safety in the uncontrolled lineside environment despite zero practical grounds for such confidence so they will want to leap (into the dark). However, others for whatever reason will want to remain on the train. The only way this can be manged is to await assistance for the two groups. Will those wishing to evacuate be prepared to wait with the train for assistance to arrive - probably not?

I could go on - the essance of my point is this;

At present we seem to be bordering on a state of anarchy where passengers are no longer prepared to respect the authority and judgement of professional Rail staff in the course of their duties if it does'nt fit with their perception of the situation.
If there is no respect for such authority it matters not what plans and policies by NR/TOC are in place - they will not provide confidence to all as there is no understanding of the process by passengers (you entrust this to the professionals - allegedly) and will be ignored because one arrogant and irrational individual will decide they have had enough and 'are within their rights' to take unilateral action and others will follow their lead.

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, the rail authorities (NR/TOC) will conclude that planning for such events in the face of such conduct is likely to be frequent on certain days and with a likelihood of serious injury - a high risk situation. If as today there is an assumption that passengers will remain on the train until authorised the risk of injury is significantly reduced to that adressed by the RAIB research which is in a controlled environment. Yet to provide resource to deal with mass trespass at any point along the network would be impractical in terms of the size of the resource needed to provide adequate cover depending on the response time required and the disproportionate cost of providing such a standby resource as others have pointed out already. If courts rule against rail authorities in cases of trespass this will only harden the position of all concerned.

NR/TOC's will therefore be placed in an impossible situation. Whatever plan and resource they have in place will ultimately fall short somewhere exposing them to legal redress from disgruntled passengers and probably further examples of widespread uncontrolled trespass this achieving nothing. NR/TOC get forced into even more draconian preventative measures in anticipation of passenger action. Meanwhile passengers just ratchet up the anti in accordance with 'their rights' and leave the trains after 20 mins of discomfort.

Result - someone does a risk assessment to identify which days pose the greatest likelihood of passenger trespass in the event of trains becoming detained (hot days which may also co-incide with a similar risk of rail equipment failure creating delay). The likelihood of death or injury consequent on the likelihood of passengers trespassing. They will then conclude that the risk of litigation against the company is so great that commercially and operationally there is no alternative but to suspend services once the temperature reaches a defined value to maintain order on the system for other users (freight).

At least the latter can be forecast, so expect an announcement on the BBC / Local Radio accompanying the weather "because the temperature today is going to reach a lovely xx deg C, all rail services between X and Y will be suspended from 10:00 hrs until 19:00 hours. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused to your journey"

Think it won't happen - well possibly not but there are no workable ideas on here that are an improvement to the rules already in place I can assure you.

 

[jamesr]

Perhaps a quick and easy mitigation is to explain to passengers that detraining between stations can cause a delay of two hours to the passengers on the train, possibly with a poster, rather than an announcement at the time (which would give them the idea they might not otherwise have had).

That way, passengers might - just might - discourage each other from doing it, and those considering doing it might think twice if they realise the other passengers might be inconvenienced directly by them, and are therefore more likely to report them, or at the very least, despise them.

 

[Holly]

I think the point we have firmly established now is that evacuation of any kind = really bad news.
That doesn't change that commuters will still do their own thing, so I now ask the panel: what can be done to improve the situation?

Information.

When no one comes to give information it appears to be an empirical fact that passengers will self-evacuate at somewhere between 2 and 6 hours.
With regular (half hourly) information from a human it is likely to be much longer before they bail.

A guard or driver walking through the train and honestly speaking to passengers every half hour will make all the difference in the world. Even if he has no new information to share.

 

[EM2]

Information.

When no one comes to give information it appears to be an empirical fact that passengers will self-evacuate at somewhere between 2 and 6 hours.
With regular (half hourly) information from a human it is likely to be much longer before they bail.

A guard or driver walking through the train and honestly speaking to passengers every half hour will make all the difference in the world. Even if he has no new information to share.

If you read the comments from passengers in the recent incident at Woking, you'll see that they were receiving information from the driver every five to fifteen minutes (although there was no new information) yet they still decided to bail.

"There were constant announcements every five minutes from the train driver saying he did not know when we would be moving.

"There was about five of us and we decided to get off. We prised the door open and jumped.

 

[Squaddie]

Perhaps a quick and easy mitigation is to explain to passengers that detraining between stations can cause a delay of two hours to the passengers on the train, possibly with a poster, rather than an announcement at the time (which would give them the idea they might not otherwise have had).

That way, passengers might - just might - discourage each other from doing it, and those considering doing it might think twice if they realise the other passengers might be inconvenienced directly by them, and are therefore more likely to report them, or at the very least, despise them.

Every one of us - including those who claim to "despise" passengers who do so - would attempt to escape from a stationary train eventually. We differ only in how long we would wait before doing so.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

This has been a most interesting discussion. My last word will again be in favour of the poor passenger. Someone who uses the service every working day of the year and forks-out a small fortune for their annual season-ticket and suffers the disagreeable conditions of South Eastern's commuter trains day after day.Such a passenger will have his or her breaking-point and that this happens after a couple of hours in a hot overcrowded carriage after two hours of immobility can be understood if not condoned. When this passenger takes the decision to force an exit and is followed by hundreds of others onto the track (in the safest manner posible) what can the TOC / authorities do ? Simply reinforce security in the vicinity and make sure the people are evacuated as quickly as possible to get things moving again. The threat of legal-action will have little effect. The courts simply cannot prosecute hundreds of passengers for what is, after all , only a very minor offense. Likewise, a court cannot prosecute a handful of passengers for an example as all the other passengers on the train could demand to be judged for the same offense. The tenacity and organisational skills of a group of people ( such as regular commuters) should not be under-estimated !

 

[EM2]

The courts simply cannot prosecute hundreds of passengers for what is, after all , only a very minor offense.

Can't they? Trespass on the railway is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1000. Doesn't seem 'a very minor offence' to me.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Can't they? Trespass on the railway is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1000. Doesn't seem 'a very minor offence' to me.

I'd like to see them try ! The train is probably full of barristers and solicitors who would delight in the challenge of a fight with the TOC ! Such a battle would be fought right to the House of Lords !

 

[ushawk]

I'd like to see them try ! The train is probably full of barristers and solicitors who would delight in the challenge of a fight with the TOC ! Such a battle would be fought right to the House of Lords !

If it will stop people forcing their way off the trains, then they should try.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'd like to see them try ! The train is probably full of barristers and solicitors who would delight in the challenge of a fight with the TOC ! Such a battle would be fought right to the House of Lords !

I don't think it would. Cases that would have gone to the HoL now go to the Supreme Court, which will only deal with the clarification of a point of law. That would not exist in such a case. I doubt it would get higher than the CoA.

 

[EM2]

I'd like to see them try ! The train is probably full of barristers and solicitors who would delight in the challenge of a fight with the TOC ! Such a battle would be fought right to the House of Lords !

As has already been mentioned, they wouldn't be fighting the TOC, they'd be fighting the police.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

As has already been mentioned, they wouldn't be fighting the TOC, they'd be fighting the police.

In the minds of the passengers, they would be fighting the TOC .

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Likewise, a court cannot prosecute a handful of passengers for an example as all the other passengers on the train could demand to be judged for the same offense.

What a silly argument. Of course the court can prosecute for the offence, regardless of how many people committed it. Or do you actually think that if enough people commit a criminal offence, they won't bother to prosecute?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the minds of the passengers, they would be fighting the TOC .

So? In a criminal case the State brings a prosecution against an individual or group. So they are not fighting the TOC in any way whatsoever. It's like someone blaming the pub for them being arrested for being drunk and disorderly!

 

[Pyreneenguy]

I don't think it would. Cases that would have gone to the HoL now go to the Supreme Court, which will only deal with the clarification of a point of law. That would not exist in such a case. I doubt it would get higher than the CoA.

Thank-you for your precisions ! Fighting to the House of Lords is a figure of speech.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

What a silly argument. Of course the court can prosecute for the offence, regardless of how many people committed it. Or do you actually think that if enough people commit a criminal offence, they won't bother to prosecute?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So? In a criminal case the State brings a prosecution against an individual or group. So they are not fighting the TOC in any way whatsoever. It's like someone blaming the pub for them being arrested for being drunk and disorderly!

Do you really think that a court would not take into consideration the circumstances under which the passengers 'trespassed' ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do you really think that a court would not take into consideration the circumstances under which the passengers 'trespassed' ?

Please read my post - I never mentioned anything of the sort. You stated that courts would not prosecute because of the sheer number of people. That is wrong. You also stated that it would be seen as a fight against the TOC. That is also wrong. It doesn't take someone with a PhD to work that out!