Video: Stealing freedom

[yorkie]

Worth a look:

http://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/2009/01/stealing-freedom-dispatches.html

Particularly from 7mins in, features a harmless rail enthusiast who was harassed by incompetent NR/BTP staff. The enthusiast in question will be known to many on this forum!

 

[Phoenix]

Worth a look:

http://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/2009/01/stealing-freedom-dispatches.html

Particularly from 7mins in, features a harmless rail enthusiast who was harassed by incompetent NR/BTP staff. The enthusiast in question will be known to many on this forum!

You know that day he was escorted off Euston station it was because he was using flash when a Network rail driver was preparing to leave with the NMT and even though I warned him he didn't listen.
And the attitude he told them they were up their own arses.
And that is the god honest truth.

 

[me123]

You know that day he was escorted off Euston station it was because he was using flash when a Network rail driver was preparing to leave with the NMT and even though I warned him he didn't listen.
And the attitude he told them they were up their own arses.
And that is the god honest truth.

I wasn't there and don't know the story, but I do feel that this is a biased video. At no point is the other side of the story mentioned. Fair enough, he was "innocently" taking photos, but what i haven't been told is:

1. Did he seek permission? Network Rail politely ask enthusiasts to do this when visiting their stations, and it's not an unreasonable request
2. What did the enthusiast say to the policeman? How do we know that he wasn't cheeky?

To call anyone incompetent based on this story is borderline slanderous.

If Phoenix's version is correct, the staff were perfectly within their rights to do this, and were doing their job well. However, as I've already said, I'm not sure what happened and these are therefore complete conjectures.

 

[Phoenix]

I wasn't there and don't know the story, but I do feel that this is a biased video. At no point is the other side of the story mentioned. Fair enough, he was "innocently" taking photos, but what i haven't been told is:

1. Did he seek permission? Network Rail politely ask enthusiasts to do this when visiting their stations, and it's not an unreasonable request
2. What did the enthusiast say to the policeman? How do we know that he wasn't cheeky?

To call anyone incompetent based on this story is borderline slanderous.

If Phoenix's version is correct, the staff were perfectly within their rights to do this, and were doing their job well. However, as I've already said, I'm not sure what happened and these are therefore complete conjectures.

I can prove it in some way or another but I just find that slightly annoying not the video just him that kid almost got me booted out of Euston station when I needed to get home.
Also I said "maybe you shouldn't use flash the driver seems slightly annoyed"
and got in reply "Why should I care he should be happy doing his job".
and when they Network rail staff came he also said "great time for an arguement".

 

[Ferret]

Evening Scott,

The thing with Matt is he doesn't always think before he speaks. I've told him about it and so have others. Cant comment on the use of flash - my suspicion is that it was accidental as Matt does have a reasonable idea how to do night photography - we all know that using a flash will not produce anything like a decent result.

To me, the use of Anti-terrorism powers on rail enthusiasts is bang out of order and betrays the lack of common sense among the BTP/NR staff - and that is the crux of Hitchens' story. Yes, 'incompetence' is a strong word to use - not necessarily looking at Matt's experience in isolation but more the many reports on wnxx of BTP harassing enthusiasts whilst crime goes unchecked - I'm looking for another word or phrase, and the only other I can come up with is 'dereliction of duty'.

As for Matt, I can imagine you being annoyed with him Scott - been there several times! All I'll say is he means no harm to anybody - it's just that the consequences of what he says aren't always at the forefront of his mind when he speaks and I guess we have to understand that.

 

[Phoenix]

Evening Scott,

The thing with Matt is he doesn't always think before he speaks. I've told him about it and so have others. Cant comment on the use of flash - my suspicion is that it was accidental as Matt does have a reasonable idea how to do night photography - we all know that using a flash will not produce anything like a decent result.

To me, the use of Anti-terrorism powers on rail enthusiasts is bang out of order and betrays the lack of common sense among the BTP/NR staff - and that is the crux of Hitchens' story. Yes, 'incompetence' is a strong word to use - not necessarily looking at Matt's experience in isolation but more the many reports on wnxx of BTP harassing enthusiasts whilst crime goes unchecked - I'm looking for another word or phrase, and the only other I can come up with is 'dereliction of duty'.

As for Matt, I can imagine you being annoyed with him Scott - been there several times! All I'll say is he means no harm to anybody - it's just that the consequences of what he says aren't always at the forefront of his mind when he speaks and I guess we have to understand that.

Honestly I consider him to be more of a prat than any form of major problem or threat I just find it funny how he manages to get on dispatchers with that story.
I feel I should write to channel four with the counter story

 

[me123]

Honestly I consider him to be more of a prat than any form of major problem or threat I just find it funny how he manages to get on dispatchers with that story.
I feel I should write to channel four with the counter story

Last time I checked, Channel 4 documentaries were extremely biased. His story fits in well to their rage against the state that socialists seem to love at the moment.

 

[Phoenix]

Last time I checked, Channel 4 documentaries were extremely biased. His story fits in well to their rage against the state that socialists seem to love at the moment.

The socialists will always be there to create biased unproven opinions and somehow always seem to make idiots out of themselves when possible.
I really want a world without worry and injustice but I would rather not lie to create peace on earth.

 

[yorkie]

Did he seek permission? Network Rail politely ask enthusiasts to do this when visiting their stations, and it's not an unreasonable request

Permission is not needed. We have been through this before...

What did the enthusiast say to the policeman? How do we know that he wasn't cheeky?

The police were asked to respond, they made no such claim that he was cheeky but it is irrelevant - they should never have been called. IF he was cheeky (which is borderline slander to suggest it) then do you not think that it is a MISUSE of anti-terrorism laws to suspect someone of terrorism for being ¨cheeky¨? My goodness that is a shocking view to take!

Ferret - excellent post, and I agree totally.

 

[richa2002]

Exactly, to use anti-terrorism laws in a totally unrelated incident is out of order and just shows the Police can't be trusted.

 

[me123]

Permission is not needed. We have been through this before...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

How is it an unreasonable request to let people know that you're on a train station? If you've got nothing to hide, that shouldn't be a problem. It's not your property, it's theirs. They have the right to know what you're doing on their property. They're nice enough to let you on without demanding to know this, but it's still common sense and decency to let them know why you're on the platform and that you don't intend to get in the way of any operations.

The police were asked to respond, they made no such claim that he was cheeky but it is irrelevant - they should never have been called. IF he was cheeky (which is borderline slander to suggest it) then do you not think that it is a MISUSE of anti-terrorism laws to suspect someone of terrorism for being ¨cheeky¨? My goodness that is a shocking view to take!

If someone's rude to a police officer, or anyone in authority, and ignores a request like that, that would suggest they have something to hide. If they're downright rude back to the police officer, well no wonder they become suspicious.

As for slander, I have more evidence than you. I have someone saying that the police offer "said they had an attitude", and I therefore I said there may have been some rude remarks exchanged. There's reasonable evidence to support that conjecture. However, you've got even less evidence that the police officer is incompetent, yet you've explicitly stated that he is.

Now if someone doesn't want to tell staff that they're there, refuses a (supposedly) reasonable request and (seemingly) gives the staff some form of verbal abuse, that suggests to me that the enthusiast seems to have something to hide.

NB: This is based on the incomplete accounts provided by Phoenix and the video in the initial post.

 

[yorkie]

It is NOT a requirement to ask permission to take photos, and nowhere does the guidelines state that. They ask that ENTHUSIASTS inform staff when they are ON the station, where does it say permission is needed for photos? I've said this before and I'll say it again, people are making that "rule" up. It's a common rule people quote but the text doesn't say that.

A photographer who is not an enthusiast is not asked to ask permission or even to "sign in".

As for the second point, - it IS a misuse of anti-terrorism powers and I am unsure if you are disagreeing with this or just missing the point. You do not have "more evidence" and Phoenix is describing a completely different incident, and if you think that Phoenix claiming that someone said Matt had "attitude" at Euston equates to Matt having "attitude" on a different occasion then you appear to be suggesting that an allegation about one incident makes someone guilty of another incident. That is slanderous and absurd!

Have you been stopped and searched and treated like a terrorist while changing trains just because you took a photo? Thought not...! Well I have, and it was a misuse of powers, these misuses occur on a regular basis and it is not acceptable. I find it disturbing that some people find it acceptable.

 

[Spaceflower]

What a load of bollox (referring to the documentary in general).

 

[me123]

It is NOT a requirement to ask permission to take photos, and nowhere does the guidelines state that. They ask that ENTHUSIASTS inform staff when they are ON the station, where does it say permission is needed for photos? I've said this before and I'll say it again, people are making that "rule" up. It's a common rule people quote but the text doesn't say that.

A photographer who is not an enthusiast is not asked to ask permission or even to "sign in".

As for the second point, - it IS a misuse of anti-terrorism powers and I am unsure if you are disagreeing with this or just missing the point. You do not have "more evidence" and Phoenix is describing a completely different incident, and if you think that Phoenix claiming that someone said Matt had "attitude" at Euston equates to Matt having "attitude" on a different occasion then you appear to be suggesting that an allegation about one incident makes someone guilty of another incident. That is slanderous and absurd!

Have you been stopped and searched and treated like a terrorist while changing trains just because you took a photo? Thought not...! Well I have, and it was a misuse of powers, these misuses occur on a regular basis and it is not acceptable. I find it disturbing that some people find it acceptable.

I'm not going into this argument. I've been stopped for no reason (presumably as I had a lot of luggage?) for no other reason, and complied fully. I was then told to go on my way. My visit to the station was not as an enthusiast, rather as a traveller. I had nothing to hide, so complied. If you have nothing to hide, you would comply as well.

And don't you DARE call me slanderous when you have, on several occasions, stated very clearly that you think people should lose their jobs over trivial issues. I'm not afraid to say that I would have deleted several posts by yourself if you were not a staff member because you have on several occasions stated this.

I'd also like to say a few things:

1. The Police are not out there just to pick on people. If you think this, you're clearly paranoid
2. If you've got nothing to hide, you would not oppose the police as much as you do
3. If you're asked to leave, leave. It's not your property.

Now, he's clearly an enthusiast and its not unfair to say that enthusiasts also photograph. Maybe the rules should be rewritten, but I think it's fair to at least let people know that you're on the premises.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a load of bollox (referring to the documentary in general).

A bit blunt, but I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[richa2002]

1) It's not paranoia, there are many cases of abuse of police power. Unfortunately this will always be the case. One example of nonsense policing is a driver being questioned for 30 minutes due to being seen laughing behind the wheel. Now tell me some policeman aren't completely bonkers!

2) The nothing to hide excuse is nonsense. May as well just have HD cameras on every street corner with microphones. Nothing to hide so no problem with that. Also, should install some CCTV in your house, need to make sure you're not committing any criminal acts. You'll be fine with that though as you've got nothing to hide.

3) But there's just little need to leave, okay if you're being abusive but I find this is rarely the case, just jobsworth wanting to enforce their power. Have encountered this at Waterloo East and Balham station when we were perfectly polite to these people. For god sake, we're just taking photos of trains, can't think of anything much more innocent but morans seem to think we're some sort of threat.

 

[me123]

1) It's not paranoia, there are many cases of abuse of police power.

I think you'll find that there are relatively few cases. In reality, most cases are dealt with fairly. You're telling me that the majority of police officers are abusive? I fail to understand why I'm the one being accused of slander.

2) The nothing to hide excuse is nonsense. May as well just have HD cameras on every street corner with microphones. Nothing to hide so no problem with that. Also, should install some CCTV in your house, need to make sure you're not committing any criminal acts. You'll be fine with that though as you've got nothing to hide.

I don't think it's a good use of money, installing HD cameras and mics. There are several better uses of money, such as healthcare, education, transport... But I don't oppose security cameras, as I don't have anything to hide.

As for installing them in my home, that's a completely different issue. That's my property. Public areas are not my property and if I were attacked, I'd rather that there were cameras in place to help identify the attackers than to say "Oh dear, I've been stabbed. And there's no security cameras. Well at lest it's not an invasion of privacy".

3) But there's just little need to leave, okay if you're being abusive but I find this is rarely the case, just jobsworth wanting to enforce their power. Have encountered this at Waterloo East and Balham station when we were perfectly polite to these people. For god sake, we're just taking photos of trains, can't think of anything much more innocent but morans seem to think we're some sort of threat.

If you're asked to leave, leave. You have no right to be there, although it's stated by most, if not all, station owners that you're allowed to be there. So if you're asked to leave, I think you should leave.

 

[Ben]

Is this one the lad known as "delticmatt"?

 

[matt]

Is this one the lad known as "delticmatt"?

No that is someone else

 

[richa2002]

I think you'll find that there are relatively few cases. In reality, most cases are dealt with fairly. You're telling me that the majority of police officers are abusive? I fail to understand why I'm the one being accused of slander.



I don't think it's a good use of money, installing HD cameras and mics. There are several better uses of money, such as healthcare, education, transport... But I don't oppose security cameras, as I don't have anything to hide.

As for installing them in my home, that's a completely different issue. That's my property. Public areas are not my property and if I were attacked, I'd rather that there were cameras in place to help identify the attackers than to say "Oh dear, I've been stabbed. And there's no security cameras. Well at lest it's not an invasion of privacy".



If you're asked to leave, leave. You have no right to be there, although it's stated by most, if not all, station owners that you're allowed to be there. So if you're asked to leave, I think you should leave.

So you think someone not doing anything wrong being asked to leave a station is justified? How odd! I'm not saying I have a God given right, but I do no harm so what's the problem?

Please state where I said the majority of policeman are abusive.

 

[87015]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7939255.stm

Looking in jewellwery shop windows now not advised - Also obviously get a lot of robbers wearing leg casts!!

More quality community policing.

 

[me123]

You've stated that there are many cases of "police abusing power". This implies to me that you think all police are doing this. Most do a good job. You fail to acknowledge them.

And yes, I think it's perfectly justified being asked to leave Network Rail's property. If I went into your house and you asked me to leave, you'd expect me to, wouldn't you?

 

[87015]

You've stated that there are many cases of "police abusing power". This implies to me that you think all police are doing this. Most do a good job. You fail to acknowledge them.

And yes, I think it's perfectly justified being asked to leave Network Rail's property. If I went into your house and you asked me to leave, you'd expect me to, wouldn't you?

Is your house there to provide a service to the public then?

 

[richa2002]

Many by no means means the majority of police. There must be thousands of discussions between public and police each day but if even one or two of these are abusive of power then this is one or two too many in my opinion. So yes, it may be a very small percentage but if that means hundreds of cases a year per a few million then that's a few hundred too many.

I wouldn't mind if they could offer a justifiable reason for being asked to leave the station. Security is usually the one but they can never rationally explain how it actually is a security risk. Anyone with bad intentions will do it in the most inconspicuous manner possible, not in the way a rail enthusiast would which is pretty obvious. Any dumbo knows a rail enthusiast doesn't pose a threat. Well you would have thought so. So yes, legally they may have a right to but it contradicts their guidelines where they say 'All of Britain’s Train Operating Companies and Network Rail welcome rail enthusiasts to their stations.'

There is also a part which says 'You may sometimes be asked to move to another part of the station or to leave the station altogether. Station staff should be happy to explain the reason for this.' Once again, that's acceptable if the station staff can actually explain the reason. They never can though.

 

[me123]

Is your house there to provide a service to the public then?

No. But it's still not public property. It's Network Rail's Property, and they're perfectly within their rights to ask you to leave their premises for no reason whatsoever unless you are in possession of a ticket/travel document to allow you to be there. Even if my house did provide a public service, it would still be my property.

 

[yorkie]

...unless you are in possession of a ticket/travel document to allow you to be there.

and what if you are in possession of a ticket/pass and they ask to you to leave because "photography is banned"?

 

[me123]

Then stop taking photographs! Photography may not be banned, but just stop if someone asks you to and wait for your train. It's not hard to say:

"OK, I will stop my photography but I'm waiting for a train to X".

If at this point they don't let you catch the train, then it's clear abuse of police powers. Telling them that photography isn't banned and getting into an argument isn't the best thing to do.

 

[richa2002]

Telling them that photography isn't banned and getting into an argument isn't the best thing to do.

But the rules say generally it is permitted so any reasonable human being is going to argue with the phrase 'Photography is banned'. They'll want a rational reason for why it is banned.

 

[ladysue]

I was at Ipswich the other day just looking at trains and took a picture of a couple of them. A member of station staff came up to me and asked where I was going. I said I wasnt going anywhere but was just looking at trains and taking a few pictures. He said fine and left me. May be I was lucky or maybe its because I gave him a nice smile and was polite.

There will always be a minority of rail staff and policemen who enjoy using their power but they are human and if you speak to them nicely you are usually fine. The problems usually only occur when you get a stroppy official and a lippy member of the public who challenges their authority.

 

[mumrar]

There will always be a minority of rail staff and policemen who enjoy using their power but they are human and if you speak to them nicely you are usually fine. The problems usually only occur when you get a stroppy official and a lippy member of the public who challenges their authority.

And there we have it in a nutshell (or case to quote Basil Fawlty). I believe this incident has an element of both, certainly having seen the indiviual in question let his mouth run off before now.

I'm firmly of the belief that if staff employed by a property owner requests you leave, you do so. It is their property and they can at any time request people to leave it, it's a fundamental right regardless of whether anything is banned or not.

I don't want to get buried in the technicalities of this instance as there were wrongs on both sides. But strip it down and basically it is what I said above. An employee of the property owner (Network Rail) asked someone, for whatever reason, to leave their property. The reasonable response would to show a valid reason for your being there (a ticket) and to stop doing whatever made the property owner (if it was a specific action) ask you to leave.

I couldn't go and have a p*$$ in Buckingham Palace toilet just because I bought a tour ticket after all.

 

[richa2002]

What's the point of having guidelines if staff disregard them? Anyway, this is being blown out of proportion a bit. Fortunately, most staff still retain common sense so are fine with it. Just the occasional tools ruin having a nice time.