Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
wrote:
Joyce Whitchurch wrote:
AIUI, the train was DOO and the driver was in charge. The two people who
asked the OP to leave the train may or may not have been railway staff,
and they may or may not have worked for FCC; they merely claimed to be
railway staff but did not produce any evidence to back up their claim.
All according to the OP, of course.
So you are most concerned about them not providing ID?
My point is simply that I do not know whether they were railway staff or
not. I expect railway staff on duty on a train to wear a uniform that
identifies their function and their employer, and name badges that
identify them.
They may not have been on duty, but provided assistance when needed.
I accept the
point, but in the circumstances I think that it was reasonable to get
the problem sorted as quickly as possible. After all, the longer the
drunks are on the tain, the greater the opportunity for things to 'kick
off' again. The fact is that if there is going to be trouble it is
better at a station than on a train (either moving or stopped in
section).
I'll ask you the same question that I've asked both the OP and another
poster: What do you think should have been done?
Train was Driver Only. Driver was responsible for the safety of
passengers. Driver should have taken charge of the situation. Driver
should have spoken to the OP as he was the one who activated the alarm.
If there were other staff available on the train, the Driver could have
arranged for them to deal with the situation. That seems not to have
happened.
As the driver did not appear on the scene, it is reasonable to assume
that there was some liason between him and the two staff members who
dealt with the incident. Of course, the driver may have been female,
in which case it was probably netter for the two male staff to deal
with the problem. In any case, where there is a risk of injury to
staff, it makes sense to minimise that risk to the person who can drive
the train.
The primary cause of any disturbance (and we are of course entirely
reliant on the OP's recollections here) seems to have been the
argumentative female. She may or may not have had an offensive weapon;
that is unclear; but if she had, then these people who may or may not
have been railway staff should have sought police assistance.
I think that the staff thought that the OP was part of the problem
(and, in threatening to phone the police, but not doing so, he may have
unwittingly added to the problem). They kept what they saw as the two
parties apart, got them off the train as quickly as possibe, and, it
seems, restored order.
Given that the (apparent) troublemakers were happy to leave the train at
the next stop, then that was probably the simplest way to resolve the
situation. But any staff at the station should have been warned. And if
BT Police were unable to attend, then BTP should have considered passing
a message to their colleagues in the local force. Removing a problem
from railway property may simply have moved it to the streets of Hatfield.
If the OP had just, removed himself from conflict, dialled 999,
explained about the situation (and, in particular the child), and said
that he would try to get the train held at Hatfield if the
troublemakers were going forward, the police could have attended. He
could have used the alarm while the tain was in the station, and
explained the situation to staff.
Finally, I consider that the (apparent) railway staff were quite wrong
to ask the OP to leave the train; though again we can only judge the
situation by the OP's account of it. I would have considered two other
options: firstly, allowing the OP to remain on the train and travel to
another station; secondly, detaining the train in the station for a few
minutes, thereby allowing the OP to stay on the train until the other
people had left the premises.
The staff were faced with a situation which appeared to have two sides
- they presumably tried to be even-handed. I've asked the OP what he
felt should have been done, but he hasn't responded.
Safety on the railway is a much wider business than just making sure the
rolling stock doesn't kill people. First rule of the Rule Book:
"You must do everything possible to ensure the safety of:
· yourself
· others
· contractors
· passengers
· the public
· trains
· equipment
· infrastructure".
A little aside: I was on a night bus in Manchester last night and it was
heavily delayed by an incident at a bus stop
[snip]
You don't feel that it is beneficial for police officers to be clearly
visible?
Visibility is not the same as identification.
The 'pointed hats' that you referred to aren't enough, then? Are you
saying that GM police wear totally anonymous hi-vis clothing?
In what way would things have been better if the bus inspectors had
been wearing Manchester Corporation Transport uniforms, and the police
officers blue serge tunics with a whistle chain?
It would have been considerably better because we would have known who
and what they were. Yellow jackets are worn by a great many people these
days, from lorry drivers to lollipop ladies, road sweepers to newspaper
vendors. They stand out enough that they are unlikely to be run down by
a motor car, but in a sea of similar hi-viz garments they just blend
into the background.
A simple and immediate improvement would be the addition of the
Stagecoach logo to front and back of the hi-viz vests worn by the
(apparent) bus inspectors - for the same reasons that Network Rail
require anyone working on the line to have their employer's logo on PPE.
Well, the lady who said she had been robbed seems to have found someone
to help. And you shouldn't let your rather pedantic concerns about
uniforms blind you to the most important point - there were members of
staff and police officers there to help. That's a vast improvement on
the situation in many places.