On board the 0036 First Capital Connect service from Kings Cross to
Peterborough, Friday 6th October 2006 (Saturday morning), I was
assaulted after getting off the train at Hatfield station. No serious
injury fortunately, but I'm more angry with the way it was allowed to
happen.

As I walked through the train to use the toilet, there was a serious
argument going on with a female (with man and child) threatening to
kill nearby passengers that must have said something that she didn't
like. She implied that she had a blade and would cut them, which
slightly concerned me. Many people looked on like startled rabbits. It
then heated up more, so like a fool (having had some drinks) I told
them to calm down. She then turned on me, threatening to stab me. I
said I'd call the police and things got worse. So I walked into the
next carriage and pulled the alarm.

The train stopped (between Potters Bar and Hatfield) and I expected to
speak to the driver (Class 365) but heard nothing. Then two people
walked down to ask what was going on. I asked if they were
off-duty/plain clothed police and they said they worked for the rail
company (no ID, uniform or anything). One had a key and reset the alarm
so the train could continue.

During this time, they went to see the people still arguing and
pushing. I followed to explain what I'd seen and what had been said,
and got taken back to be told that at that time of night, they don't
want a problem on the train. I was asked to leave at Hatfield, which
was my stop anyway, and also the others. I specifically made a point of
saying that he was ensuring I'd be attacked as soon as the train
departed. He didn't say another word.

No sooner have I gone over the bridge to the taxi rank, the male ran up
to me and confronted me, arms out and looking like he was going to head
butt me any second. Luckily other people had got off at the station,
some knowing what had happened. He didn't actually touch me (just
more threats of violence and swearing), but the woman wasn't so
'polite'. She punched me on the head, but I managed to move. Then
she walked off, only to come back and smash her can of beer over my
head. I got covered, as did someone standing nearby. She continued to
threaten me and say that I'm dead if they ever see me again.

I reported everything by telephone to British Transport Police, and
await an explanation from FCC. BTP were concerned by this, but I'm
not holding out much hope of them getting to the bottom of things. I
don't know who the people were who claimed to be working for the
railway, and never got to speak to the driver.

I could easily identify the people on the train, and the can of beer
would have fingerprints, but I'm not silly enough to think the police
will take incident that seriously. After all, nobody was killed or
injured, beyond a soaking wet jacket and season ticket. Of course, I
have to keep my eyes open on any other late night train trips where
they might be travelling.

My advice; If you see something happen. Turn your head. Don't get
involved. The people you might expect to help probably won't because
they want an easy life. That makes me very angry, but I don't fancy
being killed to try and do the right thing.

Jonathan

Man I'm sorry to hear about that!

What you've said reminds me of something I read a few months ago.
Evidently research suggests that if you're on a train and someone moves
to attack you, and there's just one other person/group of people on the
carriage with you, they're far more likely to jump to your defense than
anyone on a crowded train, who will sit and wait for someone else to
step up.

Its unfortunate what you went through, its something that happens all
too often as part of modern life. One of the hazards of late night
travel is that chances are increased that you will meet someone who has
been on something of a bender, and sometimes this can cause grief for
us innocent travellers.

On 7 Oct 2006 06:26:54 -0700, "jonmorris" wrote:

On board the 0036 First Capital Connect service from Kings Cross to
Peterborough, Friday 6th October 2006 (Saturday morning), I was
assaulted after getting off the train at Hatfield station. No serious
injury fortunately, but I'm more angry with the way it was allowed to
happen.

[snip]

Sorry to hear about what happened. It's hard to know what to do in such
circumstances but where it is obvious alcohol (and possibly drugs) are
involved you can't expect a rational response from the perpetrators if
you challenge them.

I would send a clear and unemotional letter to the MD of FCC as well as
the Director of Safety and Operations that explains what happened. I
know the safety and ops director (he used to be at LU) and he's a decent
chap IMO. I think it is very important that they go through the facts of
this incident and understand the role of the people who appeared to be
FCC staff and also provide you with an explanation. I wouldn't expect a
miracle but there are issues from what you have said that need to be
understood and lessons need to be learned. The deployment of police or
security staff also needs to be thought about as it is a regrettable but
obvious fact that late night trains are likely to be prone to such
incidents.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

jonmorris wrote:
It
then heated up more, so like a fool (having had some drinks) I told
them to calm down. She then turned on me, threatening to stab me. I
said I'd call the police and things got worse. So I walked into the
next carriage and pulled the alarm.

Possibly they thought you wre a drunk who had pulled the alarm as part
of an argument with other drunks, and that by getting you off the train
they were defusing things? I'm not trying to be censorious, honest, but
how many was "some drinks"?

That aside, my sympathies. It sounds like the "anything for a quiet
life" policy which leads buffet car attendants to sell alcohol to
aggressively drunk football fans - and to hell with other passengers.

Ian

Ian wrote:
Possibly they thought you wre a drunk who had pulled the alarm as part
of an argument with other drunks, and that by getting you off the train
they were defusing things? I'm not trying to be censorious, honest, but
how many was "some drinks"?

Maybe they did, as I had probably had 5 or 6 pints since 5pm. However,
when I'm drunk I do remember everything and I don't get violent. I
spoke quite normally to them, even though I am sure I would have
slurred some words. I vividly remember my comment to the guy when we
all got off though. I hope he does too.

Jonathan

In message .com, at
08:35:34 on Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Ian remarked:
Possibly they thought you wre a drunk who had pulled the alarm as part
of an argument with other drunks, and that by getting you off the train
they were defusing things?

Even if he was, evicting them (both sets of potential combatants) from
the relatively controllable situation on the train to the uncontrolled
environment of a station late at night doesn't seem particularly
helpful.
--
Roland Perry

jonmorris wrote:

As I walked through the train to use the toilet, there was a serious
argument going on with a female (with man and child) threatening to
kill nearby passengers that must have said something that she didn't
like. She implied that she had a blade and would cut them, which
slightly concerned me. Many people looked on like startled rabbits. It
then heated up more, so like a fool (having had some drinks) I told
them to calm down. She then turned on me, threatening to stab me. I
said I'd call the police and things got worse. So I walked into the
next carriage and pulled the alarm.

As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?


The train stopped (between Potters Bar and Hatfield) and I expected to
speak to the driver (Class 365) but heard nothing. Then two people
walked down to ask what was going on. I asked if they were
off-duty/plain clothed police and they said they worked for the rail
company (no ID, uniform or anything). One had a key and reset the alarm
so the train could continue.

During this time, they went to see the people still arguing and
pushing. I followed to explain what I'd seen and what had been said,
and got taken back to be told that at that time of night, they don't
want a problem on the train.

I can understand that. Given that you had already been involved in an
altercation with them, having you go back near them to give your
version of events was only ever going to exacerbate the situation.

I was asked to leave at Hatfield, which
was my stop anyway, and also the others. I specifically made a point of
saying that he was ensuring I'd be attacked as soon as the train
departed. He didn't say another word.

So what did you want to do - go on beyond Hatfield?


No sooner have I gone over the bridge to the taxi rank, the male ran up
to me and confronted me, arms out and looking like he was going to head
butt me any second. Luckily other people had got off at the station,
some knowing what had happened. He didn't actually touch me (just
more threats of violence and swearing), but the woman wasn't so
'polite'. She punched me on the head, but I managed to move. Then
she walked off, only to come back and smash her can of beer over my
head. I got covered, as did someone standing nearby. She continued to
threaten me and say that I'm dead if they ever see me again.

I reported everything by telephone to British Transport Police, and
await an explanation from FCC. BTP were concerned by this, but I'm
not holding out much hope of them getting to the bottom of things. I
don't know who the people were who claimed to be working for the
railway, and never got to speak to the driver.

Once again, as there is a child involved, I'd have dialled 999. So far
as railway staff are concerned, why would you wish to speak to the
driver, rather than the members of staff with whom you dealt? As for
their being less than forthcoming, that is probably because you had had
a few drinks (that isn't intended as a criticism - it's just that in a
conflict situation staff tend to be wary about anyone who appears to
have been drinking).


I could easily identify the people on the train, and the can of beer
would have fingerprints, but I'm not silly enough to think the police
will take incident that seriously. After all, nobody was killed or
injured, beyond a soaking wet jacket and season ticket. Of course, I
have to keep my eyes open on any other late night train trips where
they might be travelling.

I think that you are probably right, but you could still report it to
Hertfordshire Police. There is still the issue that there is a couple
who were behaving aggressively and drunkenly while responsible for a
child. Is there CCTV in the area? If so, you might still get afollow
up, particularly if the couple are known to the police locally. It
would have been better to act at the time, but it's still not too late.


My advice; If you see something happen. Turn your head. Don't get
involved. The people you might expect to help probably won't because
they want an easy life. That makes me very angry, but I don't fancy
being killed to try and do the right thing.

I realise that you are upset, but that's bad advice. If decent people
don't try to help what chance is there? The likelihood is that the
people who were being abused and threatened prior to your involvement
are, in fact, grateful to you, just as, I am sure, you would be
grateful to someone who intervened to try to help you.

As a matter of interest, how do you think that this should have
beenhandled?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message .com, at
08:35:34 on Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Ian remarked:
Possibly they thought you wre a drunk who had pulled the alarm as part
of an argument with other drunks, and that by getting you off the train
they were defusing things?

Even if he was, evicting them (both sets of potential combatants) from
the relatively controllable situation on the train to the uncontrolled
environment of a station late at night doesn't seem particularly
helpful.

On the other hand, if that's where they were all going, what were the
railway staff to do?

Thinks. Actually, the answer to that is probably "call the police,
particularly since a child was involved"

Ian

wrote:
As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?

Is carrying a mobile 'phone compulsory?

What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?

So what did you want to do - go on beyond Hatfield?

Ridiculous question. How did they know he was wanting to get off at
Hatfield? As he had done no wrong, they had no right to eject him from
the train (the fact he wanted to get off there is irrelevant), and he'd
have been perfectly within his rights to refuse if he was going
further.

I realise that you are upset, but that's bad advice. If decent people
don't try to help what chance is there? The likelihood is that the
people who were being abused and threatened prior to your involvement
are, in fact, grateful to you, just as, I am sure, you would be
grateful to someone who intervened to try to help you.

Why defend the company for doing absolutely nothing constructive then?
You can't have it both ways!

While I agree that decent people should try to help, they should be
backed up by the rail company. If they're going to be ejected from the
train for trying to help, and you defend that, then how can you say
it's wise to help?

Yorkie wrote:
wrote:
As there was a child involved I would have called the police in any
case. I'm not sure that pulling the alarm achieved much. Why did you
choose that course of action?

Is carrying a mobile 'phone compulsory?

No, but most people carry them, and the OP said that he told the
troublemakers that he would phone the police if trouble continued.


What's the point in providing emergency alarms, if the alarm is not
answered?

It was answered, by two railway staff. Why would having the driver
involved have improved the situation?


So what did you want to do - go on beyond Hatfield?

Ridiculous question. How did they know he was wanting to get off at
Hatfield? As he had done no wrong, they had no right to eject him from
the train (the fact he wanted to get off there is irrelevant), and he'd
have been perfectly within his rights to refuse if he was going
further.

It may be that the railway staff took the view that he was among the
people involved in the incident, and wanted all those off the train.
Whether they were right or wrong in this, I don't know (though to my
mind it looks like the OP was genuinely trying to help), but their
judgement may have been affected if he was perceived as being affected
by drink. My question isn't ridiculous at all - the OP said that "I
was asked to leave at Hatfield, which was my stop anyway, and also the
others. I specifically made a point of saying that he was ensuring I'd
be attacked as soon as the train departed". I'm curious as to what the
OP wanted - did he want to go on beyond Hatfield, or did he want the
troublemakers left on the train, or what?


I realise that you are upset, but that's bad advice. If decent people
don't try to help what chance is there? The likelihood is that the
people who were being abused and threatened prior to your involvement
are, in fact, grateful to you, just as, I am sure, you would be
grateful to someone who intervened to try to help you.

Why defend the company for doing absolutely nothing constructive then?
You can't have it both ways!

I'm not trying to have it both ways. As I made clear in my original
post, I feel that the police should have been called, particularly as a
child was involved. What do you think should have been done
differently?


While I agree that decent people should try to help, they should be
backed up by the rail company. If they're going to be ejected from the
train for trying to help, and you defend that, then how can you say
it's wise to help?

I think that it is wise to help, but I'm conscious that any situation
involving drunks is difficult and unpredictable. That's even more true
in the environment of a train, and probably more so with a drunken
female involved. And the presence of a child adds to the difficulty.

The OP has said himself that people's perception of his involvement may
have been affected because he had been drinking. It is also possible
that the railway staff's view was affected by his attempt to go back
into the car where the trouble was in order to tell what had been said.
Having been involved in an altercation, threatened to call the police,
left, then stopped the train, his returning would, almost certainly,
have made things worse.

Apart from the involvement of the child this looks like what is, sadly,
a pretty standard "What the **** are you looking at?" incident. Given
the child's involvement, and the events at the station, I think he
should have dialled 999 at the time, and I think it might be beneficial
if he were to contact the police now.