| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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 |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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! |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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 |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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 |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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 |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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? |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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 |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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? 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? 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 (a lady waiting to board claimed to have been robbed by someone alighting). There were masses of people in hi-viz yellow jackets at this and several other stops. The jackets did not identify them in any way. They got involved, but all they did was direct the lady to some more people in yellow jackets and tall pointy hats, which is what passes for a police uniform in Manchester these days. You don't feel that it is beneficial for police officers to be clearly visible? Nobody bothered to tell the remaining passengers what was happening, or indeed to ask any of us if we'd seen or heard anything untoward, so I went downstairs to find out for myself. In conversation with one of the yellowjackets, who didn't identify himself at all, I did catch a glimpse of a Stagecoach logo on a dark woolly pullover. The logo would have been completely obscured by the hi-viz jacket if he'd bothered to wear it properly instead of letting it hang half off him. I suppose that's what passes for a bus inspector's uniform in Manchester these days. 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? |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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. Interesting, as there was also a kerfuffle on the 21:34 from Blackfriars, while it was in the station, on Tuesday, 3rd. They called the police, who were there within 5 minutes, and the total delay to the train was about 15 minutes before we could leave for Brighton. While waiting, someone who had obviously been involved came through our carriage, kicking the door to the corridor connection open violently, and hitting the knee of the passenger sitting adjacent. . It obviously pays to keep your head down when trouble flares up. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Terry Harper wrote:
It obviously pays to keep your head down when trouble flares up. Even when a child is involved? And would 'keeping your head down' include not phoning the police? |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Yorkie wrote:
wrote: Yorkie wrote: 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. "Emergency Alarm - Only for use if you do not have a mobile 'phone" Hmm I have neither said nor implied that that is the case. 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? Answered? Maybe, but not in anything like a satisfactory way. What do you feel was unsatisfactory, and how do you feel that the situation should have been handled? 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? I've been on trains where rail staff have been in direct contact with BTP, and arranged for the doors to be held so that the purpetrators could not escape. It worked, and if that is done more often then people would NOT cause trouble on trains as they'd know they are not going to get away with it. I think that rather depends on time, place and type of incident. Given that it was about 01.00 on a Saturday morning I'd have thought that Hertfordshire Police might have been better able to help. I'm not sure that holding the drunken couple on the train would have been the best course of action in this case - attempting to do so could have caused more trouble. As it was, no-one on the train was assaulted (unfortunately an assault happened at Hatfield station, but that might have been avoided if the police had been called). But on First it's profits first, passengers second, generally. Whatever one may think of First, I don't think it affected the way this incident unfolded. Anyway, I agree with some other points you make, and yes it sounds like 999 should have been called. I really do think so, particularly as the OP told the couple that he would do so. Telling drunks that you are going to call the police often antagonises them, so having done so you should follow through. In fact, I think that I'd have just called the police, explained the situation, and been ready to give information and a statement. If the OP has said that a child was at risk, and that he feared a breach of the peace, he would have got a prompt response. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private
transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a group. As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at night. And they call this progress ........... sheeesh! |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
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. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
TBirdFrank wrote:
It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a group. Having a post-pubs train service is a good thing. You obviously have to expect a different atmosphere on a train full of people who have mostly had a drink to that on a morning commuter train, but by and large it's trouble-free, if, at times, raucous. Incidents where it gets really threatening are, fortunately, pretty rare. As for being in a group, it would be no bad thing if people were a bit less insular - it would provide a lot of deterrance to the odd troublemaker if they knew that the rest of the passengers would back each other up. As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at night. I'm surprised that your daughter makes such a journey. I've always thought that living away from home was an important part of higher education. It's what makes it more than just 'more school'. And they call this progress ........... sheeesh! |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
"TBirdFrank" wrote in message ups.com... It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a group. As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at night. And they call this progress ........... sheeesh! I wouldn't expect any problems on Local Trains, they are for Local People. -- Ken Ward "Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's" (For membership email... ) "Leave the Mobile Phone at home day Oct 25th 2006" |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
I'm surprised that your daughter makes such a journey. I've always thought that living away from home was an important part of higher education. It's what makes it more than just 'more school'. She has for some courses - but student loans dear boy, student loans |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
I wouldn't expect any problems on Local Trains, they are for Local People. Ah - but Ken - as she gets off before Royston Vasey, she never has to leave! |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
jonmorris wrote: 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. http://www.documentcapture.co.uk/forms/btp_2006.htm BTP are running a survey about crime on the railway. You should forward your observations. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Roland Perry wrote:
That is perhaps more of an argument for reviewing the use of DOO trains on that route, at that time of day (or indeed female-D OO trains on that route at that time of day). I wouldn't say so. A single guard is as likely to avoid the situation due to danger to himself as the driver is. What it might be an argument for is the abolition of the BTP and its replacement with local force jurisdiction, as I expect it would have been a lot easier to have local plod waiting for the train in such an instance, which would have been the ideal situation. Neil |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
TBirdFrank wrote:
And they call this progress ........... sheeesh! No, they call it the faster spread of news. Without this NG, none of us would ever have heard of this incident, nor of any other similar ones. I have never, ever, in many journeys over many years, encountered anything I'd think to be remotely threatening on a late-night train. I've seen drunk people, silliness, high spirits and such, but never anything seriously threatening. Most late-night trains I've been on have been quiet and subdued, while others (such as the last run to Buxton on a Friday night) almost feel like a social club. While this incident raises major questions in how it was handled, I'd think that was fairly good odds, and I really wouldn't worry. Neil |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message . com, at 16:49:14 on Sat, 7 Oct 2006, remarked: 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. That is perhaps more of an argument for reviewing the use of DOO trains on that route, at that time of day (or indeed female-D OO trains on that route at that time of day). Not really. It's why WAGN introduced security guards and First (they claim) use their own security staff. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
On 8 Oct 2006 05:18:23 -0700, "jonmorris"
wrote: To clarify a few more things; 2) BTP at Kings Cross, where I've been asked to go next week to make a full statement, confirmed the two people would have been security guards (she mentioned the name of the company, but I don't remember it) on contract with First Capital Connect. I wonder what the guards are employed for. Wouldn't they have been more use patrolling the train (and checking tickets if trained to do so) rather than just waiting for trouble? -- Peter Lawrence |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Peter Lawrence wrote:
I wonder what the guards are employed for. Wouldn't they have been more use patrolling the train (and checking tickets if trained to do so) rather than just waiting for trouble? They were in the first class compartment at the end of the train (I'd seen them come on when we left Kings Cross, and they were with a couple of other people - possibly guards too, or just mates). They weren't patrolling anything, let alone checking tickets. Mind you, the uniformed guards never checked tickets either - but I wouldn't expect them to as they'd need the relevant paperwork or equipment. Jonathan |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
TBirdFrank wrote: It provides, sadly, the best reason for having your own private transport if you are out late at night, or arranging to travel in a group. As a bloke I never worried about travelling, late or exceedingly early hours when younger, but as a dad, if my daughter's college activities require her to be on campus late I would rather she gets a B & B up there rather than taking a Preston M/cr - Manchester Hadfield late at night. And they call this progress ........... sheeesh! Yet, there are those countries where women and children will quite happily venture out late at night to use public transport and in complete safety. One of the reasons late night public transport, in the UK, is deemed to be so unsafe is because it is so lightly used especially outside of the South East and, in no small way, that's down to the car. Of course, women alone in their cars, late at night, also cause some concern. What an age we live in but - and this is what so annoys me - there really cannot be much excuse for it when elsewhere in the World these matters are dealt with so well. We really should not have to put up with it but as most of us resort (if that's the right word) to our cars security on public transport late at night has unfortunately become a minority issue - we just don't care enough. |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
In message . com, at
08:54:36 on Sun, 8 Oct 2006, jonmorris remarked: I wonder what the guards are employed for. Wouldn't they have been more use patrolling the train (and checking tickets if trained to do so) rather than just waiting for trouble? They were in the first class compartment at the end of the train (I'd seen them come on when we left Kings Cross, and they were with a couple of other people - possibly guards too, or just mates). They weren't patrolling anything, let alone checking tickets. Mind you, the uniformed guards never checked tickets either - but I wouldn't expect them to as they'd need the relevant paperwork or equipment. Those trains don't have guards, and haven't had for a very long time. Revenue Protection staff patrol a small number of trains, and security guards were employed by WAGN on late night trains (and were allegedly withdrawn by FCC, but it's always possible they've reinstated them). -- Roland Perry |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
"jonmorris" wrote in message
ups.com... wrote: 2) BTP at Kings Cross, where I've been asked to go next week to make a full statement, confirmed the two people would have been security guards (she mentioned the name of the company, but I don't remember it) on contract with First Capital Connect. In all honesty, while this was obviously a very unpleasant journey, the fact that the train carried two security guards is, to me, rather reassuring. I'd prefer to have two trained security gaurds on hand than just one old-fashioned railway guard. And, to be fair to them, they do seem to have resolved the situation promptly and without major incident. [Granted, you may have been put in a tricky situation at Hatfield, but your account isn't exactly clear about whether you (or they) were forced to leave the train unwillingly, or just allowed to terminate your journey as planned.] Walter Mann |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
|
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Roland Perry wrote:
Those trains don't have guards, and haven't had for a very long time. I meant uniformed security guards (as you say below, they were used by Wagn between Potters Bar and Stevenage and were totally useless but at least wore Hi-vis vests with 'SECURITY' written on the back). A RPI would obviously have the necessary equipment to issue penalty fares, but I doubt they'd get involved with incidents - thus they're unlikely to be seen at night when the network becomes free to use. This applies on the Thameslink side too. Revenue Protection staff patrol a small number of trains, and security guards were employed by WAGN on late night trains (and were allegedly withdrawn by FCC, but it's always possible they've reinstated them). They must have done then, but definitely a different company (I think I heard the name 'purple' mentioned by BTP). Having plain clothed security on all late night trains (there aren't that many running) would be a very good idea for both passengers and the train company. Unfortunately, if they are ONLY there to protect property, then I don't see why I should be that impressed. Jonathan |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Walter Mann wrote:
In all honesty, while this was obviously a very unpleasant journey, the fact that the train carried two security guards is, to me, rather reassuring. I'd prefer to have two trained security gaurds on hand than just one old-fashioned railway guard. I wouldn't, as many low-wage security guards are just legalised thugs without the requisite people skills. A professional railwayman would be by far my preference, yet better would be two of them. Neil |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
Bob wrote:
BTP are running a survey about crime on the railway. You should forward your observations. I will. Of course, I have no complaint about BTP here - they weren't involved at all (which IS the problem - they weren't even notified until I told them later). Since I've called them, they have given me a reference and called me back to check I am okay. In due course, I am going to them to make a formal statement. Jonathan |
Thank you First, for nearly getting me killed last night.
When returning to London from Peterborough, on a Saturday night last
month, on arriving at Peterborough station, it was swarming with police who were detaining several men, who had presumably been causing problems on the incoming train. Said train was sat on the platform in darkness, with no indications on screens, and no staff seeming to know whether it was going to go to London or not. In the end, it all powered up and we were all on our way, and the carriage was full of beer cans, both empty and unopened! A good haul in the end! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk