ukclique > railway

damduck-egg (18.08.2017, 02:45)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:31:30 +0100, coalmines1961
<meandnoone> wrote:

>I'll take that risk.


Arn't you that former train driver who used to drive pissed,
Brian Robinson ?

G.Harman
Basil Jet (18.08.2017, 11:16)
On 2017\08\17 21:06, Garden6089 wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 August 2017 19:36:04 UTC+1, BevanPrice wrote:
> While I agree with your points 2 and 3, I think you're being a bit

harsh about 1 and 4 (although I accept you are probably being a bit
tongue-in-cheek). As a fifty-something confirmed bachelor who happens to
have a number of good female friends (but am not in a serious or
intimate relationship with any of them) and who generally has a good
working relationship with female colleagues, I believe the key thing is
to be respectful but also careful.

So you're saying treat women as if they are your boss, even if you might
be the one paying their wages.
Brian (18.08.2017, 12:00)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:02:51 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.ng> wrote:

>Brian <Brian> wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer, but I was, for a number of years, a lay Trades
>> Union officer.


<snip>
>I wonder how all this affects Chris's career as a railway industry
>professional, which he told us a few months ago he now was?


I have no knowledge of the view the railway employers take, except
that, clearly, GA's view can perhaps be summarised as "very dim
indeed". Off the top of my head, I would have thought that anything
customer-facing would be very difficult.

Not the same field, I accept, but I can tell you that very many local
authorities would regard the offence as one incompatible with
continued employment in the public service. The Trades Union
challenge at this point would therefore be to prevent a dismissal.
Martin Coffee (18.08.2017, 13:49)
The "Zero Tolerance" notices at stations really annoy me as they state
how the ToCs expect passengers to treat their staff but there is nothing
to say that in return that their own staff will treat passengers in a
similar manner. And they don't always. And nor do the ToCs.
Brian (18.08.2017, 14:45)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:49:28 +0100, Martin Coffee
<martin.coffee.252153> wrote:

>The "Zero Tolerance" notices at stations really annoy me as they state
>how the ToCs expect passengers to treat their staff but there is nothing
>to say that in return that their own staff will treat passengers in a
>similar manner. And they don't always. And nor do the ToCs.


I think you make a very valid point. The impression which is created
is that the obligation is all one way, and of course it's not. We
(the Trades Unions) did suggest to management that a better approach
would be something along the lines of "this is what we expect from
you, and what you can expect from us", but this was regarded as a bit
radical for local government.

One of the underlying problems is the box-ticking culture prevalent in
management: "we have put up a sign to discharge our HASAWA obligations
- tick" without pausing to think about the context of the action taken
or to take a systems-based view. Sadly also, too often, there is a
management view that the box-ticking action is all that needs to be
done by way of managing the staff's health and safety at work i.e.
there is no perception of the potential benefits of going further
than some imagined pseudo-statutory minimum.

On the other hand, and without defending the indefensible, you might
be surprised at just how ready some members of the public are to lash
out verbally and, I'm afraid, sometimes physically, when they perceive
that they're not getting their own way, or not getting it quickly
enough. I don't know about the railway, but local government is
actually quite a tightly-controlled working environment, and, despite
what might be appearances, employees are far from actually being free
to make the rules up on the spot, which is a common public
misconception. Here the underlying problem is that the rules tend to
be written by people arrogant and stupid enough to believe that they
can predict every possible future outcome. Oddly enough, requests to
these people to supply next week's lottery numbers tended to be
regarded as "unhelpful". :-)

I would be the first to concede that there are some public servants
who should never be allowed to come within a million miles of a member
of the public, but, as a generality there are rather more with a
genuine commitment to being as helpful as they can be. My experience
is that this is typical of most organisations, public or private
sector. There is a difference, of course, of which most of us are
acutely aware, which is that the public sector tends to be monopoly
suppliers of its services. This doesn't alter the fact that most of
the most shockingly bad customer services I have experienced have been
at the hands of the private sector.

On the basis that it is much better for the membership that the public
have a good opinion of public servants, my Branch encouraged the
provision of customer service training, and expected our members to
take up the opportunities that they were offered in this direction.
Very often, the appropriate deployment of "please" and "thank you" go
a long way to handling difficult situations as well as they can be.
Sadly, it sometimes seems to me that these are words which are passing
out of current use in society generally.

Given that this is uk.r not uk.gov.local, perhaps this has drifted a
bit far off-topic?
coalmines1961 (18.08.2017, 15:19)
On 18/08/2017 01:45, damduck-egg wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:31:30 +0100, coalmines1961
> <meandnoone> wrote:
> Arn't you that former train driver who used to drive pissed,
> Brian Robinson ?
> G.Harman


No. Get your facts right or shut up.
damduck-egg (18.08.2017, 19:38)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:19:16 +0100, coalmines1961
<meandnoone> wrote:

>On 18/08/2017 01:45, damduck-egg wrote:
>No. Get your facts right or shut up.


They would only be facts to be put right if I had stated them to be
facts so have no need and will not shut up.
I hadn't, instead I asked you a question to which you gave an answer.
The mardy way in which you answered shows similarities between you
and the person I was thinking of though.

G.Harman
Mark Goodge (18.08.2017, 23:06)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:49:28 +0100, Martin Coffee
<martin.coffee.252153> wrote:

>The "Zero Tolerance" notices at stations really annoy me as they state
>how the ToCs expect passengers to treat their staff but there is nothing
>to say that in return that their own staff will treat passengers in a
>similar manner. And they don't always. And nor do the ToCs.


When I see one of these notices, whether at a railway station, a
hospital, a council contact centre or wherever, what I mentally read
when I see it is "We are going to treat you so badly that even the
most mild-mannered of you is in danger of being provoked to violence".

It is no more illegal to abuse the staff of Tesco or Debenhams than it
is to abuse the staff of gWr or Southwest Trains. But you don't see
these notices in retail stores. That's because retailers know they
will, ultimately, be the losers if they gratuitously upset customers,
and hence their staff are trained not to do so. It's only monopoly
providers which can get away with treating their users like dirt.

Mark
spuorgelgoog (18.08.2017, 23:13)
On Friday, 18 August 2017 22:06:36 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> It is no more illegal to abuse the staff of Tesco or Debenhams than it
> is to abuse the staff of gWr or Southwest Trains. But you don't see
> these notices in retail stores.


I think I've seen them in Asda.

What that might say about Asda staff or customers, I couldn't comment.

Owain
Tweed (19.08.2017, 08:05)
<spuorgelgoog> wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 22:06:36 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> I think I've seen them in Asda.
> What that might say about Asda staff or customers, I couldn't comment.
> Owain

You hardly ever see such notices on the continent. It seems a very British
thing. In fact putting up notices about every last thing seems a British
disease. Germany, famed for its rules and regulations, is pleasingly free
of petty notices.
Roland Perry (19.08.2017, 08:57)
In message <on8kel$nmu$1>, at 06:05:09 on Sat, 19 Aug
2017, Tweed <guesswho> remarked:

>You hardly ever see such notices on the continent. It seems a very British
>thing. In fact putting up notices about every last thing seems a British
>disease. Germany, famed for its rules and regulations, is pleasingly free
>of petty notices.


Is that because they behave themselves without having to be nagged by
notices, or perhaps because stepping out of line is met with swift and
harsh retribution?
Jeremy Double (19.08.2017, 09:57)
Tweed <guesswho> wrote:
> <spuorgelgoog> wrote:
> You hardly ever see such notices on the continent. It seems a very British
> thing. In fact putting up notices about every last thing seems a British
> disease. Germany, famed for its rules and regulations, is pleasingly free
> of petty notices.


DB do put up a list of rules about how to behave at railway stations,
however:

Ganesh Sittampalam (19.08.2017, 10:09)
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:21:47 PM UTC+1, Chris Date (CMPD) wrote:

> I've been banned from Greater Anglia


I'm not convinced they can do this at all. Their franchise agreement (, page 154), says:

> The Franchisee shall ensure that the purchaser of any Commuter Fare or
> Protected Fare:
> (a) shall be entitled, without further charge, to such rights of access
> and egress and other similar rights at the commencement and end of the
> relevant intended journey or journeys as may be reasonably necessary for
> such purchaser to travel on the Passenger Services;


and there's no way they can stop you buying valid tickets, e.g. from other ticket vendors. Other franchise agreements, e.g. TSGN, contain an explicit clause requiring them to sell tickets too:

> The Franchisee shall sell to any person wishing to travel on the Passenger
> Services, on any other railway passenger services or both, the Fare he
> requires and which the Franchisee is entitled to sell under the
> Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.


(, page 137)

Ganesh
damduck-egg (19.08.2017, 10:55)
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:09:48 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh Sittampalam
<ganesh.sittampalam> wrote:

>and there's no way they can stop you buying valid tickets, e.g. from other ticket vendors. Other franchise agreements, e.g. TSGN, contain an explicit clause requiring them to sell tickets too:
>> The Franchisee shall sell to any person wishing to travel on the Passenger
>> Services, on any other railway passenger services or both, the Fare he
>> requires and which the Franchisee is entitled to sell under the
>> Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.


Does buying a ticket mean you have a right to use it?
Especially as the OP is aware he isn't supposed to travel so in buying
such a ticket any financial loss if he were prevented to travel would
really be his own fault.

Wouldn't be much different to somebody purchasing a car before they
hold a driving licence, perfectly entitled to own it but not to drive
it on the public highway.

G.Harman
Mark Goodge (19.08.2017, 11:41)
On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:55:20 +0100, damduck-egg wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:09:48 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh Sittampalam
><ganesh.sittampalam> wrote:
>Does buying a ticket mean you have a right to use it?
>Especially as the OP is aware he isn't supposed to travel so in buying
>such a ticket any financial loss if he were prevented to travel would
>really be his own fault.
>Wouldn't be much different to somebody purchasing a car before they
>hold a driving licence, perfectly entitled to own it but not to drive
>it on the public highway.


Yes, but a car is transferable, while a ticket, at least
theoretically, isn't. So the unlicensed owner of a car can, perfectly
legitimately, allow a licensed driver to drive it. And the unlicensed
owner can be a passenger of the licensed driver, so he can still get
some benefit from the car even though he can't drive it himself. But
someone who purchases a rail ticket that he can't use can't get any
personal benefit from it, and even allowing someone else to use it is
a technical breach of the Ts&Cs.

This is an interesting legal question, though. I think I'll raise it
in ulm, suitably anonymised.

Mark

Similar Threads