Great Western Coffee Shop

From the Gloucestershire Echo (http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Trainspotter-banned-following-vandalism/story-19567380-detail/story.html) (25th July 2013):


Forgive the personal comment straight after posting a news item.

Whilst 'discrimination' might be a little too strong a definition for what FGW have done, I do think they are unnecessarily tarring all enthusiasts with the same brush. If a passenger vandalises station property would FGW ban all passengers until their investigation is complete?

Also, why is it, according to the FGW spokesman, a case of them investigating further. Surely a serious case of vandalism is a matter for the BTP.

On a personal note, unaware of the current issue, I was at Cheltenham Spa station a few days ago and I was shouted at by a member of staff for daring to take pictures from the over-bridge. After putting my camera away (best comply - I wanted to get home!) I passed the vocal member of staff on my way to the platform and was told that what I was doing was illegal without the permission of staff.  :o

A brief request asking, "Which law?" and I got the response, "You are on private property and can be asked to leave. We don't need a reason."

Now, that's an interesting interpretation. A fare paying passenger can be treated as a trespasser if they get their camera out.  ::)

Under the circumstances, meek compliance was the best course of action, but I was seething inside just a little.  >:(

That's particularly vindictive if you ask me. Also that's not the answer to your question. Personally, my response to that would have been "So the answer is no law whatsoever then"

I do know there is a byelaw that states a person on the railway must leave when asked. Very different to illegally taking pictures of staff without permission, which of course in most cases is complete nonsense.

And of course, when you're asked to leave. Nothing to say you can't come back at a later date/time. Being asked to leave vs. Being asked to leave and not return are 2 very different instructions. I have once used a similar concept when I was asked to get off a train at Reading over a ticket irregularity (for the record, there was nothing wrong with my ticket). I was told to get off. Not get off and stay off ;) :P ::)


Ah now that did make me chuckle. I wonder how many people have been shouted at for getting a smartphone out? Maybe to open 10 minute reservation app for XC :P

While "discrimination" is indeed a strong word, I'm not sure I blame Robert Webb for using it in this instance. After all, if he is correct that members of the public without tickets are being allowed access to the platforms to meet, greet & wave off friends & family, and taxi drivers are allowed access to the facilities, then the alleged perpetrator of this alleged serious act of vandalism could have instead chosen to masquerade as any one of the above.

As nobody involved appears to be suggesting that the alleged perpetrator was an actual rail enthusiast, then I would be interested to hear members thoughts on what word other than "discrimination" is appropriate for the resulting ban on "all train spotters" ?

I hope I'm wrong, but I cant help thinking that this may be an unfortunate case of an official FGW response from the top that is rightly mindful of the PR disaster that could befall them by alienating the rail enthusiast community, clashing against a rather less tactful "bloody trainspotters" attitude on the ground.

Now, this may be a partly understandable reaction to being spooked by the alleged incident of vandalism, which is why I would be interested to know if bignosemac's brush with staff at Cheltenham Spa station came before or after the alleged incident of vandalism took place.

Or even on the same day?

Regardless, I feel you ought to complain to FGW management, as that staff reaction is totally OOO. (Out of Order)

Someone has asked FGW on Facebook if there is a compulsory ticket area at Cheltenham Spa: https://www.facebook.com/FirstGreatWestern/posts/10151524115246806

For the record, the national guidance is available at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

See also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10673.msg110591#msg110591

Looking at the rules:


Are NR reception staff primed for this? What do they do; send out an APB?


...Like the ones most cyclists wear? So are cyclists who aren't rail enthusiasts allowed to keep theirs on?


So no train-spotting when there are actually trains about then?


Really? What's the legal basis for this?

Copyright.

I can't see anything in uk copyright law (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) that would gererally apply to a railway station.

Following a bit of googling I am now clear that the answer is not 'copyright' but 'because we say so'. A landowner can set whatever conditions they wish on photographs taken on their property. As an example, you cannot take photos of Trafalgar Square for commercial purposes without getting permission from BoJo. The landowner cannot however make any stipulations about photos taken from a public place, unless the subject is considered to be an original artistic work - in France, this means you are not allowed to sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night because the lighting is copyrighted.

As an aside: As an occasional Wikipedia editor I get very nervous when people quote complete newspaper articles on this forum - such an action would get very short shrift indeed on Wikipedia, because they work hard to stay squeaky-clean on copyright issues. Much better IMHO to quote the introductory paragraph (fair use), and link to the source for those who want to read the whole thing.

It is to do with copyright. That is how private landlords can refuse permission to take photos from private land. The landlord owns the copyright of anything taken from their land, not the photographer. Hence the snapper can be prevented from making profit from work carried out without permission.

Ditto your point about quoting full extracts from websites - the owner of the website generally owns the copyright and legally you need a licence to quote (except for fair use for review purposes)

Is there something in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents) that makes what has been done for years on this, and other forums, illegal?

Chapter III, Section 30 of that Act says:


So there's fair dealing exemption for reporting of current events by quoting online articles, provided they have been made public and an acknowledgment is given. Providing a link to and naming the source is, I'd contend, sufficient acknowledgment.

My understanding is that this right to determine what people do when they are on your property has nothing to do with copyright - it is simply the right of the landowner to make reasonable rules as to what you may and may not do on their land. But IANL.


'Fair dealing' has a meaning in law:


The fact that other people break the law is not a defence!

As you may imagine, I keep a fairly close eye on various copyright issues including photographs, current event text, text about things other than current events.   And I also note the differences where things are merely quoted, quoted and acknowledged, quoted to allow others to review and comment on them, and quoted for the person quoting to review and comment.  I do ... prefer ... shorter quotes rather than longer ones to be pasted in, but in many ways you can't win on this one;  a shorter quote can lead to suggestions of selective editing to make a point not intended by the original article - something that occurred as recently as yesterday on another thread on this forum.

It's not only about strict copyright law, though.  There are times that articles (and even pictures) are acceptable without being our copyright, and without individual permission in each case.  The ones that particularly come to mind are the British Transport Police (BTP) reports, where the whole purpose of sending the pictures around is to get them out as widely as possible.

A lot of this, ultimately, would fall on my shoulders if something went wrong and I didn't act on that in a reasonable time. And if you look back over the years this board has been running, you'll find some occasions where I have asked posters to pull material, or (on very rare occasions) pulled material myself.  The admin and moderator team tends to err on the side of safety here - if we're unsure I would rather material was removed, and therefore any such removals cannot be seeing as an admission that anything was actually out of order.   There was a classic example of that a few months back, when we were asked to pull a newspaper quotation about parking disputes and how the council handled the complainant  in Bedwyn from public view.   There was nothing wrong with the original post at all, but parish council proceedings are a long way away from our main purpose, and sometimes it's better to simply give way without admission in the interests of harmony, and to save an awful lot of hassle.

I am - very - interested in the "photography on stations" issues, and of the request for enthusiasts to sign in.  I remember looking at a picture taken within recent years of a steam engined train leaving King's Cross, platforms awash with photographers, and wondering how long they had all queued to speak to the Network Rail reception desk. Some of it's about what the law specifies.  And some of it's about applying it sensibly.

My antenna are perhaps on a hair-trigger here (if that's not too appaling a mixed metaphor!). I was once hauled over the coals for publishing my own photograph on Wikipedia, because I had previously published it on another website. Wikipedia, or its bots, picked it up within 12 hours of publication and marked it for speedy deletion.

Chiltern are quite hot on snappers on their stations. Once they've signed in, they're happy - but don't try it until they are aware of you.

From the same website:

UK Copyright Service (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others)

As with many aspects of law there it is rarely black and white. Just many shades of grey. Ultimately it is for a judge to decide, but as yet, in the case of myself and other forum members quoting entire articles from online news sources, things have never got that far. I don't think we've ever had a request from a copyright holder for a news article quoted on the forum to be removed.

Suffice to say, if such a request were ever made, the material concerned would be removed. That's pragmatism rather than an admission of wrong doing.

I'm not sure you'd face any problem while the whole news article was to be found on the original website - the problem might occur if it were amended (and we failed to correct) - especially where it might have been amended for legal reasons.

There could also be problems if it what was copied was copyright - e.g. a whole commentary piece by an author, rather than a news article.

From the Western Daily Press (http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Trainspotters-welcome-Festival/story-20809341-detail/story.html):


Well, now that the dust has settled, I hope that all of our train spotting and photographing enthusiast readers of this forum have indeed been welcomed back ...  ::)

This person, who was also a bona fide passenger, was told they weren't allowed to take photographs on the platform during the Cheltenham Festival.

Presumably then, FGW also stopped each and every racegoer from doing likewise. Stopping them gathering mementos of their trip to and from the races.

It appears that Cheltenham Spa Station is fast becoming a no go area for rail enthusiasts. First, they are all punished for the actions of one. Second, they can now only enjoy their hobby if they purchase a ticket. Third, after purchasing said ticket, they can only travel on the first available service and not one of their choosing.

Using the Festival is a smokescreen from FGW, protecting the staff there who have taken a dislike to anyone on the station with a camera.

I'll certainly be making a point of taking photographs next time I'm at Cheltenham Spa.

I'm grateful to my learned friend 'bignosemac' for reminding me of some previous discussions on this particular subject, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12718.msg137065#msg137065  ::)

In the morning, when I'm not quite so tired, I may consider doing a bit of my 'moving and merging' of these topics - but not until then.  ;)

"First Great Western said it was because incidents of criminal damage on the platforms had been carried out by someone masquerading as a rail enthusiast.
"   And most shoplifting is carried out by people masquerading as shoppers and yet retailers are not stupid enough to decide to ban shoppers from their stores on that basis. 

The rail industry does have a knack of saying and doing stupid things like this.   I believe FGW is generally a pretty well run organisation with some of the best staff in the industry.   But don't they realise that saying thinks so stupidly moronic undoes all their good efforts in an instant!  I despair!

Hmmm - if staff complained to their union over verbal abuse from so-called trainspotters, it's easier to deal with it this way. THey do tend to spout off when they can't do as they please....

To clarify, Chris ... does your THey refer to
- the staff
- the union
- the trainspotters.
Or all three?

The latter.

Am I missing something here? Doesn't ATOC encourage 'enthusiasts' as they are an extra pair of ears and eyes? Still reminds me of when Virgin went on a campaign of banning photography at one of their major stations which then backfired.

Providing they sign in at the station so everyone knows that they're on the station. Usually, they just wander in & start....

There is no general requirement to 'sign in' at the typical station.  AFAICS it is an extra requirement at a relatively small number of NR managed major stations, the published rules are just:

At major stations please inform the Duty Station Manager of your presence. This will ensure that station staff are aware that you are on the station and they can go about their duties without concern as to your reasons for being there. At smaller stations you should ensure that you advise a member of the station staff of your activities.

Problem is if people keep referring to a need to 'sign in' it starts getting taken as gospel...

Paul

...what?  taking photos? writing down numbers in their books?  chatting with their friends?  doing precisely the same things they would be doing if they had signed in.

How does signing in help anyone?   To my mind it is all about the nasty tendency those in authority have to monitor and control things for the sake of it.  

It's private property - the owner/lessor has every right to insist on whatever regulations they want.

Your attitude is exactly why pax travel without tickets....

Private property to which the public have an implied right of access.

You mention regulations ChrisB. There is no regulation that states persons must sign in at a station. Regulations governing the access granted to the public to railway property are Railway Byelaws.

These can be and are misused (not used, misused) by members of staff to exercise control over rail enthusiasts without justification.

Rail enthusiasm is not an offence. Using the Byelaws to stop it is heavy handed and inappropriate.

There is no analogy whatsoever with people travelling without tickets. There, a specific Byelaw, or Regulation of Railways Act offence is committed.

Proof please


And in there, it governs access only for travelling. NOT for enthusiasts. So if not permitted in the byelaws, they have to be given specific [permission to be there. Unless you can show me where in the byelaws it permits enthusiasts?.....proof again please.


your opinion. Nothing more.

Um, the fact the Railway Industry have issued guidelines to enthusiasts which makes clear they are welcome implies that they have a right of access. If the right of access only extended to those travelling then you'd expect to see ticket barriers at the entrance to NR property.

British Transport Police and Network Rail seem to think there's an implied right of access, because here's a poster talking about withdrawing it ...

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wip_euston.jpg)


And that poster talks about access for other reasons ... and not only for travelling.

OK, fair comment - but here's what Network Rail say (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx?cd=1)....


This obviously refers to the stations they also manage, but as they own 99% of all stations, TOCs are entitled I'm sure to require the same applies....and letting staff know or signing in is pretty much the same thing.

If the staff feel they are too busy during extreme weight of travellers, that is a reason to refuse. It is private property, and I'm sure the BTP would remove anyone without a permit to travel upon request.

Person in the OP had a permit to travel, yet was still told he couldn't take photographs. The choice/timing of train he wanted to catch was also questioned.

TOCs and their staff do indeed have a right of refusal for almost any activity on railway property. But any use of the Byelaws has to be proportionate and with justification. It is a very rocky road to go down to use those powers arbitrarily. Remember though, there is nothing in the Byelaws that requires people to sign in. It is a request, nothing more.

As for not having a permit to travel on railway property, that in itself cannot be justification. No one would be able to enter railway property to buy tickets, make a delivery, assist a disabled friend/relative, use a station with no facilities to buy tickets, and so on and so on.

Vilification of rail enthusiasts does the industry no favours whatsoever.

I took photos yesterday at five major stations (and one ickle one, where I was actually recording evidence of a crime). Did I sign in? Nope. Did I ask any staff member for permission? Nope. That's how I roll.  ;D

It's private property - correct
the owner/lessor has every right to insist on whatever regulations they want.  - that is clearly nonsense.   They would not be allowed to arbitrarily refuse access to Gypsies or wheelchair users or insist that religious headgear is removed would they?

But that is kind of irrelevant anyway.  There is a difference between insisting that people comply and actually having legal authority to enforce compliance.  Without that legal authority your "insistence" is no more than a request.   A TOC is perfectly entitled to request that spotters stay away, but that doesn't make the request justified or entitled to the respect which you seem to be granting to it

Your attitude is exactly why pax travel without tickets....
 how come?  there is no analogy.   Ticketless travel is an offence and there are laws specifically designed to deal with it.  A TOC is perfectly justified to stop ticketless travel provided it sticks to those rules.   There are no rules against buying a ticket, entering the platform area, hanging around for a while watching the trains (or drinking a coffee, reading a paper, taking some photos etc)  and catching a later train which is what happened in Cheltenham.   

Doing so is neither illegal nor morally wrong.  An attempt by those  in power to stop it is (regardless of whether they are legally entitled to) is worthy is ridicule, contempt and mockery as well as being a mind-bogglingly idiotically bad way to treat customers.

Provided that you're sensible about it, it's very rarely a problem ...  I have been stopped once, politely by a PCSO with BTP because I accidentally flashed (an apology, "I know it was an accident") and criticised very rudely indeed once by a trainspotter who accused me of using flash when he saw my picture on a forum.  Problem for him was that I hadn't used flash, and had he looked at near and far objects he would have seen they were equally lit.  Us rail supporters sometimes do ourselves no favours either

From Sunday ... just one from my travels.   Where was I  ;D

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cnmstn.jpg)

Cheltenham Spa!  ;D ;D ;D

Byelaw 13 is the only one I can think of that would be relevant. Of course 'loitering' would be someone without a ticket as by having a ticket you in effect have permission from the relevant operator to be there.


13. Unauthorised access and loitering
 
(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a
notice:
 (i) prohibiting access; or
(ii) indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified category of person only, except where he belongs to that
specified category.
 
(2) No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person.

(An Authorised person is any employee or agent of an Operator. Or BTP Constable (not PCSO), (I note that NeR are not an operator so as such would not be Authorised people to use Byelaws.))

Transcript of a call to the BTP...

"Hi, it's the DSM at Speltenham Char station. We have someone loitering."
"What's he doing?"
"He's taking photographs of trains."
"That's not illegal. Is he in a restricted area?"
"Er no, but we've asked him to leave."
"On what grounds?"
"Because it's busy, and although he has a ticket, he's chosen not to board a train to his destination yet."
"No grounds for us to attend. Goodbye."

 :P

I travelled last Sunday A - B - C - D.

Trains from A to B were running every couple of hours.   From B to C every 30 minutes. And from C to D every hour or so.   As my journey was a long one and I had heavy baggage, I reserved seats on the legs where that was possible - that's B to C and C to D.

I arrived at B - on time, and on the train suggested on my itinerary.  And from there, my onward reservation was not on the train that left around 15 minutes later, but on the following one, which connected at C onto the same onward train to D anyway. Note - this was a standard off-peak ticket valid on either train.  Knowing that trains can sometimes get delayed, and seeing plenty of space, and knowing it would not be overtaken, I travelled on the 15 minute after train.   But had I waited for the train officially recommended to to, would I have broken the "first available train" rule set by the officials at Cheltenham Spa according to reports in threads such as this?

Amended transcript of call to BTP.

"BTP what ya want"
"Hi, it's the DSM at Wormwood Triangle station. We have someone looking dodgy."
"What's he doing?"
"Being dodgy and generally annoying, oh did I mention he's being dodgy and taking photographs of dodgy things."
"What things"
"Trains and People."
"That's not illegal. Is he in a restricted area?"
"Er no, but we've asked him to leave and he's refused to leave thus he is now tresspassing and in breach of byelaws."
"On what grounds?"
"Because it's busy and hes looking very dodgy like, and although he has a ticket, he's chosen not to board a train to his destination yet."
"Okay have any staff got involved"
"Yes James T Bloggs tried to get him to leave but had his picture taken"
"Okay we will send someone, our average attendance time is around 2 days is that okay?"
"Oh forget it"

... and now, at a similarly silly o'clock, I have now moved and merged these topics into this ongoing discussion, in the interests of continuity and completeness, and ease of future reference.  Sorry for the delay in doing so.  ::)

No problem Chris.  We took some good photos while we waiting.  :D

Not sure that's the definition of loitering.....


Yup, that covers it.

So what can a PCSO do, they can't arrest you, they can't ask you to leave. I've always wondered this about PCSOs.

They operate stations, which is being referred to here.

Is it significant that it's the same Robert Webb involved in both the 2013 and 2014 article incidents?

NeR staff still cant use byelaws against you as they are not an operator and are not listed in schedule 1.

...and what was David Mitchell doing at the time?

I've resisted the urge to comment in this thread but a few things I am now going to have to point out (Dog+Bone and all that :P )

With the case here and the chap was asked why he had not caught an earlier train to Gloucester. If he didn't have an Advance ticket then I see no reason why he should've taken an earlier train. Indeed if you 'had to take the first train on arriving at the station, there would be no First Class Lounge at Paddington Station as you wouldn't need one!

I might turn up at Taunton Station and be offered the option of the 21:15 or 21:29 Services to Bath Spa. I have a flexible ticket. Using the logic from the staff members as per the newspaper article, I have to catch the 21:15... Yet it makes no difference as my connection at Bath Spa isn't until 23:38, so by this logic I choose the 21:29 service as it's a slower train and I can sit and do work for longer time uninterrupted.

---

With the issue of signing into the station for Photography Purposes, I must admit I've never done it... :-X If I'm waiting for my train and I decide I want to film it arriving into the station or take a few snaps of the station itself. Then why would you bother signing in if you're then going to get on that train? You'd need to sign out and then not leave the station until your train arrives? That defies my logic... ::) :-\ :-X

According to this article on the Avon and Somerset Police website here: https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/neighbourhood-community/taking-photographs-in-a-public-place/ (https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/neighbourhood-community/taking-photographs-in-a-public-place/)


and further to this:


My emphasis in Bold. I have fallen foul of this before many years ago. When I took a photograph of my ex partner I got the back of another girls head in the shot. I can only gather it was her father who demanded I delete the photo and hand over the camera. I refused on both counts. Eventually I deleted the photo as the argument was getting tiresome and then ran Recuva on the SD Card when I got home to recover the picture.

Needless to say when I gave it my Ex partner it ended up on Facebook and through tagging of my ex' friends as well eventually this guy somehow managed to find it. What happened next is best left unsaid I think... However I must point out I was 17, young, immature, rebellious and wanted to get "one up" on this guy... Oh and using a real case for Data Recovery in my College Coursework too... So if asked "Was it worth it" I'm going to say yes to that one..........

---

Anyhow, it's worth carrying a copy of that extract from the A&S Police website in your back pocket if you're a photographer. Any threats by a member of the public to "Call the police" will be quickly nipped in the bud.

Even ACPO state that photography isn't illegal in a public place and go to say that no one including police has the right to delete any photos unless a court order has been issued.

ACPO guidance is as follows:
● There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore, members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
● We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
● We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
● Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
● Once an image has been recorded, police can only seize the film or camera at the scene on the strictly limited grounds that it is suspected to contain evidence of a crime. Once the photographer has left the scene, police can only seize images with a court order. In the case of the media, the usual practice is to apply for a court order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for production of the photograph or film footage.
If someone who is distressed or bereaved asks for police to intervene to prevent members of the media filming or photographing them, police may pass on their request but have no power to prevent or restrict media activity. This should be understood as a specific limitation on the powers available under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

But a station isn't seen in law as a public place.

So what can a PCSO do, they can't arrest you, they can't ask you to leave. I've always wondered this about PCSOs.

They can't ask you to leave?  Are you sure.  Surely they have the right to ask you to leave and the other person has a right to ignore the request (and vice versa)

Byelaw 13 states that you must leave when asked to by a police office followed by Not PCSO in brackets. Seems to me they have no power and are there for a visible presence only. A private security guard has more power!

This is not quite correct.

ANY police constable can enforce Byelaws, not just those employed by BTP. Although in reality it's only BTP employees that know them, that doesn't stop other police forces from enforcing them.

BTP PSCOs have also been authorised to enforce the Byelaws by all Operators.



Of course BTP PSCOs can ask you to leave. And don't forget that by continuing to breach Byelaws they have the power (along with police constables and authorised persons (i.e. staff)) confered by Byelaw 24.2.ii to remove the person(s) committing the breach from the railway, using reasonable force.

Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised
person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails
to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised
person may be removed from the railway by an authorised
person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in
addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these
Byelaws.

Not wanting to drag this thread further off-topic, but it is worth pointing out that BTP PSCOs have slightly more powers available to them than their Home Office police force counterparts. For those that don't know, the powers that a PSCO has available to them is up to each police force. BTP has selected almost every power (bar 2) that are available for PSCOs. For example, those that are observant will note that BTP PSCOs carry handcuffs with them (for detaining suspects for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable), whereas (as far as I know), apart from Gwent Police, no other police force takes up this option. A PSCO has to carry a card around with them whilst on duty explaining what their powers are, so next time you see one, have a friendly chat and ask them if you can see their card.

No it doesn't. Byelaw 13 says this:

13. Unauthorised access and loitering
 
(1) No person shall enter or remain on any part of the railway where there is a
notice:
 (i) prohibiting access; or
(ii) indicating that it is reserved or provided for a specified
category of person only, except where he belongs to that
specified category.
 
(2) No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised
person.

Before any more nonsense is written about the Byelaws, the National Rail Byelaws (which apply to all TOCs except London Overground) can be viewed here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf).

Earlier in the thread its been quote from another poster who an authorised person, and implied that this was from Byelaw 13.



Within your link it states at the end pages the definition of an authorised third party as

As a PCSO is not a constable, nor an employee or agent of an operator, we can assume they do not have the required authority, unless they have gained individual authority from the operator which is unlikely from personal experience.

In a previous post above, I said that all Operators have authorised BTP PSCOs as authorised persons.

So how do the private security 'officers' that staff major InterCity stations fit into this? Are they authorised to act as an "Authorised Person" under Byelaws and NRCoC for all TOCs etc?

Reason I ask this is for the reason that you cannot be Penalty Fared by London Midland staff at London Euston if you've used a Virgin Trains service. Does the same apply here in respect of the byelaws? i.e. GreaterAnglia private security yet using a London Overground section of a station?

Finally, Rail Replacement Bus Services............ Presumably the Bus/Coach Driver is an "Authorised Person" and if you "disobey" the request you could find yourself in trouble?

They can indeed be authorised by an Operator to enforce the Byelaws. (NRCoC is irrelevant by the way.)

Take Euston for example. The moment you step off a London Overground train and on to a platform you are covered by the National Rail Byelaws. That's because it isn't a TfL premises. The Underground on the other hand, is. I believe that Network Rail security work for STM. STM are also a contractor for London Overground security, you may find that in some instances a company may be authorised to enforce both sets of Byelaws.

The National Rail Byelaws and Transport for London Byelaws are broadly similar anyway, except that the TfL ones have more explicit references about alcohol possession and the TfL Byelaws can additionally be enforced by Home Office PSCOs.

Say for example, at Birmingham New Street, a London Midland member of staff could enforce a Byelaw on an ATW train, a Virgin member of staff could enforce a Byelaw on a CrossCountry train and so on without any issue as they all come under the same National Rail Byelaw umbrella.

The Byelaws do not apply to rail replacement bus services.

That's because a bus isn't a "railway asset". This is defined as:

(a) train;
(b) network;
(c) station;
(d) light maintenance depot;
 
and any associated track, buildings and equipment;

Despite what London Overground and TfL might say, London Overground is still a National Rail TOC and as AFAIK the standard Railway Byelaws still apply. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage certainly still apply despite London Overground at times insisting that they don't.

Nit picking here, but miseryrail have had the Railway Byelaws Amendment Order 2013 made and as such they are not part of the national rail byelaws. However they are in essence the same with an amendment to byelaw 4 which bans booze.

I think that when DaFT made LOoROL a TfL concession the byelaws changed to be covered by the GLA Act. They are indeed much the same.
The TfL Act also allowed the mayor of london powers over LOoROL hence why the PF is higher on LO despite it being a National Rail service.

I am still of the belief however that if a MoP/lawyer challenged the enforcement of the Byelaws by a PCSO, they would win as the authorisation isn't in a public place and the byelaws explicitly state "A constable". It also surprises me that the DaFT haven't amended the byelaws to add "A Constable or PCSO...." or maybe because there is indeed a reason why they've not been amended.

Merseyrail's ban on alcohol very nearly caught me out the other day. Fortunately I saw the very small sign before I'd popped open an ale.

They also use byelaws 6(4) and 6(8 )  for 'feet on seats' offences! And I've heard they are pretty ruthless in enforcing the no feet on seats rule.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Philip Hammond MP, Secretary of State for Transport confirmed the change to the TfL Byelaws and extension to cover London Overground effective 5th October 2011.

Here's a link to the amendment (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/2213/article/2/made).

Yes because as I have said BTP PSCOs have been made Authorised Persons by all operators.

An interesting one from the TfL Byelaws. Person must stand on the right on escalators unless walking up, down or along them.

I never knew that not standing on the right was an offence.

Bob Crow for one would never have stood for that.  :P

I dispute this on the basis of an incident I witnessed fairly recently where a BTP PCSO called through for an approved person to assist with dealing an incident. After the incident defused I heard the PCSO thanking the authorised person as he insufficient authority to deal with the matter. The staff who came over escorted the perpetrator off of the station platform.
In can therefore conclude beyond reasonable doubt that in the incident I witnessed the PCSO did not have appropriate authority, or most certainly didn't use it if he had it.

For the sake of preventing a flame war, we are going to have to agree to disagree that PCSOs are authorised persons. However I am going to do look for some clarification on this area.

I'm meeting a BTP PCSO next week.

I'll ask him.  ;)

BTP's website (http://www.btp.police.uk/about_us/our_people/officer_roles.aspx) also specifically mentions PSCOs enforcing Byelaws, with a link to them.

NSE Ive done a little googling and come up with this.
You are in a sense right, however its not the TOCs that have authorised BTP, its the law that has.

The Police Reform Act as amended by SOCPA made PCSOs have some powers in regards to byelaw offences.
Have a read of http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/schedule/4 and get confused even more.

Thanks for providing the follow-up detail. Looks like between us we got there in the end.  :)

I'd also like to thank all of our Coffee Shop members who have contributed to this discussion, for reaching such an informed position out of a crisp, lively, but always polite, debate.

The House of Commons could take a learning point from us here, eh?  ;) :D ;D

CfN where do I file my expenses claim to clean my Duckpond lol

Sorry, the CS guidance clearly states that you need a compliant and qualifying duckhouse...

mumble. Teaches me to get it from IKEA, and there I thought I was saving money mumble mumble.