Bylaw 6 - Unacceptable behaviour on the railway

[Burnz0]

Hi All.

 

 

I was recently travelling home from London on a Southeastern train after a few drinks with my work colleagues.

Due to the onboard toilet being out of use and me bumping into an old friend on the train

we decided to exit the train and use the station toilet in the knowledge that the train may depart and we'd have to get the next one.

 

 

As i left the toilet the train was about to depart, and although i can't remember exactly what happened due to the drinks id consumed,

i may have swore a few times asking them to hold the train.

My friend, however, was still in the toilet long after the train had left the platform.

 

 

Next thing we knew a policeman grabbed my friend as we stood on the platform and started to drag him out of the station,

all the while accusing him of kicking the train and swearing at it (later changed to swearing at the rail staff).

My friend denied this completely but the officer insisted it was all captured on cctv - somehow?

 

 

When we got to the station entrance another officer joined the party as well as a rail staff worker.

The story then changed to it being me who'd sworn at the rail staff as well as apparently banging on the the doors and the windows.

 

 

Since my friend was with me (we'd bumped into each other two seconds before we got to the station as we were both looking for the onboard toilet)

he was being ejected/ and also they still insisted they had us both on cctv committing the offence.

In the end we gave up arguing after the threat of an arrest on the basis of Bylaw 6 - Unacceptable behaviour on the railway.

 

I am now in the process of making a formal complaint as I don't feel the actions of the officers on the night was appropriate.

I accept that my case is weakened by the fact that I don't have a perfect memory of all the events that happened BUT my friend does and

 

 

whilst i admit i may have sworn as the train left, I strenuously deny doing it in anything other than jest based on the mood i was

(and that we'd already preempted this the train leaving) and i certainly am not one for kicking inanimate objects, drunk or not.

 

 

Furthermore, when the rail staff who i'd supposedly sworn at arrived at the exit

I had never seen him before so I really think it's a case of mistaken identity

- which is evident from the fact they originally grabbed hold of my friend (who is tall, skinny and SriLankan)

mistaking him for me (I'm shortish and I'm told my Irish heritage is clear to see!).

 

The investigating police officer has assured me that if the cctv evidence proves a crime was committed they will prosecute

- which feels like they are trying to blackmail me into not pursuing it.

 

I'm now stuck needing advice as to what to do next.

 

 

Ordinarily i'd leave it and put it down to a bad experience but being stuck 40 miles from home after midnight

and then having to pay £100 in taxi fares means I feel I should pursue it.

 

 

Even if i did swear, I feel it would be totally reasonable given that we'd left the train to use the toilet,

when most other people on the train were just using the bins or the seats!

 

I don't feel they'd have sufficient evidence to prosecute me or if there is even a prosecutable offence for that matter?

but they may try and use this as a way to ban me from using the train services in the future,

which will be much more costly than £100 when i have to find other means for getting to and from work.

 

 

However, ignoring my issue, my friend has clearly been picked on for absolutely no reason,

other than maybe his ethnic appearance and anything they said about having cctv of him is an absolute lie.

 

 

I don't think it is reasonable that someone can make a wild accusation and the police simply side with them

without first checking the supposed evidence themselves.

 

Any thoughts appreciated!

[Burnz0]

anyone please?

[Stigy]

At the end of the day offences were definitely committed that night, if not by you, by your friend at the very least. Remember, the Police Officers were sober, and by your own admission you were not.

[Burnz0]

what offence did my friend commit then?

 

 

unless you mean having consumed alcohol before travelling on the train?

 

 

in which case 99% of the people on there would be guilty too.

 

 

Also, i dont believe the transport police are being paid to seek out people who've been drinking!

[BazzaS]

anyone please?

 

Original post at 20:19

Plea for replies at 20:58.

 

If you want to get replied within 40 minutes : pay a solicitor.

 

what offence did my friend commit then? unless you mean having consumed alcohol before travelling on the train? in which case 99% of the people on there would be guilty too. Also, i dont believe the transport police are being paid to seek out people who've been drinking!

 

But they are paid to deal with poor behaviour.

 

Your expectation of (almost) immediate responses & reaction to the response you had leaves me wondering what the police officers will have noted as your responses during the episode you mention (where you had consumed enough alcohol to not have a reliable recollection of events).

 

I feel you are on a "hiding to nothing".

[Burnz0]

what is the point of you BazzaS?

[dx100uk]

have/are you/him actually being charged with anything yet?

[BazzaS]

what is the point of you BazzaS?

 

If you aren't happy with my reply, you have 3 main options:

1) I'll refund what you paid for my (free) advice

2) you can report my post if you think it breaches CAG posting guidelines

3) you can continue to post short replies that don't justify your position.

 

If you only want replies agreeing with you : say so, or you may get replies that don't agree with you : I'm not here to validate your poor behaviour.

 

Additionally, really short (& unjustified by logical argument) answers are unlikely to promote others replying : some potential respondents might think "that's the sort of reply I've seen from trolls".

[Burnz0]

No.

The point i was making is that the officer investigating my complaint said that they would prosecute - because i've bothered to complain.

 

 

Upon further investigation it would appear that being drunk on the train is a breach of the same bylaw

that they quoted so irrespective of whether anything actually happened they'll probably just use that as their excuse.

 

 

I openly admit to being a bit drunk but my friend was in a much better state,

has perfect memory of the event and was clearly picked on for no apparent reason.

 

 

However, the police are experts on drunkenness apparently so i fear i may be wasting my time

as they'll just say we were drunk and so they asked us to leave.

[Burnz0]

you still haven't actually made a point though Bazza?

 

 

Nobody expected an immediate response,

i was merely being impatient so made a second plea for help,

which i you have now ever so eloquently pointed out was ill-advised.

 

 

However, if you can take the time to type all that nonsense

please actually respond to my original post and don't make childish assumptions

about the event based on me not leaving it 10 hours for a response!

 

 

If i had to guess I'd say with an attitude like that you're probably part of the police yourself

[BazzaS]

you still haven't actually made a point though Bazza? Nobody expected an immediate response, i was merely being impatient so made a second plea for help, which i you have now ever so eloquently pointed out was ill-advised. However, if you can take the time to type all that nonsense please actually respond to my original post and don't make childish assumptions about the event based on me not leaving it 10 hours for a response! If i had to guess I'd say with an attitude like that you're probably part of the police yourself

 

I've made my point but it appears lost on you.

Not only am I under no obligation to "please actually respond to my original post", but I've done so already ; if you can't see that, me repeating it is unlikely to help.

 

Again, are you looking for opinions (where you may well be told "stop being a Friday / Saturday night alcohol-buffoon & accept your punishment"), or looking merely for validation?.

 

Ahh, if only I was drawing the salaries for all the jobs I've been accused of being "probably part of" when my posts support the view of a professional rather than the OP.

I can now add police officer to that list.

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, but for other readers : I am not, nor have I ever been a police officer or a civilian employee of a police force ( / police service ).

I've never claimed to be such.

 

At most I have from time to time worked with the police : and generally found them a reasonable bunch.

I'm sure there are bad police officers just as there are excellent police officers. Nothing in the OP's post leads me to believe the officers who dealt with him were less than competent and professional.

[Burnz0]

Nobody said you were obliged to do anything helmet but common sense would suggest that if you're going to reply to a post make it useful.

You've made the assumption that I was behaving like a baffoon based solely on my own admission that id had a drink and the fact that the mighty police were involved in an incident? Surely the fact that im complaining about their actions would mean you should keep an open mind? I am also what you would call a professional but I dont see why you thought to make that part of your post.

If you dont see anything wrong in the police assaulting someone on the platform based on an accusation that someone on said platform swore at the station staff without first checking the evidence I'm amazed. If you dont see anything wrong with the police having what they describe as a positive ID yet mistaking a black person who was in the toilet at the time for a white male then once again I am amazed. How on earth is that professional? Oh, but wait, apparently racism in the police is a myth hey officer?

[king12345]

Recollection of a night out by a gentleman of Irish heritage after having drunk "a couple of pints" = complete darkness with flashbacks of a supernatural experience.

 

Come on man!

What do you expect them to do when they see a plastered fella charging and swearing at a departing train and endangering his own life?

Get you another pint while you wait for the next train?

[BazzaS]

Recollection of a night out by a gentleman of Irish heritage after having drunk "a couple of pints" = complete darkness with flashbacks of a supernatural experience.

 

Come on man!

What do you expect them to do when they see a plastered fella charging and swearing at a departing train and endangering his own life?

Get you another pint while you wait for the next train?

 

You can't tell him that! (Apparently ; he'll abreact to anything that doesn't agree with him)

 

Not all Irish are drunks / argumentative drunks, and not all drunks (+/- argumentative ones) are Irish. What does him being Irish have to do with it? Or are you saying you are of Irish heritage?

 

As for him (currently) being a professional ....

OP ... Are you suggesting being a professional prevents you being prosecuted?

does your profession allow you to remain a professional when / if you get convicted under Bylaw 6?

[king12345]

Not all Irish are drunk, but I know many and surely they are more then capable of having a good drink.

The op mentioned the Irish heritage and I used a stereotype.

Lets not turn a little tease into a political correctness war please.

I'm of Italian descent and I don't mind the Italian jokes at all, I find them amusing.

[renegadeimp]

Lets cut the arguing.

 

Op. You were drunk as was your friend by your own admission. The officers saw you acting in a drunken state regardless of how you perceived the situation at the time.

 

The officers then had procedure to follow such as removing you, charhing you and collecting evidence.

[Italia90]

Don't let these oppressive rail staff and British transport police intimidate you with threats of prosecution.

 

 

Bylaw 6 is NOT a criminal offence.

 

 

It is a non-recordable summary offence which will rarely be prosecuted.

 

 

The most you would get anyhow is a level 3 fine and it DOES NOT give you a criminalrecord.

YOU can request the CCTV directly with the rail company under a subject access request with the data protection act.

They are obliged to give you it in 40 calender days - contact the Information Commisioners office for more help and advice re: this.

 

 

Regardless if it is for a complaint rather than prosecution!

Btp and some unscrupulous rail staff rely on the nievity if the public to make you feel scared of challenging them.

 

 

BTP are 80% funded by the railways and are often far less competent than regular police as they are limited to what they deal with.

 

 

I successfully got a (criminal) case dropped because the investigating btp officer LIED about CCTV

and was unable to produce it for court because it gave a different story to the witness statements provided (because they were contrived).

 

 

do your research and request the CCTV.

 

 

Goodluck with it and don't let them intimidate you.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Italia90
additional information- contact btp professional standards dept (based in Camden London) re: advice on the complaints procedu

[Italia90]

Contact btp professional standards dept in Camden London for advice on complaints procedure. Also contact IPCC the independent police complaints commission for advice . Google for the tel numbers but I can also give you them .finally you can usually get half hour free legal advice from most solicitors on high street.

[Burnz0]

The below extract from Southeastern put me off bothering to request the cctv as they've covered themselves from providing it in almost all instances i.e unless you were on the platform on your own. Furthermore, the officers knew the rail staff by name so i'd put money on them exercising the right not to provide it.

What factors affect the disclosure of footage?

 

Your request for CCTV may not be successful where:

 

• The camera was pointing in a different direction or not recording.
  
• The Police are involved.
  
• Not enough detail is provided in the request.
  
• The time frame is too broad (typically more than 2 hours)
  
• Third parties are identifiable in the footage (we are required to protect the rights of other people).
  

[Burnz0]

Recollection of a night out by a gentleman of Irish heritage after having drunk "a couple of pints" = complete darkness with flashbacks of a supernatural experience.

 

Come on man!

What do you expect them to do when they see a plastered fella charging and swearing at a departing train and endangering his own life?

Get you another pint while you wait for the next train?

 

 

Nobody said anything about anyone charging at a train. Originally they said MY FRIEND (who was in the toilet long after the train had departed) had kicked the train and sworn at it. Later they changed the story to it being me and i'd apparently banged on the doors and sworn at the rail staff - completely different i hope you'll agree?

[Burnz0]

You can't tell him that! (Apparently ; he'll abreact to anything that doesn't agree with him)

 

Not all Irish are drunks / argumentative drunks, and not all drunks (+/- argumentative ones) are Irish. What does him being Irish have to do with it? Or are you saying you are of Irish heritage?

 

As for him (currently) being a professional ....

OP ... Are you suggesting being a professional prevents you being prosecuted?

does your profession allow you to remain a professional when / if you get convicted under Bylaw 6?

 

 

BazzaS you helmet,

 

 

i've reacted to you not making any proper points, nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with me.

 

As for the professional word

- you brought this up when you mentioned that you would "support the view of a professional".

 

 

It is a nonsense, meaningless word to the vast majority but clearly you give it some weight

so i thought i'd point out that working in my profession some would call me a professional.

 

 

Anyway, does that mean you would support the view of a supposed professional policeman that can't tell the difference

between a white person and a black person?

 

 

Me thinks that their "professional" training needs to be refreshed

[honeybee13]

Hello Burnz0. What is your desired outcome for this problem please?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

BazzaS you helmet,

 

 

i've reacted to you not making any proper points, nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with me.

 

As for the professional word

- you brought this up when you mentioned that you would "support the view of a professional".

 

 

It is a nonsense, meaningless word to the vast majority but clearly you give it some weight

so i thought i'd point out that working in my profession some would call me a professional.

 

 

Anyway, does that mean you would support the view of a supposed professional policeman that can't tell the difference

between a white person and a black person?

 

 

Me thinks that their "professional" training needs to be refreshed

 

 

No, I would support the view of a police officer (presumably sober!) who had made contemporaneous notes, rather than the blurred (or second-hand!) recollection of an alcohol befuddled individual : unless and until that individual can persuade me that the police officer has made up their evidence.

 

I strongly suspect a court would follow the same.

"On a hiding to nothing" likely still applies (regardless of if I am a "helmet" or not.......)

[Burnz0]

how many times do i need to tell you: my friend was in the toilet at the time when he was supposed to have kicked and shouted at the train. When he left the toilet the train had already gone. The policeman grabbed hold of him and accused him of this offence. My memory may be hazy but i remember that much and my friend was below the legal driving limit and he says exactly the same - therefore what more evidence can i give you to prove that the original offence didn't happen??? If after we told them that this didn't happen they changed the story and accused me can't you see that they've messed up slightly (and possibly don't have any cctv evidence at all)? I chose not to mention before that i have part of the incident on film (the first and original part of the incident did not record for some reason) and it can clearly be heard that at first they are accusing my friend and only after we strongly dispute that do they then change the story to me.

I;m genuinely surprised that in this day and age there are still people out there who hold the police in such high regard that they will not entertain the idea that they may have behaved inappropriately.

[firstclassx]

You were drunk.

You admit you used inappropriate language in a public place.

You were told to leave the railway.

You obviously took some persuasion to do so.

You don't actually know what you did, because you were so drunk.

You are relying on a mate who you want us to believe was 100% sober....

Your fault.

 

End of.

 

You pay a fare to be conveyed between point A and B. It is your responsibility to ensure you are in a fit state, (to be determined by the train operating companies and the police - not you), to travel.