BBC: Autistic Boy 'mocked' by Great Western Railway Staff at Paddington

[Swanny200]

I have ASD, I get severe anxiety too and if I am in a situation where plans change I do go into meltdown, the older I get it does get harder to control and I am nearly 40, I have 2 sons, one is mild diagnosis and the other is close to severe. The youngest (severe) has to wear ear defenders at times that things become overwhelming but he still need distractions in order to avoid a meltdown.

Knowing all this, you could ask the question, what if the reason for going 2 hours early into Padd was because the teen was showing signs of a meltdown approaching so thought it would be best to attempt to get on an earlier train.

As for those saying serial complainer, when she says a "7 hour train journey with an unhappy autistic teen", that could mean said teen will now be either in meltdown mode for the whole journey because plans have been changed or close to meltdown.

Let me explain it for you, if plans change for the majority of people here, you may huff or you may find the plan change actually more convenient, however I do not, I have most of the time spent the night before (if it is a long term plan) unable to sleep because my brain is following every step and outcome of said plan and when that changes I cannot cope and at times I have shut down, even same day plans that change throw me into chaos, I know plans change and even though I can prepare myself for it, when it happens my brain cannot cope with the input.

We have seen it with Tanyalee, if you use the disabled card, it gets you further, I remember I was told by a doctor once to use it as people listen to you. How do we know that this woman hasn't had years of doctors saying there is nothing wrong with her teen and having issues with people saying that this teen is just a bad kid (usual for ignorant people) that now she is able to shut some of these people up, as when it is official then people sit up and listen.

 

[Esker-pades]

I have ASD, I get severe anxiety too and if I am in a situation where plans change I do go into meltdown, the older I get it does get harder to control and I am nearly 40, I have 2 sons, one is mild diagnosis and the other is close to severe. The youngest (severe) has to wear ear defenders at times that things become overwhelming but he still need distractions in order to avoid a meltdown.

Knowing all this, you could ask the question, what if the reason for going 2 hours early into Padd was because the teen was showing signs of a meltdown approaching so thought it would be best to attempt to get on an earlier train.

As for those saying serial complainer, when she says a "7 hour train journey with an unhappy autistic teen", that could mean said teen will now be either in meltdown mode for the whole journey because plans have been changed or close to meltdown.

Let me explain it for you, if plans change for the majority of people here, you may huff or you may find the plan change actually more convenient, however I do not, I have most of the time spent the night before (if it is a long term plan) unable to sleep because my brain is following every step and outcome of said plan and when that changes I cannot cope and at times I have shut down, even same day plans that change throw me into chaos, I know plans change and even though I can prepare myself for it, when it happens my brain cannot cope with the input.

We have seen it with Tanyalee, if you use the disabled card, it gets you further, I remember I was told by a doctor once to use it as people listen to you. How do we know that this woman hasn't had years of doctors saying there is nothing wrong with her teen and having issues with people saying that this teen is just a bad kid (usual for ignorant people) that now she is able to shut some of these people up, as when it is official then people sit up and listen.

Yes. Absolutely.


As a note to all, there are a huge number of factors that we have no idea about. That makes judgement (certainly any meaningful judgement) very hard. Especially those responses which have shown a level of ignorance to the challenges that people with ASD face.

 

[Darandio]

I have ASD, I get severe anxiety too and if I am in a situation where plans change I do go into meltdown, the older I get it does get harder to control and I am nearly 40, I have 2 sons, one is mild diagnosis and the other is close to severe. The youngest (severe) has to wear ear defenders at times that things become overwhelming but he still need distractions in order to avoid a meltdown.

Knowing all this, you could ask the question, what if the reason for going 2 hours early into Padd was because the teen was showing signs of a meltdown approaching so thought it would be best to attempt to get on an earlier train.

As for those saying serial complainer, when she says a "7 hour train journey with an unhappy autistic teen", that could mean said teen will now be either in meltdown mode for the whole journey because plans have been changed or close to meltdown.

Let me explain it for you, if plans change for the majority of people here, you may huff or you may find the plan change actually more convenient, however I do not, I have most of the time spent the night before (if it is a long term plan) unable to sleep because my brain is following every step and outcome of said plan and when that changes I cannot cope and at times I have shut down, even same day plans that change throw me into chaos, I know plans change and even though I can prepare myself for it, when it happens my brain cannot cope with the input.

We have seen it with Tanyalee, if you use the disabled card, it gets you further, I remember I was told by a doctor once to use it as people listen to you. How do we know that this woman hasn't had years of doctors saying there is nothing wrong with her teen and having issues with people saying that this teen is just a bad kid (usual for ignorant people) that now she is able to shut some of these people up, as when it is official then people sit up and listen.

All very well put, thanks.

My sister has also noted that in the case of her son, she would never have attempted travel if there was any possibility such a situation would arise and try and find an alternative way to appease him until it was time to travel. But I also appreciate this is going to differ between individuals.

I also maybe have too much faith and find it hard to believe that when approached correctly that any member of staff would refuse such a request or at least try to be as accomodating as possible. By also viewing previous social media interaction by the woman, I can equally believe that she hasn't approached the situation well in the first place.

All too often we are presented with a completely one sided account and I therefore stand by my views.

 

[matt_world2004]

in cases like this,unless there is strong evidence to the contrary it is always best to give the customer the benefit of the doubt. It is very difficult to make a judgement about the nature of ones disability, or the way it will effect them, particularly with learning difficulties like Autism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW I tend to find that the kind of thing that makes me very anxious is asking for special accommodation - it is quite possible that by doing so she was stressing her kid out more even if she had good intention. Following the rules is easier, and it's very common for ASD people to want to do so exactly as written and to be very frustrated when people don't.

This is one very good reason why ASD people often succeed in the area of IT and computing - the whole foundation of this is a machine that will precisely follow rules, however complex, to the precise letter and without question, however ridiculous or wrong those rules may be. It's often easier for ASD people to understand that than the vagueness of the human condition.

 

[mushroomchow]

On the one hand, if Mum's account is to believed then it's clearly unacceptable and shows a pretty poor lack of understanding of people with ASD from GWR, another page to add to their growing file labelled "PR Disaster".

On the other hand, having worked with children with ASD in the past and dealt with their parents (most of whom, for the record, are wonderful people, not in the least bit entitled and most helpful), I am aware that a small number actively embellish their children's needs or even exploit them for their own gain, or to try to gain the upper hand in any disagreement. We don't even know where on the spectrum her son falls - stuff like his sensory processing, reaction to crowds and routine disruption etc. - and while I wouldn't expect GWR to use that as a genuine challenge to her query, she can't expect help without at least communicating his individual needs. With that in mind I'd be inclined to treat this case with a certain amount of scepticism.

Whether a well-known author with a public profile would be dumb enough to try and "game" GWR using her son's ASD is another question entirely - it would be audacious. Hence, I don't really know what to think - but I would echo what some others here have said that we don't know the full story.

 

[pt_mad]

FWIW I tend to find that the kind of thing that makes me very anxious is asking for special accommodation - it is quite possible that by doing so she was stressing her kid out more even if she had good intention. Following the rules is easier, and it's very common for ASD people to want to do so exactly as written and to be very frustrated when people don't.

This is one very good reason why ASD people often succeed in the area of IT and computing - the whole foundation of this is a machine that will precisely follow rules, however complex, to the precise letter and without question, however ridiculous or wrong those rules may be. It's often easier for ASD people to understand that than the vagueness of the human condition.

Good point. And many people with disabilities don't want to be labelled or to be recognised as their disability, they wish to be treated the same as the rest of customers, in a curtious way that honours what they paid for.

 

[Esker-pades]

Good point. And many people with disabilities don't want to be labelled or to be recognised as their disability, they wish to be treated the same as the rest of customers, in a curious way that honours what they paid for.

And the times when it is explained, the reaction can depend so much on the individual who is in charge of the situation especially when the disability is "invisible ". Sometimes, mentors encourage people to make their condition known in times of stress etc. However, the times I've done this, more often than not the person at the other end could not give less of an expletive.

 

[pt_mad]

And the times when it is explained, the reaction can depend so much on the individual who is in charge of the situation especially when the disability is "invisible ". Sometimes, mentors encourage people to make their condition known in times of stress etc. However, the times I've done this, more often than not the person at the other end could not give less of an expletive.

That's perhaps where the booked assistance program can sometimes offer great help. A companion, or the person themselves, is able to book any assistance they need, and can explain their needs confidentially over the phone in as little or as much detail as they wish. And the needs of the customer will be noted on the booked assistance sheet which staff will be made aware of. So staff are ready and have some idea of what's required without the customer or their companion having to explain publically, especially if this makes them feel uneasy.

This however, sometimes does mean they would need to keep to their booking and their times. Customers will often be accommodated wherever possible but sometimes due to such heavy demand it's impossible to switch things around straight away.

 

[Esker-pades]

That's perhaps where the booked assistance program can sometimes offer great help. A companion, or the person themselves, is able to book any assistance they need, and can explain their needs confidentially over the phone in as little or as much detail as they wish. And the needs of the customer will be noted on the booked assistance sheet which staff will be made aware of. So staff are ready and have some idea of what's required without the customer or their companion having to explain publically, especially if this makes them feel uneasy.

This however, sometimes does mean they would need to keep to their booking and their times. Customers will often be accommodated wherever possible but sometimes due to such heavy demand it's impossible to switch things around straight away.

My original comment was directed specifically at the railways.

When using the railways, 99% of the time I am absolutely fine. I wouldn't want to book assistance on the off-chance that I will become very on-edge.

 

[pt_mad]

My original comment was directed specifically at the railways.

When using the railways, 99% of the time I am absolutely fine. I wouldn't want to book assistance on the off-chance that I will become very on-edge.

Totally understand. If ever you did you'd be looked after and talked to as a respected customer in my experience. Sometimes customers who would like assistance feel they have to justify themselves to the staff upon meeting. My reply is usually, 'dont worry at all, it's fine, you don't have to explain we will help everyone and that's what we're here for' and that often eases stress a little I find.

 

[Esker-pades]

Totally understand. If ever you did you'd be looked after and talked to as a respected customer in my experience. Sometimes customers who would like assistance feel they have to justify themselves to the staff upon meeting. My reply is usually, 'dont worry at all, it's fine, you don't have to explain we will help everyone and that's what we're here for' and that often eases stress a little I find.

I'm aware most staff do their best, especially in times of disruption (when I am most likely to be "in need"). Thanks.

 

[michael74]

I watch Ch5 Paddington and I do wonder what GWR management are thinking when they watch it and see some of the behaviours of some station staff on national TV, some of it makes me cringe. I can well believe elements of this report to be true, but having worked in Healthcare for some time, some of the very worst attitudes I have experienced are from parents and carers with some sort of entitlement issues. This of course may stem from years of attempting to get a diagnosis for their loved one with the frustrations therein, I should know have been trying to get a diagnosis for my son for over 5 years, its been murder...

 

[urbophile]

It's made very clear when buying Advance tickets that it's booked train only, no exceptions under any circumstances unless ticket restrictions are lifted or your train is cancelled.
However, couldn't staff have found a quiet space at Paddington for them to wait? The waiting room at Paddington was usually quiet but was unavailable when I was last there in the summer due to Crossrail works. Maybe they could have been allowed in the first class lounge?

Why should it be possible to waive the restrictions on who is allowed to use the first class lounge, but not on using an Advance ticket on a different train? If one rule can be broken so can another. In any case your comment 'no exceptions under any circumstances unless ticket restrictions are lifted' is self-contradictory.

 

[pt_mad]

I watch Ch5 Paddington and I do wonder what GWR management are thinking when they watch it and see some of the behaviours of some station staff on national TV, some of it makes me cringe. I can well believe elements of this report to be true, but having worked in Healthcare for some time, some of the very worst attitudes I have experienced are from parents and carers with some sort of entitlement issues. This of course may stem from years of attempting to get a diagnosis for their loved one with the frustrations therein, I should know have been trying to get a diagnosis for my son for over 5 years, its been murder...

Won't the TV documentary have been viewed by GWR and NWR representatives first and passed as ok? One would assume that would be part of any contract or agreement to film? I e. That it doesn't put over GWR in an overly negative light and doesn't show unfair bias?

 

[muz379]

What? If the guard chooses to grant permission, then that's the end of the matter.

It does? How? I can think of one occasion where I was refused travel with an Advance on the wrong train. There have been perhaps 100 or so where I have been explicitly permitted to travel. Marketing is relevant... how?

So you know the policy of every TOC? And in all cases it's TOC policy that guards should not use discretion towards customers on the wrong train with an Advance?

This is a matter for guards and their company. Clearly the majority of guards apply their own good judgement to the situation.

Your idea that the "revenue policy" of every TOC instructs guards to show no discretion seems to be unique to you.

To be fair , it kind of does defeat the object of the TOC's commercial strategy selling cheaper less flexible tickets if their front line staff always just ignore the restrictions of advance tickets and the fact that staff routinely ignore the restrictions comes to be known .But I would question how well known it is that staff fairly routinely show discretion and how many passengers actually do try and use their advances in a more flexible manner . I personally suspect the majority of advance ticket holders do actually travel on their booked train.

I personally have always shown discretion when it is sensible to do so towards advance ticket holders . And would generally only refuse someone permission to travel earlier on an advance in a few circumstances , one being if they have bought an advance for after the peak period and are trying to travel on a peak time train . Ive even shown this discretion when on assessments with managers and have never been questioned over this or scored poorly for the customer service/revenue protection parts of my assessment criteria .

In cases where there is a crew change likely en route, I'm usually likely to acknowledge that myself and accept that it may be a problem. I might choose not to ask at all if I knew for sure there would be a crew change. Even if a crew change does occur, some guards do not view it as any trouble to hand the train over to their colleague, mentioning that a customer has been given permission to travel otherwise than on the booked service. I am sure that nearly all guards would trust the professional judgement of their direct colleagues.

To be honest from a guards perspective even if the guard who I have relieved has not mentioned it , if the ticket is from a station from which s/he would have already checked im not going to tuft someone off after they have presumably been given permission to travel .

Please read my post #25 and you will see my personal stance. Probably not far from yours.

But what I'm trying to get at is that techically the terms and conditions which come with a ticket, are exactly that. They're not guidance they're official terms. Now guards often have the flexibility and freedom to turn a blind eye with certain advances to help people, and that's great, and as I say, because it makes life happier for both passenger and guard and avoids confrontation over an hour or whatever. But as far as I know, officially, the terms with the ticket are to be applied and choosing not to apply the terms, officially, probably isn't supported widely.
Really, nodding folks on an earlier train is just a case of a personal favour from the guard really rather than the TOC wavering the person's ticket restrictions imo.

The only problem comes if there's a revenue block at an intermediate station, and there's passengers trying to explain why they want to exit the station an hour or two hours earlier than their advance ticket. The passenger is then left having to explain, and if there's a group of them the guard may find themselves receiving a phone call asking questions. That's speaking more generally though and off topic from any potential discrimination of any passenger with a disability.

If another member of rail staff has authorised travel then that is the end of the matter . If I as a guard authorise someone to travel early on an advance ticket then even if there is a revenue block the revenue staff can do nothing about the ticket being for a later train because of the fact that I have authorised travel .

Of course the argument comes in how this is evidenced . If its a paper ticket its fairly easy for the guard to mark the ticket , not so much with mobile tickets .

 

[pt_mad]

Why should it be possible to waive the restrictions on who is allowed to use the first class lounge, but not on using an Advance ticket on a different train? If one rule can be broken so can another. In any case your comment 'no exceptions under any circumstances unless ticket restrictions are lifted' is self-contradictory.

It's likely though that welcoming a passenger with a standard ticket into the first class lounge, or allowing them to travel earlier, will usually be the kind gesture of a station supervisor, team leader, assistant or guard rather than the TOC officially upgrading their tickets or waivering their ticket restrictions.
It's more a gesture by a member of staff who wishes to help.
If the person asked at the ticket office for an official free upgrade to first class, for example, I would think they'd probably say sorry but can't do.
Whereas if a kind member of staff marks their ticket and says you are welcome to sit there then that's a kind gesture from a member of staff personally trying to help.
Trouble is obviously it can't be expected too regularly because a favour is a favour but the terms & conditions which the ticket office would likely follow would say first class would incur further charge.

 

[Sprinter153]

GWR did offer staff a 10 minute presentation about understanding ASD during one of the Safety and Business Brief sessions last year (and I seem to remember there was even some external publicity about it) but certainly in my case it was skipped through quickly and delivered from the somewhat negative standpoint that ASD passengers can be difficult.

I am autistic (though what might be described as ‘high functioning’) myself, diagnosed in adulthood, and the general attitude I’ve seen towards it at work and in society in general makes it something to feel ashamed of, even though it makes me who I am.

 

[michael74]

Won't the TV documentary have been viewed by GWR and NWR representatives first and passed as ok? One would assume that would be part of any contract or agreement to film? I e. That it doesn't put over GWR in an overly negative light and doesn't show unfair bias?

I would have thought as much, but in my view if I were the manager and watched some of the programs back, I would expect to be called in for a meeting without tea and biscuits.

 

[Starmill]

And would generally only refuse someone permission to travel earlier on an advance in a few circumstances , one being if they have bought an advance for after the peak period and are trying to travel on a peak time train .

Exactly. In these circumatances there would be no free seats on the train, and in some cirucmstances there might be only limited standing space remaining. I wouldn't ask to join a train like that with a wrong-train advance.

But I would question how well known it is that staff fairly routinely show discretion and how many passengers actually do try and use their advances in a more flexible manner . I personally suspect the majority of advance ticket holders do actually travel on their booked train.

I agree. In a large majority of cases I would be travelling either on the booked train or in accordence with formal arrangements of the ticket conditions, e.g. the booked train has been cancelled so I am travelling on the one before it. It's only a very occasional circumstance where I am asking to vary this. It's a large absolute number because it's spread out over the years, and because I buy a lot of Advance tickets. Another thing one can do sometimes is to buy two advance tickets, where the saving is such that the sum of the two is still a much lower price than a walk-up ticket. Then, whichever of the two trains is the most conveninent is the one you travel on. This guarentees wasting one of two tickets but can still sometimes be the best value for money option, and it's totally legitimate.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The thing I find with all these media cases is so little actual information is supplied as to the all important detail that explains why certain descions are made or come to. We only ever hear from the person who feels aggrieved and get their version of events which are heavily sanitised and always include allegations of mistreatment.

 

[yorkie]

The thing I find with all these media cases is so little actual information is supplied as to the all important detail that explains why certain descions are made or come to. We only ever hear from the person who feels aggrieved and get their version of events which are heavily sanitised and always include allegations of mistreatment.

Hang on a minute; the entire crux of this matter is the allegation of mistreatment in terms of what was said and how it was said. There does not appear to be any allegation that the staff were incorrect to deny travel; the allegation is that they did so in a manner that was unacceptable.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Hang on a minute; the entire crux of this matter is the allegation of mistreatment in terms of what was said and how it was said. There does not appear to be any allegation that the staff were incorrect to deny travel; the allegation is that they did so in a manner that was unacceptable.

That's the gist of this one Yorkie your right. It's more heat than light and unless you had a body cam recording sound at the incident and/ or independent witnesses. You'll never get to the bottom of it. I use to work in Supported Housing and soon learnt that some care leavers (not al by any means) on being told "no" or something can't be done would make allegations against the staff member who refused their request. I had a couple of years in a call centre a long time ago and saw similar my eldest is a supervisor in a call centre and says the same. She's had to listen to recordings of calls of her team members and tell the person complaining that's not what happened and been verbally abused. Some People just don't like being told no and think they can get their way/ get back at those that say no by making allegations.

I notice Virgin have made a public comment on there staff now wearing bodycams and the effect it has...

 

[yorkie]

That's the gist of this one Yorkie your right. It's more heat than light and unless you had a body cam recording sound at the incident and/ or independent witnesses. You'll never get to the bottom of it. I use to work in Supported Housing and soon learnt that some care leavers (not al by any means) on being told "no" or something can't be done would make allegations against the staff member who refused their request. I had a couple of years in a call centre a long time ago and saw similar my eldest is a supervisor in a call centre and says the same. She's had to listen to recordings of calls of her team members and tell the person complaining that's not what happened and been verbally abused. Some People just don't like being told no and think they can get their way/ get back at those that say no by making allegations.

This is true, but then there are ways of dealing with people and if someone is good at their job they will get fewer complaints made against them, and any other colleagues present will back them up.

I notice Virgin have made a public comment on there staff now wearing bodycams and the effect it has...

I'd love to see this be mandatory at Paddington, and for any incidents of valid ticketholders being denied access resulting in the footage being made available to the victim and severe reprimands for the wrongdoers. However there is more chance that pigs will fly; the cameras will be on the terms of those wearing them, and they will be selective at when they turn them on. They may even wind people up and turn it on when the person loses their rag. If they are going to wear them, it needs to be on all the time and they need to be brought to account for their actions, and I just cannot see that happening.

 

[philthetube]

I struggle to believe the Mum's account purely because nobody got their mobiles out to film it.

They get 1/3 off both their tickets, because the child has a disabled railcard. That saving could be used to buy a more flexible ticket. Presumably the child also gets DLA, which is intended to cover the extra costs of being disabled, as it is I think a requirement for getting the railcard.

(By the by is that both child (being 17) and mother (being 68) could also get a discounted railcard)

No need for DLA my mum has one because she is deaf and just needed proof of that.

 

[pt_mad]

This is true, but then there are ways of dealing with people and if someone is good at their job they will get fewer complaints made against them, and any other colleagues present will back them up.

I'd love to see this be mandatory at Paddington, and for any incidents of valid ticketholders being denied access resulting in the footage being made available to the victim and severe reprimands for the wrongdoers. However there is more chance that pigs will fly; the cameras will be on the terms of those wearing them, and they will be selective at when they turn them on. They may even wind people up and turn it on when the person loses their rag. If they are going to wear them, it needs to be on all the time and they need to be brought to account for their actions, and I just cannot see that happening.

To be fair though Yorkie I'm not sure any trade union would agree to body cams that were permanently switched on to video and audio. Staff would basically have no privacy. They'd have to take them off to go the loo obviously, but platform conversations with colleagues couldn't even mention something at work that had mildly annoyed them for fear of knowing management could access any footage they like. If that is the way it works?

It would have to be doesnt record unless switched on.

 

[muz379]

Exactly. In these circumatances there would be no free seats on the train, and in some cirucmstances there might be only limited standing space remaining. I wouldn't ask to join a train like that with a wrong-train advance.

I agree. In a large majority of cases I would be travelling either on the booked train or in accordence with formal arrangements of the ticket conditions, e.g. the booked train has been cancelled so I am travelling on the one before it. It's only a very occasional circumstance where I am asking to vary this. It's a large absolute number because it's spread out over the years, and because I buy a lot of Advance tickets. Another thing one can do sometimes is to buy two advance tickets, where the saving is such that the sum of the two is still a much lower price than a walk-up ticket. Then, whichever of the two trains is the most conveninent is the one you travel on. This guarentees wasting one of two tickets but can still sometimes be the best value for money option, and it's totally legitimate.

Unfortunately not all passengers are this sensible .I have been asked if I could allow peak time travel with a post peak advance several times . Also get asked routinely if someone can travel with an advance that is TOC specific and not for my TOC . This is another one that I personally am reluctant to show discretion towards . Unless formal ticket acceptance is(or should be) in place in which place its no long at my discretion .
But most guards I know will show some discretion towards advance ticket holders . The only thing that you will find gets guards backs up is when you walk through and find them . If someone wants discretion to be shown they should at least have the decency to ask .

That's the gist of this one Yorkie your right. It's more heat than light and unless you had a body cam recording sound at the incident and/ or independent witnesses. You'll never get to the bottom of it. I use to work in Supported Housing and soon learnt that some care leavers (not al by any means) on being told "no" or something can't be done would make allegations against the staff member who refused their request. I had a couple of years in a call centre a long time ago and saw similar my eldest is a supervisor in a call centre and says the same. She's had to listen to recordings of calls of her team members and tell the person complaining that's not what happened and been verbally abused. Some People just don't like being told no and think they can get their way/ get back at those that say no by making allegations.

I notice Virgin have made a public comment on there staff now wearing bodycams and the effect it has...

I completely agree with you that the people who dont like being told no are sometimes those that rush to make serious accusations . I had a woman accuse me of racially abusing her and her partner because I had asked her twice to stop smoking on the train . Then the third time when she thought she was being clever trying to finish her cigarette off in the toilet I decided it was her stop . Fortunately the statement of an off duty police officer who intervened and assisted myself and the driver when she decided to mount a protest by standing between a set of open doors refusing to move proved most helpful when my manager finally did get round to having a chat about the incident with me . But you do sometimes think "what if" in situations when you do have to tell a passenger no , or get a bit more assertive with someone like that because their behaviour is totally unacceptable .

 

[yorkie]

To be fair though Yorkie I'm not sure any trade union would agree to body cams that were permanently switched on to video and audio. Staff would basically have no privacy. They'd have to take them off to go the loo obviously, but platform conversations with colleagues couldn't even mention something at work that had mildly annoyed them for fear of knowing management could access any footage they like. If that is the way it works?

It would have to be doesnt record unless switched on.

And this is the problem: it's effectively at the whim if the gateline person and won't necessarily record their own wrongdoings. I think it's fundamentally flawed.

And I'm pretty sure the Paddington gateline wouldn't want them to be filmed by valid ticket holders who they were denying access either; they will quite possibly claim it's illegal to film anything.

There are numerous examples of people disliking a camera being turned on and it is seen as provocative. The exception is where it's always on as a matter of course (ie. CCTV).

I had a very bad experience at Paddington but I suspect if I'd gathered video evidence they would have gone ballistic at me.

 

[snail]

Strictly, the answer is probably no, but I do wonder whether those with certain disabilities could be given some way of being able to flag this where the need arises, so that customer service staff would be better informed & could properly accommodate this sort of situation?

Yes, like certain airports do. We travelled from Liverpool with Easyjet in the summer and applied for special assistance for very similar reasons to those in this story. The airport gave us a 'Butterfly pass' to avoid excessive waiting in queues and the airline flagged us for early boarding. All very straightforward and excellent customer service all round. The only issue we had was another passenger commenting "we have a child too" when walking past them to board. I can completely understand the circumstances of the BBC story. Not all disabilities are visible. The last thing you need with a potentially distracted or disruptive child is to arrive last minute and hope they co-operate. If it was me I too may well have asked if there was space on an earlier train, expecting a polite refusal but never ignorant abuse.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'd love to see this be mandatory at Paddington, and for any incidents of valid ticketholders being denied access resulting in the footage being made available to the victim and severe reprimands for the wrongdoers. However there is more chance that pigs will fly; the cameras will be on the terms of those wearing them, and they will be selective at when they turn them on. They may even wind people up and turn it on when the person loses their rag. If they are going to wear them, it needs to be on all the time and they need to be brought to account for their actions, and I just cannot see that happening.

In theory any bodycam system would self-regulate, staff would use them on the basis that if a dispute with a passenger arose, they would have evidence to show how they handled the situation. If staff were turning them off, and complaints raised then the absence of footage would be to their disadvantage. However having the ability to turn them off would still be essential, as suggested up thread you wouldn't expect them to have the cameras on whilst going to the loos, especially if they were using public amenities!