Disabled scooter user humiliated by Train Manager for using disabled space on GWR service.

[bnm]

I have to apologise for that. Her travelling partner was not Marty Hiebert. It was someone called Kevin Bolden. He could well be a 'Mercun.

Sometimes you can blind yourself looking for further information online, when it's best to stick to the original text of news reports.

Sorry folks!

 

[Deafdoggie]

Tanyalee Davies should not have been moved. She was occupying a space designated for someone with disabilities.

I can't believe you are suggesting it's acceptable to move her out of that designated space into a vestibule.

What the TM insisted on doing was not a 'solution'. It wasn't pragmatic. It wasn't the best thing to do all round. It was illegal.

The companion was helping Tanyalee. He was gathering evidence of a clear breach of the Equality Act.

So you would have left a woman with an injured arm and a baby behind at the station? I can see great publicity for that!
I’m sorry, but instead of “me, me, me” people need to accept that we all have to get along. I’ve spent many journeys in vestibules and felt neither the need to video it, or vilifiey people for it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Tanyalee Davies should not have been moved. She was occupying a space designated for someone with disabilities.

I can't believe you are suggesting it's acceptable to move her out of that designated space into a vestibule.

What the TM insisted on doing was not a 'solution'. It wasn't pragmatic. It wasn't the best thing to do all round. It was illegal.

The companion was helping Tanyalee. He was gathering evidence of a clear breach of the Equality Act.

Tanyalee was in a seat and not in a space designed for a wheelchair user. It was her unfolded, extant, scooter which was there, and she was told to move it, which she had to do by getting on it and riding it.

I’m not conversant with the legislation to make a comment on whether that was a legal or reasonable thing for the staff to do though.

 

[bnm]

So you would have left a woman with an injured arm and a baby behind at the station? I can see great publicity for that!

Eh? I wasn't suggesting that. All I'm saying is that Tanyalee Davis, a disabled person, should not have been moved from a dedicated disabled space for a mother and baby. There is no suggestion from the videos, tweets and news reports that this was an either/or situation - that Tanyalee Davies moves or mum and baby get off.

As to the injured arm. Where is this reported?

 

[AlterEgo]

Was there a hint in the video that she was actually in a seat reserved by someone else, possibly the mother with the child?

Yes, it was either her or her partner, and the guard seemed to back that up. So it seems anyway.

 

[greyman42]

Tanyalee was in a seat and not in a space designed for a wheelchair user. It was her unfolded, extant, scooter which was there, and she was told to move it, which she had to do by getting on it and riding it.

I’m not conversant with the legislation to make a comment on whether that was a legal or reasonable thing for the staff to do though.

Well it sounds reasonable to me in the circumstances. Whatever the rights and wrongs here, why do certain people want the Guard sacked? What is there to gain by sacking him as opposed to giving him some re training if necessary? There are very serious repercussions when someone looses their job. He could end up not being able to afford his mortgage payments which could see him and his family loose their home. Is that really what some people want to happen?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Certainly on the face of it, it seems totally wrong, and GWR have basically said it was the wrong call.

But I am wondering if there is more to it than first appears, and there are certainly unanswered questions about her apparently able bodied accompanying passenger.

Unfortunately the companion(s) can be a source of problems when they go over the line between assisting/ helping/ sticking up for their disabled companion to being confrontational and aggressive.

 

[Emmsie]

Quite frankly the partners behaviour was reprehensible. There was no need for this to esculate, just be a decent human being and try to help out another person in a predicament rather than rant about legal rights. Yes his partner is disabled but not completely incapacitated. The guard quite rightly tried to find a compromise so that both parties could travel safely. As for the announcement, the woman admits in the video that they are getting thrown off the train as 'Kevin' got angry. Sounds to me as though Kevin has a massive sense of entitlement and zero manners or humanity.

 

[bramling]

Eh? I wasn't suggesting that. All I'm saying is that Tanyalee Davis, a disabled person, should not have been moved from a dedicated disabled space for a mother and baby. There is no suggestion from the videos, tweets and news reports that this was an either/or situation - that Tanyalee Davies moves or mum and baby get off.

As to the injured arm. Where is this reported?

One thing which does stick out in the video is it’s mentioned that the pram woman refused to move.

So it does seem that the guard was faced with a squabble between two intransigent people, and from what I can see it does seem that he was doing what he could to try to break the impasse.

Clearly we haven’t seen the start of the incident, however I don’t think sticking a camera in his face was particularly helpful. In fact I can pick up more than a little bad attitude from both the scooter user and her companion.

I wonder what all the other passengers thought of this display? A silly squabble between two problem people - surely it couldn’t have been that hard for them to resolve it between themselves? I rather feel for the guard actually, and I suspect his PA was more exasperation than malice.

 

[bnm]

Tanyalee Davies joined the train at the start of its journey in Plymouth. Mum and baby boarded later.

 

[farleigh]

Quite frankly the partners behaviour was reprehensible. There was no need for this to esculate, just be a decent human being and try to help out another person in a predicament rather than rant about legal rights. Yes his partner is disabled but not completely incapacitated. The guard quite rightly tried to find a compromise so that both parties could travel safely. As for the announcement, the woman admits in the video that they are getting thrown off the train as 'Kevin' got angry. Sounds to me as though Kevin has a massive sense of entitlement and zero manners or humanity.

An excellent post IMHO. A little give and take and a bit of understanding from all parties would have saved a lot of grief.

 

[bramling]

Tanyalee Davies joined the train at the start of its journey in Plymouth. Mum and baby boarded later in the journey.

One wonders how the conflict started? Presumably the mum and baby joined and then found their pram was too big for the vestibule? Unless I’ve missed something we don’t know what happened then, and how the guard came to be involved. Was it the case that mum refused to fold up the pram citing the hand injury, so it was easier to have the scooter moved in an attempt to resolve the impasse? With both sides seeming to be utterly inflexible I can understand the guard becoming frustrated.

It’s all very well quoting legislation, however all the legislation in the world doesn’t help when you have two lots of people refusing to budge. Especially if you’re trying not to delay the train, which is not unreasonable. It’s not clear whether this initially kicked off at a station or on the move. Ideally it seems BTP should have been involved earlier, but that assumes they would have been readily available, which isn’t clear.

 

[yorkie]

An excellent post IMHO. A little give and take and a bit of understanding from all parties would have saved a lot of grief.

Maybe the aim was to maximise publicity?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe the aim was to maximise publicity?

I suspect it was.

The thing is that while having a disability (or, more to the point in this case, accompanying someone who does) may give you additional legal entitlements, what it doesn't do is entitle you to be rude.

 

[bramling]

Maybe the aim was to maximise publicity?

Can’t help but think this may have been the case - there’s a certain similarity with that obnoxious woman who assaulted a youth at Waverley who wouldn’t give up his seat to her.

Sadly the result of the publicity may well be
1) this woman is a nasty piece of work
and, very sadly, many coming to the conclusion
2) wouldn’t it be so much better if disabled people simply weren’t allowed on trains to avoid causing all these issues to the detriment of the majority.

So in other words rather counter-productive.

 

[farleigh]

Maybe the aim was to maximise publicity?

Yorkie - I think you are right in posing that question. We will never know the answer but it is certainly a possibility.

 

[AlterEgo]

From what I can make out:

The disabled scooter user boarded with her (small) scooter and then transferred to a seat where she would remain for the rest of the journey. At no point was the disabled woman sitting in the wheelchair space, nor was she ever evicted from it.

GWR policy is that scooters should be folded and put in the rack, unless there is a permit held. It is not clear whether the woman held a permit but it does seem very likely her small scooter was a foldable version.

The scooter user did not prebook assistance or a seat.

The scooter user was wrong in failing to fold the scooter, and placed her luggage on top of the scooter (someone else also did this was doesn’t help). It’s not clear why she failed to do this but the train was likely very busy and may well have been full of luggage. The scooter was placed in the wheelchair space. I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether that is reasonable.

An hour into the journey, a second woman (possibly with an arm injury, but I also note the disabled person’s companion was reported to have a broken wrist, so there may be some confusion) boards the train with a pram, baby and car seat. She is not disabled. The woman or her partner are occupying her reserved seat. The guard gets involved.

It seems the guard wanted the scooter out of the disabled space so the woman’s pram could go there. This is wrong. They should be folded and stowed in the racks, just like the mobility scooter. If the guard was trying to give a pram priority over a mobility aid then this is absolutely wrong.

The disabled woman has to leave her scooter in the vestibule as a result, and return to it at each stop to move it so passengers can board and alight.

At some point things escalate, everyone ends up coming across like an arsehole, not least the guard who then allegedly made an unprofessional announcement identifying the passenger as the problem, when it seems clear she only bears a limited amount of responsibility for what happened.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect it was.

The thing is that while having a disability (or, more to the point in this case, accompanying someone who does) may give you additional legal entitlements, what it doesn't do is entitle you to be rude.

It seems like the disabled woman didn’t behave too badly herself, but her partner certainly did. He should have been far more proactive in dealing with the situation, instead of escalating it.

 

[bramling]

From what I can make out:

The disabled scooter user boarded with her (small) scooter and then transferred to a seat where she would remain for the rest of the journey. At no point was the disabled woman sitting in the wheelchair space, nor was she ever evicted from it.

GWR policy is that scooters should be folded and put in the rack, unless there is a permit held. It is not clear whether the woman held a permit but it does seem very likely her small scooter was a foldable version.

The scooter user did not prebook assistance or a seat.

The scooter user was wrong in failing to fold the scooter, and placed her luggage on top of the scooter (someone else also did this was doesn’t help). It’s not clear why she failed to do this but the train was likely very busy and may well have been full of luggage. The scooter was placed in the wheelchair space. I am not knowledgeable enough to say whether that is reasonable.

An hour into the journey, a second woman (possibly with an arm injury, but I also note the disabled person’s companion was reported to have a broken wrist, so there may be some confusion) boards the train with a pram, baby and car seat. She is not disabled. The woman or her partner are occupying her reserved seat. The guard gets involved.

It seems the guard wanted the scooter out of the disabled space so the woman’s pram could go there. This is wrong. They should be folded and stowed in the racks, just like the mobility scooter. If the guard was trying to give a pram priority over a mobility aid then this is absolutely wrong.

The disabled woman has to leave her scooter in the vestibule as a result, and return to it at each stop to move it so passengers can board and alight.

At some point things escalate, everyone ends up coming across like an arsehole, not least the guard who then allegedly made an unprofessional announcement identifying the passenger as the problem, when it seems clear she only bears a limited amount of responsibility for what happened.

Okay. So is there any clue why the guard wanted the pram to occupy the space? Was it possible the pram was too big to fit in the vestibule but the scooter wasn’t? Especially if the mum was point-blank refusing to fold it, or perhaps even refusing to remove the child from it? Perhaps the mum was refusing to be separated from her child - which perhaps isn’t entirely unreasonable if the scooter was unoccupied. Why couldn’t the companion just move the scooter without fuss, or was there the added complication that the scooter user was sitting in someone else’s reserved seat? The guard could clearly be heard suggesting seats were available elsewhere in the train.

The whole thing just sounds like a pathetic petty squabble and little more.

 

[AlterEgo]

Okay. So is there any clue why the guard wanted the pram to occupy the space? Was it possible the pram was too big to fit in the vestibule but the scooter wasn’t? Especially if the mum was point-blank refusing to fold it, or perhaps even refusing to remove the child from it? Perhaps the mum was refusing to be separated from her child - which perhaps isn’t entirely unreasonable if the scooter was unoccupied. Why couldn’t the companion just move the scooter without fuss, or was there the added complication that the scooter user was sitting in someone else’s reserved seat? The guard could clearly be heard suggesting seats were available elsewhere in the train.

The whole thing just sounds like a pathetic petty squabble and little more.

It’s not actually clear, though it seems that the pram would have been an obstruction in a vestibule. However, the pram should be foldable, and folded up. It shouldn’t have to be unfolded and sitting in a vestibule under any circumstances.

It is a very petty squabble and nobody comes out of it looking good, particularly the guard.

 

[yorkie]

People are being led to believe that the comedian herself was kicked out of a wheelchair space for a buggy
https://twitter.com/SamMangalick/status/1019308192403206145

Is "upgrading" just another way to say that disabled passengers will be humiliated and publicly kicked out of wheelchair spaces?

It sounds like the issue may have been rather different to how it has been portrayed, and I wonder if perhaps an opportunity to portray something that didn't quite happen was sensed, and pounced upon?

 

[bnm]

Maybe the aim was to maximise publicity?

Good god. Really???

Publicity has been maximised by the actions of the Train Manager. Moving a disabled person out of disabled space. Then threatening to call the police. Then publicly humiliating someone who was merely exercising her rights under the law.

 

[John R]

If the guard asked the woman to fold up her scooter, he was within his right to do that, as those appear to be the conditions on which one can be carried. So if he judged that the space could be used for the benefit of other passengers without affecting the disabled woman (as she was comfortably seated) then I would have thought he was not acting in contravention of any law. So was she "forced" to move it, or was that her choice in declining to fold it? And that triggered the whole scene.

I do have some sympathy for the TM. He was clearly trying to deal with a very difficult position, whilst being filmed in the knowledge that his face would likely end up on social media. I don't think any employee who is genuinely trying to do their job should be subjected to that (either the filming or the subsequent posting on social media). His announcement was completely out of order and unprofessional, but I suspect the result of extreme provocation.

 

[yorkie]

Moving a disabled person out of disabled space...

Are you saying @AlterEgo has this wrong?

 

[bb21]

I will issue the following reminders:

• Calling other forum members names is not permitted. This includes the use of words such as "apologist", the meaning and intention of which is perfectly clear. If anyone wishes to challenge any other forum member on what they said, including cases where you feel they may be blindly defending others, you need to quote the relevant post(s) and debate things in a mature way. Any further name-calling in this thread will result in instant infractions once noticed, the accumulation of which will result in bans. No further warning will be given on this matter.
• Provoking other forum members into a response is also not permitted. If you are not sure whether what you want to say is provocative, you must check with forum staff first before posting. If in doubt, leave it out.
• This is already a big topic in itself, so please keep off-topic discussion to the minimum. We appreciate that there will be a certain degree of thread-drift, but any off-topic posts are liable for deletion in order to keep the thread manageable.
• Remember that everyone is entitled to his opinion, whatever they may be, within the legal framework. You cannot always persuade people to agree to your views nor should you. Once you have presented your arguments, sometimes it is better to take a step back. This is not an excuse for attacking another forum member.

Anyone wishing to understand more about discussing things in a mature way, please refer to posts by Bletchleyite and bnm in this thread, as they are pretty good guides.

I am fully aware of the evocative and sensitive nature of this topic, so have refrained from issuing any infraction for certain infringements so far. Please bear these reminders above in mind in future posting. Thank you.

Anyone with questions on the above please speak to the forum team. No questions will be answered in the thread to keep it on topic.

 

[davart]

Having worked with the public for many years in various roles, there is no doubt that some people can be 'plonkers', especially when they don't get their own way.

Very often I find that those who kick up the most fuss, often have the least reason to, and those who should be 'going up the wall' don't.

As already mentioned, simple common sense and give and take would resolve problems like this.

Perhaps not having 'disabled' spaces named as such and calling them 'easy access' or something similar would reduce the arguments or sense of entitlement.

Naming the cause of the problem is unprofessional, but so is videoing an incident and publishing it online.

Way too much 'mob' mentality these days. The decision as to what to do going forward must lie with the train company, behind closed doors.

Rant over

 

[AlterEgo]

Well it sounds reasonable to me in the circumstances. Whatever the rights and wrongs here, why do certain people want the Guard sacked? What is there to gain by sacking him as opposed to giving him some re training if necessary? There are very serious repercussions when someone looses their job. He could end up not being able to afford his mortgage payments which could see him and his family loose their home. Is that really what some people want to happen?

Her scooter is a mobility aid and regardless of whether it should or should not have been in the wheelchair space it makes absolutely no sense at all for the guard to want it moved for something which isn’t a wheelchair and which doesn’t have priority.

The pram should have been folded up and stowed.

 

[mpthomson]

NO! A short-term arm injury in no way, shape or form meets the legal definition of a disability

Are you sure about that? You’re 100% wrong in your assertion. You have no idea what the injury actually is, or its timescale or the effect it may have on the mother’s activities of daily living. How long does an injury have to be present before someone counts as disabled?

I’ll give you a clue..... there isn’t one, and someone ceases to be disabled when the injury heals. We don’t know the circumstances in this case but don’t make things up when in your rush the condemn the guard. I suspect there’s more to this than had been made public.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you sure about that? You’re 100% wrong in your assertion. You have no idea what the injury actually is, or its timescale or the effect it may have on the mother’s activities of daily living. How long does an injury have to be present before someone counts as disabled?

I’ll give you a clue..... there isn’t one, and someone ceases to be disabled when the injury heals. We don’t know the circumstances in this case but don’t make things up when in your rush the condemn the guard. I suspect there’s more to this than had been made public.

I think the relevant discussion here is whether someone with a short term injury is afforded protection under the Equality Act as a disabled person.

If it’s a broken wrist or a sprained arm, I cannot see that they are. Someone with severe burn injuries to their arm which have been healing over a year, possibly.

There is also no evidence the mother even had an injury. The disabled woman’s partner had a sprained wrist, and I think somehow his injury has been confused as belonging to the second woman, who was both pushing a pram and carrying a baby.

 

[Cyclist]

I would be disgusted in my colleague and company if I worked for GWR