Filming interaction with on board staff

[zwk500]

That's the way the cookie crumbles. If you can't deal with that, then find a new line of work that isn't public facing.

They do deal with that by staying to the letter of the law.

So how do you go to the toilet?

Bodycams aren't constantly recording, but once activated they last for a predetermined period of time.

Have you ever thought that like the bodycam can save you, their phone footage can save them?

What is the relative incidence of bodycam saving employers vs phone footage saving customers? Also, what is the relative incidence of customer footage saving staff and bodycam footage saving customers?

 

[rs101]

Bodycams can be muted and covered - something which happens with surprising regularity by US police officers in particular.

Most customers filming an interaction don't start doing so until it's going badly for them - they've been told their ticket is invalid, etc - so starting filming isn't usually going to affect discretion much.

 

[occone]

No, it’s the model of being professional I’m afraid. No discretion, everything done by the book.

I guarantee if I film my interaction with the guard on Avanti where I got on a service which was first stop Warrington with a Milton Keynes ticket, I get sold a new ticket in line with the rules instead of getting backpassed.

I absolutely agree, and would add that indeed I behave differently when I'm being filmed or am on camera outside of work all together.

 

[43066]

Most customers filming an interaction don't start doing so until it's going badly for them - they've been told their ticket is invalid, etc - so starting filming isn't usually going to affect discretion much.

Quite a few assumptions there…

 

[AdamWW]

No, it’s the model of being professional I’m afraid. No discretion, everything done by the book.

Clearly no-one is likely to bend the rules if it's on the record.

But where the rules permit it, why would it be professional to use appropriate discretion only if it wasn't being filmed?

 

[Sheffcaster202]

So how do you go to the toilet?

Mines generally attached to revenue kit sling and that along with money belt etc comes off if I need the toilet…otherwise it tends to sound like your smashing the toilet up when everything falls on the floor…

Bodycams can be muted and covered - something which happens with surprising regularity by US police officers in particular.

The ones we have are pre-recording once you’re logged in, if activated they save the previous 30 seconds of footage along with the current recording
We have an on and off button on ours (on doubles as activate recording) no option to mute and given the train has CCTV too it would seem somewhat odd if you suddenly covered your camera or versions of stories differ and conveniently your footage stops

 

[AlterEgo]

Clearly no-one is likely to bend the rules if it's on the record.

But where the rules permit it, why would it be professional to use appropriate discretion only if it wasn't being filmed?

You’ve never had any direct experience of railway management!

 

[43066]

But where the rules permit it, why would it be professional to use appropriate discretion only if it wasn't being filmed?

It hasn’t been suggested that it isn’t professional to exercise discretion, whether being filmed or otherwise, just that the model of professionalism is doing one’s job strictly to the letter.

If you annoy someone by filming them, or otherwise, guess which version of professionalism you’ll be getting?

 

[LOL The Irony]

I guarantee if I film my interaction with the guard on Avanti where I got on a service which was first stop Warrington with a Milton Keynes ticket, I get sold a new ticket in line with the rules instead of getting backpassed.

I don't think it would be reasonable to whip out your phone during that interaction, to be frank. In fact, it feels like a strawman argument you're trying to make.

As has been pointed out, if you behave in a manner staff find provocative and intimidating, they’ll be less inclined to show you favourable discretion. It’s just human nature - and whether you find that unprofessional or not is really neither here nor there.

If you are in a dispute with a passenger who's filming you because you have a bodycam on and you don't like that fact, find a job that isn't public facing, as it'd be more suitable for you.

So you are seriously suggesting that TOCs edit CCTV footage? As I say, this is a conspiracy theory.

No, you just brought it up for no reason and said I suggested that the do it. Is it possible? Yes. Would they do it though? No, because they know the size of the pay day incoming.

I think you're being deluded as I never suggested that anyone would do that. You however, did.

Completely wrong. I’ve never worn a bodycam, and have no desire to ever wear one.

Then why are you getting so worked up over my opinions on being filmed whilst wearing a bodycam.

As I’ve asked, would you be happy with someone filming you at work? What about when you’re not at work? If I came up to you on a station platform, and started videoing you from close quarters, how would that make you feel?

If I am in a public facing role, tough. It's the world we live in and the job I signed up for. If I don't like it, I can hop on indeed and hand in my resignation.

If it’s rude/inappropriate/weird/creepy to go around filming complete strangers at any other time, it’s exactly the same on the railway.

But it's legal to film in public.

What is the relative incidence of bodycam saving employers vs phone footage saving customers? Also, what is the relative incidence of customer footage saving staff and bodycam footage saving customers?

Regardless, that shouldn't stop either from happening. The likelihood of a modern, western nuclear reactor exploding is incredibly low, yet we still encase them in a load of shielding.

I absolutely agree, and would add that indeed I behave differently when I'm being filmed or am on camera outside of work all together.

I think most reasonable people would, but @AlterEgo is ignoring the point of my argument to introduce a strawman.

Mines generally attached to revenue kit sling and that along with money belt etc comes off if I need the toilet…otherwise it tends to sound like your smashing the toilet up when everything falls on the floor…

Thanks.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think it would be reasonable to whip out your phone during that interaction, to be frank. In fact, it feels like a strawman argument you're trying to make.

It’s not a strawman, that’s an example of how you don’t get discretion shown when you film interactions.

You will often get exactly the rules as they are in the book when you start filming staff. That can work in your favour on occasion, but in most cases it won’t, because by the point most people start filming the goodwill has already evaporated and you then have no opportunity to recover it. Filming an interaction incentivises staff who may already have made a poor decision into doubling down and defending their position.

You have the right to film staff in public but it’s not something I would recommend in most circumstances and I am struggling to think of any instance where I would do this instead of relying on my instincts in how to manage a dispute.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It’s not a strawman, that’s an example of how you don’t get discretion shown when you film interactions.

You will often get exactly the rules as they are in the book when you start filming staff. That can work in your favour on occasion, but in most cases it won’t, because by the point most people start filming the goodwill has already evaporated and you then have no opportunity to recover it. Filming an interaction incentivises staff who may already have made a poor decision into doubling down and defending their position.

Were you in dispute in the guard or just discussing the fact that you got on the wrong train like a human?

 

[AlterEgo]

Were you in dispute in the guard or just discussing the fact that you got on the wrong train like a human?

Are you proposing only to film interactions when you start losing out, ensuring all the essential context is not present?

 

[jamiearmley]

I've been filmed a few times. I always smile, ask them to make sure they have a clear view and a good picture, introduce myself, and then describe the situation and the decision I've made calmly and in a friendly manner, together with my reasoning. So far, it has always produced positive results.

I will say, however, that if I'm dealing with, say, an invalid Railcard discount, when I explain that an excess is payable, if the customer just pays the excess and we can both get on with our day, then all is well. However, if the conversation becomes challenging, that excess- which is, after all, discretionary, and the discretion is mine and mine alone - quickly turns into a travel incident report, for someone else to deal with and decide upon.

The same goes for filming me : if it's a happy exchange, I will play along. If it's not a "happy" exchange, then I will remain friendly and professional, however everything will be by the book, up to and including police involvement.

Unhappy exchanges are almost non existent for me: I try to listen, to understand, to empathize, to carefully check facts. The only bad one I ever had resulted in police meeting the train, and the officers who attended offering the passenger a choice between arrest on the platform, or providing verifiable ID to myself together with deleting their phone footage. All over a grown man on a child ticket.

A point to note is that on a train fitted with CCTV, the existence of the CCTV warning stickers within the train is considered sufficient, and therefore it is not necessary to inform the passenger you are filming them on a body cam, as it is an extension, if you like, of the on train CCTV. On the rare occasions I use my bodycam, however, I always inform the subject that it is activated.

In this life, you reap what you sow. This applies to both Crew, and Passenger. Worth bearing in mind.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

A point to note is that on a train fitted with CCTV, the existence of the CCTV warning stickers within the train is considered sufficient, and therefore it is not necessary to inform the passenger you are filming them on a body cam, as it is an extension, if you like, of the on train CCTV. On the rare occasions I use my bodycam, however, I always inform the subject that it is activated.

I do this too and use it as a recap point to talk about what we already have…

“Just want to make you aware that, due to how serious the implications could be, i have activated my camera here to record our conversation and ensure no details are missed in the write up, you have just told me that this rail card is not yours, your friend has edited your photograph on to a screen shot of their own card and sent it to you on WhatsApp, you have showed me ID that has a different name on it, do you agree?”

Then go about the required questions for a TIR, bit of a recap and explain what happens next, get signature, take any relevant photos and submit

That example is a simplified version of a real story from a couple of weeks back, asked the passenger to come to a free table, had a chat and all went well

 

[All Line Rover]

In my experience, the majority of TOCs do not comply with their legal obligations regarding data protection. However, the only way any individual would be able to enforce compliance is by taking the relevant TOC to court. A significant, time-consuming endeavour.

Therefore, if the only means of substantiating a complaint regarding staff behaviour is by filming the incident (one person's word against another's would not be sufficient), I consider that understandable.

The typical approach TOCs seem to take regarding any complaint about staff behaviour is to ask the employee for their own version of events - which may or may not be true and complete - and take that account at face value, not even bothering to cross-check it against any CCTV footage the TOC may hold internally.

The above is not to detract from the fact that there are plenty of problem passengers about, who rail employees should rightly be able to protect themselves against.

 

[RJ]

Most customers filming an interaction don't start doing so until it's going badly for them - they've been told their ticket is invalid, etc - so starting filming isn't usually going to affect discretion much.

You probably wouldn’t want to film otherwise. Sometimes the situation will be of the customer’s own creation but sometime it is the member of staff creating a situation where they are at fault. In the case of the latter, the presence of a camera can change the outcome.

For instance if you have a member of staff hurling insults at you because they are unfamiliar with your valid ticket and you decline to buy a new one from them, producing a camera usually stops them from behaving like that far more effectively than arguing with them.

 

[Krokodil]

But it's legal to film in public.

Railway property isn't and never has been a public space.

I don't think it would be reasonable to whip out your phone during that interaction, to be frank. In fact, it feels like a strawman argument you're trying to make.

It usually isn't reasonable to whip out your phone.

For instance if you have a member of staff hurling insults at you because they are unfamiliar with your valid ticket and you decline to buy a new one from them, producing a camera usually stops them from behaving like that far more effectively than arguing with them.

If someone is going off on one, then I wouldn't object to you recording this. Provided that the recording is purely used as evidence for submission to the authorities (employer/BTP/elected representative etc.) rather than uploaded to social media for the 'likes'.

Such a situation is vanishingly rare though.

 

[ComUtoR]

In my experience, the majority of TOCs do not comply with their legal obligations regarding data protection.

What evidence do you have of this, especially if you are saying it is the 'majority' of TOCs. GDPR breaches are very serious. If you have evidence. You should report it.

However, the only way any individual would be able to enforce compliance is by taking the relevant TOC to court. A significant, time-consuming endeavour.

Easy to report.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach.

(Link is to the ICO for GDPR breaches)

The typical approach TOCs seem to take regarding any complaint about staff behaviour is to ask the employee for their own version of events - which may or may not be true and complete - and take that account at face value, not even bothering to cross-check it against any CCTV footage the TOC may hold internally.

The complaints process is often almost entirely anecdotal. Getting the staff members written report is a basic step to take. CCTV isn't 'the all seeing eye' we believe it to be and it would be rare to have any audio.

You must be very unfortunate to have been involved in that many TOC start complaints that you confidently state their 'typical' approach.

 

[AdamWW]

Are you proposing only to film interactions when you start losing out, ensuring all the essential context is not present?

I believe that is how body cameras are often used though.

Railway property isn't and never has been a public space.

It depends on the definition.

E.g. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 says:
“" Public place " includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or othewise”.

That seems to cover railway property.

In any case I believe that it is perfectly legal to take photographs or film on railway property.

There could be a by-law prohibiting it. But there isn't.

The railway could choose to ban it, but that wouldn't make it illegal.

And in any case they do not appear to have done so.

The guidance for rail enthusiasts just prohitits filming and photography of security equipment.

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe that is how body cameras are often used though.

But the body cam is primarily there to stop the staff member being assaulted or to record it happening.

 

[matt_world2004]

I know from personal experience that the police do not comply with GDPR and subject access request legislation .

It makes me distrustful that other organisations do too particularly ones with some policing powers.

And sometimes video uploaded onto social media can be used to get a proper resolution during the complaints process. You only have too look at the response to the death of two kids in Ely. Where the police claimed they were not following them, only for a video to be released contradicting their version of events.

As we have seen on here in the disputes and prosecutjons form there have been people.who have had valid tickets denied travel , had the police called on them (Eg the lumo incident a few weeks ago) and had the railway fail in its contractual and legal obligations.

Sometimes the complaints process can feel less than impartial as well (as often it's managment have colluded to create a policy to cause the railway to violate its passenger rights obligations ) and often a "social media shaming" is the only way to force the institution to correct that.

"Social media shaming" has also highlighted serious safety failings committed by the rail industry. (Think of the videos of the tramlink drivers falling asleep following the sandilands derailment

If the rail industry behaved with 100% integrity there would be a case for banning filming but it often doesn't.

I wish I filmed some managers lying to me and my colleagues about safety issues . It would have meant that they would have been dealt with properly

 

[ComUtoR]

and often a "social media shaming" is the only way to force the institution to correct that.

More often than not; it doesn't. What it does is change any legitimate complaint into nothing more than a PR exercise. Do you genuinely believe it leads to any real form of change ? It's a pay off to make a complaint disappear. The public have been using threats of negative publicity for years. Nothing has changed but people get a little payout and a smug sense of self worth.

"Social media shaming" has also highlighted serious safety failings committed by the rail industry. (Think of the videos of the tramlink drivers falling asleep following the sandilands derailment

I understand where you are.coming from here but it's more "whistle blowing" than shaming.

 

[matt_world2004]

More often than not; it doesn't. What it does is change any legitimate complaint into nothing more than a PR exercise. Do you genuinely believe it leads to any real form of change ? It's a pay off to make a complaint disappear. The public have been using threats of negative publicity for years. Nothing has changed but people get a little payout and a smug sense of self worth.




I understand where you are.coming from here but it's more "whistle blowing" than shshaming.

Whistle blowing isn't committed by customers.and tfl claimed that it was rare for workers to fall asleep at the controls . This was then quickly retracted when video of three to four tram drivers falling asleep at the controls came to light


Why would a pay off make the complaint dissappear if there is no merit to it. If there is a feeling the video has been selectively edited the staff member can sue for slander, especially if they gave the legal protection of their employer and union to back them up. And if a TOC has done something wrong , then they deserve the negative publicity.

 

[rs101]

More often than not; it doesn't. What it does is change any legitimate complaint into nothing more than a PR exercise. Do you genuinely believe it leads to any real form of change ? It's a pay off to make a complaint disappear. The public have been using threats of negative publicity for years. Nothing has changed but people get a little payout and a smug sense of self worth.




I understand where you are.coming from here but it's more "whistle blowing" than shaming.

Utter rubbish. It's not at all uncommon that a complaint gets ignored (or not considered properly) until it gets publicity on social media or real media. Just check the Guardian's consumer rights section for the number of issues which end up with the company suddenly admitting they didn't deal with the complaint according to their own rules.

I've had personal experience of this - NCP ticketed me in a railway station car park, even though I'd paid via the app. The appeal was rejected as they obviously didn't read it properly. Tried again to be told that appeal was final and the only option was to pay.

A quick tweet to them with pictures of the ticket, screenshot of the payment confirmation (timed before the ticket was issued) and within 10 minutes I had an apology for a "technical error" along with confirmation the ticket was cancelled.

Further tweets extracted an admission that their operative hadn't bothered to download any online tickets before checking the car park and that their back office process didn't involve checking for online payments before issuing followup correspondence. They admitted that was an issue and would be something they'd submit internal feedback to improve.

 

[185]

Only two situations are perhaps appropriate, where I'd agree a passenger could film me (it's only fair):
1. If being booked up for prosecution where the passenger holds a genuine belief that it is wrongful, or
2. On planet Lumo, where the basic laws of physics don't seem to apply..

Anyone doing the filming should at least notify the other. But any social media auditors doing this to post on YouTube should face prosecution, jail, locked in a cage somewhere. All of them. Ahem

 

[LOL The Irony]

Are you proposing only to film interactions when you start losing out, ensuring all the essential context is not present?

No, strawman.

Railway property isn't and never has been a public space.

It uses implied right of access, meaning it is public property until that right is revoked. So they can stop you from filming, but if you're in the middle of an Interaction, this won't be a good look.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, strawman.

So you are in fact proposing to record all interactions from the outset, or not?

You can’t just say “strawman” to avoid answering a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question now you’ve tied yourself in a knot.

 

[zwk500]

No, strawman.

It uses implied right of access, meaning it is public property until that right is revoked. So they can stop you from filming, but if you're in the middle of an Interaction, this won't be a good look.

No, the ownership does not change. It remains private property at ALL times. Public access is permitted by implied permission, which can be withdrawn at any time. There is an argument that the public access makes it a public space for the purposes of some legislation (see the public realm vs private property issues flaring up in various city centres), but it remains as much private property as an Arndale centre.

 

[Haywain]

No, the ownership does not change. It remains private property at ALL times. Public access is permitted by implied permission, which can be withdrawn at any time. There is an argument that the public access makes it a public space for the purposes of some legislation (see the public realm vs private property issues flaring up in various city centres), but it remains as much private property as an Arndale centre.

I would question whether such implied access actually extends beyond ticket barriers, where they operate, an onto trains.

 

[zwk500]

I would question whether such implied access actually extends beyond ticket barriers, where they operate, an onto trains.

I couldn't say either way, that goes well beyond my very sparse legal knowledge. Important part is that whether or not it is considered a public space in relation to the expectation of privacy, the entire railway (including outside the barrier line) remains private property at all times and staff have the right to ask you to leave.