Filming interaction with on board staff

[island]

Yes, it is correct.

Your repetition does not make it so,

You’re confusing criminal and contract law.

I have said nothing about criminal law.

You can be asked to leave the railway, thereby revoking permission to be on the premises due to your behaviour, even if you have a valid ticket.

No, you can't. The principle of "revoking permission to be on the premises", as I already stated, applies only to the implied permission to be there given to members of the general public. It is separate to the express permission given by the sale of a ticket. The railway cannot unilaterally cancel a ticket.

All that needs to happen is for you to be asked to leave and refuse and the criminal offence of railway trespass is then complete.

Wrong. Trespass requires that you be on the railway without permission. The ticket gives you permission, and for the reasons mentioned above, this can't be revoked by a member of staff unilaterally.

I will accept, however, that a person (ticket-holder or not) filming a staff encounter in a provocative way is likely to be in breach of byelaw 6 (2) or (8) and liable to be required to leave the railway on this basis.

I’ve seen it happen: I asked someone to leave after he was abusive to me at a London terminal, he refused. BTP bundled him out of the station and warned him he would be arrested if he returned. Whether he had a ticket or not was neither here nor there (and nobody checked!).

As you cannot state whether the person had a ticket or not, your anecdote is of no relevance, and as noted in post 148 and elsewhere, just because the police do something does not mean they are right.

Can you cite it?

It is a basic principle of British law that everything is legal unless Parliament (or another authorised law-making body) makes it illegal. See Halsbury's Laws of England.

As above you are required to obey instructions of staff and can be instructed to leave the railway if your behaviour is considered unacceptable.

For the reasons I have already given, this isn't the case.

 

[43066]

I have said nothing about criminal law.

Entering into a contract does not mean that you cannot then be asked to leave. Failure to leave when asked is sufficient for railway trespass to be made out.

No, you can't. The principle of "revoking permission to be on the premises", as I already stated, applies only to the implied permission to be there given to members of the general public. It is separate to the express permission given by the sale of a ticket. The railway cannot unilaterally cancel a ticket.

It can and does. The railway can quite legally eject someone from its premises and deny them travel, even if they hold a valid ticket. I’m amazed anybody would deny that, it happens on a regular basis.

Wrong. Trespass requires that you be on the railway without permission. The ticket gives you permission, and for the reasons mentioned above, this can't be revoked by a member of staff unilaterally.

Incorrect. If you’re instructed to leave and refuse to do so the police will arrest you.

As you cannot state whether the person had a ticket or not, your anecdote is of no relevance.

The result would have been the same either way.

It is a basic principle of British law that everything is legal unless Parliament (or another authorised law-making body) makes it illegal. See Halsbury's Laws of England.

So there is no inalienable right to film, as I referred to above. You can be asked to stop filming, and potentially asked to leave. At that point your continued presence on the railway will become illegal.

For the reasons I have already given, this isn't the case.

Whereas I know it is the case, and have seen it happen on a regular basis, so we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[LOL The Irony]

For the umpteenth time of repeating people wear body cams were required to do so for their job roles, and they are not equivalent to mobile phone footage recorded by a private individual, but are really a form of body worn CCTV.

Then (for the umpteenth time) they should find a different job if the prospect of being filmed by the public is so contentious for them. In fact, avoid public roles in general. Just because bodycam footage can't be used in the same way as footage recorded on a phone by a private individual, doesn't mean that at the end of the day, you aren't still being filmed. So really, there should be an issue with both or an issue with neither.

You appear to have advanced the conspiracy theory that CCTV is not controlled, and is edited by TOCs, so I don’t expect you to accept that, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

You (yes you, as in RailUKForums user @43066) started that conspiracy theory and I facetiously responded to your delusions and misinterpretations of my postings.

And I said (after your delusions) that they have the ABILITY to, just like we both have the ability to rob a bank or hijack an airliner. Doesn't mean we're going to do them. Most likely (I'll assume) because neither of us particularly want to face the consequences of such actions.

If you don’t want to encounter people wearing bodycams you can choose not to use the railway. You do not have an inalienable right to film staff with your mobile just because you don’t approve of body cams.

Likewise for avoiding the possibility of being filmed by the public as you don't have an inalienable right to not be filmed in public.

Also, I have never disagreed with the use of body worn cameras, rather the implementation of rules for thee but not for me that some people (in all industries that use them) seem to have.

What a tedious way to retreat from our discussion about whether or not I gave a worthwhile example of staff members behaving differently - and by the book - when being recorded by a passenger.

I was merely asking if you had fallen into dispute with the Avanti guard or were you both just discussing how you accidentally boarded the wrong train and needed to get to Milton Keynes. If it was the latter, there was probably no reason to record the guard. You are the one who seems to be backing out of some thing here.

I'll assume by your unwillingness to expound that you've no argument to make.

It appears that you are the one who unwilling, strawman.

 

[AlterEgo]

I was merely asking if you had fallen into dispute with the Avanti guard or were you both just discussing how you accidentally boarded the wrong train and needed to get to Milton Keynes. If it was the latter, there was probably no reason to record the guard. You are the one who seems to be backing out of some thing here.

It wasn't relevant if I was in dispute or not; the thread isn't about disputes, but interactions with members of staff, if you take the trouble to read it.

Members of staff who are being recorded by passengers are less likely to show discretion or depart from the professional standards of simply applying the letter of the law, to ensure there is absolutely no comeback for them. This is why it is usually unwise to do this.

It appears that you are the one who unwilling, strawman.

Just saying "strawman" is not making a point, and does not make you look smart. Everyone can see the thread and what's been said. All you've done is repeat my point that it would be unreasonable to record an interaction (and in my view counterproductive), yet at the same time described it as a strawman. At the same time you have said that most reasonable people would act differently when being filmed, in response to a poster saying they agree with me (!) - while simultaneously attempting to argue that doing the same thing is unprofessional.

I gave a perfectly good example of how staff will act differently when faced with a passenger's camera, you disagreed with it being a good example, without explaining why, and you continue to refuse to explain why that is not a good example.

It may be that you think we are only talking about disputes, but that is not what the thread is about, is it?

 

[rs101]

Entering into a contract does not mean that you cannot then be asked to leave. Failure to leave when asked is sufficient for railway trespass to be made out.



It can and does. The railway can quite legally eject someone from its premises and deny them travel, even if they hold a valid ticket. I’m amazed anybody would deny that, it happens on a regular basis.



Incorrect. If you’re instructed to leave and refuse to do so the police will arrest you.



The result would have been the same either way.



So there is no inalienable right to film, as I referred to above. You can be asked to stop filming, and potentially asked to leave. At that point the filming and your continued presence on the railway will become illegal.



Whereas I know it is the case, and have seen it happen on a regular basis, so we shall have to agree to disagree.

Are you saying someone holding a valid ticket can be refused the right to travel or even be on station property just because the employee wants to? Or does the individual have to have broken railway bylaws for that to happen?

 

[LOL The Irony]

It wasn't relevant if I was in dispute or not; the thread isn't about disputes, but interactions with members of staff, if you take the trouble to read it.

I have. And I was making a point about the wearing of bodycams and being filmed, especially during a dispute.

Just saying "strawman" is not making a point, and does not make you look smart.

It's not my intention to look smart, depending on your definition.

Everyone can see the thread and what's been said. All you've done is repeat my point that it would be unreasonable to record an interaction (and in my view counterproductive), yet at the same time described it as a strawman.

Because it was, in my opinion, not;
1. Reasonable to film the guard during that interaction.
2. Relevant to the situation my argument was based off.

I could've been better at putting across my initial point. So now you know why I believe your argument to be a strawman argument.

At the same time you have said that most reasonable people would act differently when being filmed, in response to a poster saying they agree with me (!) - while simultaneously attempting to argue that doing the same thing is unprofessional.

Is not unprofessional to let people off when the cameras aren't rolling? It's good that they do so (and so they should), but technically unprofessional. I admit to being blindsided from my point, but that doesn't mean I find it unreasonable. Reminder that unprofessional =/= unreasonable.

It may be that you think we are only talking about disputes, but that is not what the thread is about, is it?

Does that mean I can't argue the case about a dispute?

 

[43066]

Just because bodycam footage can't be used in the same way as footage recorded on a phone by a private individual, doesn't mean that at the end of the day, you aren't still being filmed. So really, there should be an issue with both or an issue with neither.

That doesn’t follow because the situations aren’t equivalent. If you can’t accept that there’s little to discuss.

You (yes you, as in RailUKForums user @43066) started that conspiracy theory and I facetiously responded to your delusions and misinterpretations of my postings.

As for this, I did nothing of the sort.

You were the one who suggested that footage can be edited, in an attempt to make situations sound the same when they are not.

I said:

No they can’t, anymore than CCTV can be edited. This is a conspiracy theory.

And you said:

Adobe premier pro, Avid media composer, Davinci resolve...

By listing editing software I think it is fairly clear who was suggesting that CCTV footage is edited. It doesn’t appear that you were being facetious, it sounds rather like you’re only now suggesting that to try to obfuscate the issue. That is not participating in the discussion in good faith.

Are you saying someone holding a valid ticket can be refused the right to travel or even be on station property just because the employee wants to? Or does the individual have to have broken railway bylaws for that to happen?

In practice, yes. Obviously the chances of that happening for no reason at all are incredibly remote, but staff do have the ultimate authority to ask people to leave. It’s odd that people find that contentious; it’s the same in any other business.

And I said (after your delusions) that they have the ABILITY to, just like we both have the ability to rob a bank or hijack an airliner. Doesn't mean we're going to do them. Most likely (I'll assume) because neither of us particularly want to face the consequences of such actions.

Yet (fairly obviously) many who film private footage do edit it, upload it to TicToc etc. TOCs do not do this with bodycam footage so it is a false equivalence.

If you’re this worried about being filmed, presumably you must never leave the house, because we are all on CCTV in many situations nowadays.

 

[island]

In practice, yes.

I agree with this summary.

Obviously the chances of that happening for no reason at all are incredibly remote,

I agree and am glad about this.

but staff do have the ultimate authority to ask people to leave.

Not if they are ticket-holders who have not broken the law.

Despite lacking this authority, it is possible, and even likely, that BTP may assist staff who are in the wrong.

It’s odd that people find that contentious; it’s the same in any other business.

Most other businesses do not sell tickets authorising you to be on their premises, so people on their premises are there by the implied right of access, which I've explained to you multiple times. Many of those other businesses that do sell tickets, such as theatres and cinemas, make it an explicit condition of entry, notified before selling you a ticket, that you must not film on the premises. This allows them to remove people who break the condition. The railway does not set such a condition,

If you’re instructed to leave and refuse to do so the police will arrest you.

As we have seen on numerous occasions in the media and indeed in this thread, the police are not always right.

As it's clear you aren't willing to be convinced that you're wrong about the railway having an unlimited right to require ticket holders acting lawfully to leave the railway, I won't be responding further on this point to prevent debate going in circles.

 

[43066]

Not if they are ticket-holders who have not broken the law.

This is simply factually incorrect. You don’t need to have broken the law to be asked to leave. Acting suspiciously/inappropriately is sufficient.

Despite lacking this authority, it is possible, and even likely, that BTP may assist staff who are in the wrong.

So I’m wrong, the railway industry is wrong, the police are wrong. That is a regular refrain on this forum .

They aren’t in the wrong by asking someone to leave, if their behaviour is causing concern.

Most other businesses do not sell tickets authorising you to be on their premises, so people on their premises are there by the implied right of access, which I've explained to you multiple times. Many of those other businesses that do sell tickets, such as theatres and cinemas, make it an explicit condition of entry, notified before selling you a ticket, that you must not film on the premises. This allows them to remove people who break the condition. The railway does not set such a condition,

And as I’ve explained to you, a ticket does not give an inalienable right of access. Any right of access can be revoked if it causes concern. The ability to remove people does not rely on a contractual right - hence why people with no ticket can be required to leave.

As it's clear you aren't willing to be convinced that you're wrong about the railway having an unlimited right to require ticket holders acting lawfully to leave the railway, I won't be responding further on this point to prevent debate going in circles.

Any business is has the right to exclude people from private property. In the railway’s case this is backed up by bylaws and the criminal offence of railway trespass. That is completely apart from the contractual situation.

Agreed we will need to disagree.

 

[zwk500]

And as I’ve explained to you, a ticket does not give an inalienable right of access. Any right of access can be revoked if it causes concern. The ability to remove people does not rely on a contractual right - hence why people with no ticket can be required to leave.

Importantly, the Conditions of Travel explicitly say you are still subject to the byelaws while on the railway, including train services, and purchase of a ticket does not indemnify you from the byelaws.

 

[island]

Importantly, the Conditions of Travel explicitly say you are still subject to the byelaws while on the railway, including train services, and purchase of a ticket does not indemnify you from the byelaws.

I have been clear at all times that if a person breaches the byelaws they can be required to leave the railway, even if they hold a ticket.

Peacefully filming does not breach the byelaws.

 

[43066]

Importantly, the Conditions of Travel explicitly say you are still subject to the byelaws while on the railway, including train services, and purchase of a ticket does not indemnify you from the byelaws.

Indeed. And it does not prevent staff instructing someone to leave if their behaviour causes suspicion. When the BTP turn up the question will be “do you want this person removed?”, it won’t be “what bylaw have they breached?”.

Of course the bylaws are drafted broadly - - especially the requirement to follow instructions from staff (see below) - and can catch virtually anything.

I have been clear at all times that if a person breaches the byelaws they can be required to leave the railway, even if they hold a ticket.

Peacefully filming does not breach the byelaws.

“Peacefully filming” might beach bylaw
12.2 if a staff member considers it distracting and instructs you to stop.

I have been clear that staff have the power to revoke implied/express permission to be on railway premises at any time, with no requirement to identify “illegal” behaviour, with recourse to the BTP if necessary. I have done so myself, have seen others do so, and it’s very important that staff have that ability, for obvious reasons. The fact that someone holds a valid ticket is neither here nor there.

I’m honestly not sure what point you’re trying to make by denying that.

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed. And it does not prevent staff instructing someone to leave if their behaviour causes suspicion. When the BTP turn up the question will be “do you want this person removed?”, it won’t be “what bylaw have they breached?”.

Of course the bylaws are drafted broadly - - especially the requirement to follow instructions from staff (see below) - and can catch virtually anything.



“Peacefully filming” might beach bylaw
12.2 if a staff member considers it distracting and instructs you to stop.

I have been clear that staff have the power to revoke implied/express permission to be on railway premises at any time, with no requirement to identify “illegal” behaviour, with recourse to the BTP if necessary. I have done so myself, have seen others do so, and it’s very important that staff have that ability, for obvious reasons. The fact that someone holds a valid ticket is neither here nor there.

I’m honestly not sure what point you’re trying to make by denying that.

Anything can breach a bylaw in the right circumstances merely filming in itself doesn't breach the bylaws m filming through the drivers cab blocking the DOO screens would.

Likewise sitting on a platform bench wouldn't breach the bylaws sitting on the edge of the platform with your legs hanging over almost certainly would.

 

[AdamWW]

As I understand it, railway staff by law can require someone to leave railway premises and if they don't they are committing criminal trespass. The police would therefore be correct in enforcing this.

In itself that says nothing about whether any contract with a passenger has been breached - the police aren't there to enforce civil law.

If someone is violating a byelaw then clearly the fact that they have a contract to travel doesn't override that - contract law can't override criminal law.

But if they are not voilating a byelaw or the terms of the contract, what gives the railway the authority to break the contract?

A law saying that if staff require someone to leave they have to is not necessarily the same as saying they have a unrestricted right to make that request regardless of any contract in place.

If if they don't, then surely the railway is in breach of contract by refusing travel to someone who is acting within both the law and the terms of the contract, and could (in principle) be sued for breach of contract.

Where am I going wrong with this reasoning?

 

[43066]

Anything can breach a bylaw in the right circumstances merely filming in itself doesn't breach the bylaws m filming through the drivers cab blocking the DOO screens would.

Likewise sitting on a platform bench wouldn't breach the bylaws sitting on the edge of the platform with your legs hanging over almost certainly would.

It depends.

If you read bylaw 12.2, it provides:

in an emergency or in other circumstances in which he believes he should act in the interests of safety, issue instructions to any person on the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such instructions

Note that the relevant belief is that of the staff member, not the person being instructed. Therefore continuing to do anything you’ve been told to stop doing would breach it.

As I understand it, railway staff by law can require someone to leave railway premises and if they don't they are committing criminal trespass. The police would therefore be correct in enforcing this.

In itself that says nothing about whether any contract with a passenger has been breached - the police aren't there to enforce civil law.

If someone is violating a byelaw then clearly the fact that they have a contract to travel doesn't override that - contract law can't override criminal law.

Correct.

But if they are not voilating a byelaw or the terms of the contract, what gives the railway the authority to break the contract?

A law saying that if staff require someone to leave they have to is not necessarily the same as saying they have a unrestricted right to make that request regardless of any contract in place.

If if they don't, then surely the railway is in breach of contract by refusing travel to someone who is acting within both the law and the terms of the contract, and could (in principle) be sued for breach of contract.

It isn’t illegal to breach a contract. So in theory you could be arbitrarily instructed to leave, and would be required to do so under criminal law. You could then sue the TOC for breach of contract, to obtain a civil law remedy for the breach, and of course any member of staff doing this would be breaching the terms of their own employment.

It’s highly unlikely this situation would ever come up, because when someone behaves badly enough to be asked to leave they will almost always have breached one or more bylaws, and therefore have both committed a criminal offence and breached their contract with the TOC (because, as noted above, your contract with the railway expressly states that you are subject to bylaws).

 

[matt_world2004]

Preamble "In an emergency or other such circumstances" filming wouldn't be covered by that

 

[43066]

Preamble "In an emergency or other such circumstances" filming wouldn't be covered by that

But would be by “or other circumstances in which they believe they should act”, if the staff member deems it necessary.

 

[matt_world2004]

But would be by “or other circumstances in which they believe they should act”, if the staff member deems it necessary.

Removing someone filming so the wrongdoing of the staff member is not recorded is not a reasonable belief they should act.

 

[rs101]

Removing someone filming so the wrongdoing of the staff member is not recorded is not a reasonable belief they should act.

It's also not "in the interests of safety" which is a a critical part of that bylaw.

 

[Krokodil]

If you're wearing a bodycam (which is what I've been talking about the entire time) and you don't want to be filmed yourself, I'd argue that you are the entitled one.

As has been explained to you time and time again, CCTV (including BWV) is not going to end up on Tiktok for the 'LOL's.

what is your authority with which you write? You don’t sound like you’re presenting opinion

This article references the likes of restaurants and football grounds as private spaces as far as filming is concerned. Unless you can find something to contradict that, the railway is private property in much the same way.

Is it legal to film someone and upload it to YouTube

It is not illegal in the UK to film someone in public even if you film them without their consent. However, the definition of a public place is often narrow as it does not include places such as restaurants, hotels or even football grounds. These are all private places. Whenever an individual...

www.internetlawcentre.co.uk

Removing someone filming so the wrongdoing of the staff member is not recorded is not a reasonable belief they should act.

Alleged wrongdoing. We frequently see mobile phone footage posted of police officers struggling with an assailant. Usually accompanied by a chorus of "he ain't done nuffink" from the woman filming. The footage is posted online, conveniently missing his behaviour at the beginning, and also missing the point where they search him and find a knife.

Given how many of these videos surface compared to the number of videos where the officers were actually in the wrong, I'm going to extrapolate and say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the member of staff was quite right to challenge whatever it was they were challenging.

Still, there's one good thing about mobile phone footage, it provides us all with great entertainment when a burly passenger assists the guard and forcibly ejects the scrote.

 

[Watershed]

As has been explained to you time and time again, CCTV (including BWV) is not going to end up on Tiktok for the 'LOL's.

It might not end up on TikTok but TOCs and the BTP have previously demonstrated they're happy to plaster footage over other forms of social media and the internet, if they feel it suits their agenda.

This article references the likes of restaurants and football grounds as private spaces as far as filming is concerned. Unless you can find something to contradict that, the railway is private property in much the same way.

The actual ownership of property is largely irrelevant; in any event, Network Rail is owned by the government and so their property is "public" just as much as the council-owned road outside your home - it's owned by a body that is indirectly owned and controlled by the government.

The only thing that matters is whether, and if so how, the public are entitled to access a particular piece of property. You're entitled to access a council-owned road by virtue of it being a public right of way and highway. Meanwhile, on the railway, members of the public have an implied right of access (which can be revoked) and passengers have a contractual right of access through their ticket (which cannot simply be arbitrarily revoked, as the NRCoT has no provision for such revocation).

Either way, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on most parts of the railway that passengers are allowed to access (i.e. stations and trains) and so filming as well as the posting of such films is lawful.

 

[GusB]

It's also not "in the interests of safety" which is a a critical part of that bylaw.

In some circumstances it may well be in the interests of safety; if someone is filming a driver, guard or dispatcher while they're carrying out a safety-critical task then it's potentially distracting and there are consequences for that member of staff (and the public) if they mess it up.

 

[matt_world2004]

As has been explained to you time and time again, CCTV (including BWV) is not going to end up on Tiktok for the 'LOL's.

This article references the likes of restaurants and football grounds as private spaces as far as filming is concerned. Unless you can find something to contradict that, the railway is private property in much the same way.

Is it legal to film someone and upload it to YouTube

It is not illegal in the UK to film someone in public even if you film them without their consent. However, the definition of a public place is often narrow as it does not include places such as restaurants, hotels or even football grounds. These are all private places. Whenever an individual...

www.internetlawcentre.co.uk

Alleged wrongdoing. We frequently see mobile phone footage posted of police officers struggling with an assailant. Usually accompanied by a chorus of "he ain't done nuffink" from the woman filming. The footage is posted online, conveniently missing his behaviour at the beginning, and also missing the point where they search him and find a knife.

Given how many of these videos surface compared to the number of videos where the officers were actually in the wrong, I'm going to extrapolate and say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the member of staff was quite right to challenge whatever it was they were challenging.

Still, there's one good thing about mobile phone footage, it provides us all with great entertainment when a burly passenger assists the guard and forcibly ejects the scrote.

Like the video footage of the person with motor neurone disease being denied travel at a merseyrail station for being "drunk " nope no wrongdoing is ever committed by the rail industry .

And the rail industry can just drag out the release of video footage demanded under subject access request legislation indefinitely.

As has been explained to you time and time again, CCTV (including BWV) is not going to end up on Tiktok for the 'LOL's.

Why wouldn't it end up on tik toc for the lols the subject of the BWV is allowed to request it legally under subject access legislation?

 

[Krokodil]

It might not end up on TikTok but TOCs and the BTP have previously demonstrated they're happy to plaster footage over other forms of social media and the internet, if they feel it suits their agenda.

Which they won't do lightly because their lawyers won't risk a defamation lawsuit. A member of the public on the other hand is likely to post their out-of-context footage with misleading caption with no consideration for the consequences.

The actual ownership of property is largely irrelevant; in any event, Network Rail is owned by the government and so their property is "public" just as much as the council-owned road outside your home - it's owned by a body that is indirectly owned and controlled by the government.

The council also own car parks. They are also private land. The railway is nothing like a public highway.

Either way, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on most parts of the railway that passengers are allowed to access

You still have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the definition of "reasonable" will reflect the situation. If someone was filming your laptop screen over your shoulder you might have a case if you sued them.

Like the video footage of the person with motor neurone disease being denied travel at a merseyrail station for being "drunk " nope no wrongdoing is ever committed by the rail industry .

At no point did I say that it never happens. I said that it was very rare.

Why wouldn't it end up on tik toc for the lols the subject of the BWV is allowed to request it legally under subject access legislation?

If you want to put your own mug on Tiktok then there's nothing stopping you. We're talking about other people.

 

[matt_world2004]

Which they won't do lightly because their lawyers won't risk a defamation lawsuit. A member of the public on the other hand is likely to post their out-of-context footage with misleading caption with no consideration for the consequences.

Are railways too poor that they cannot take legal action against someone libelling their staff?

 

[bramling]

Your repetition does not make it so,

I have said nothing about criminal law.

No, you can't. The principle of "revoking permission to be on the premises", as I already stated, applies only to the implied permission to be there given to members of the general public. It is separate to the express permission given by the sale of a ticket. The railway cannot unilaterally cancel a ticket.

Wrong. Trespass requires that you be on the railway without permission. The ticket gives you permission, and for the reasons mentioned above, this can't be revoked by a member of staff unilaterally.

I will accept, however, that a person (ticket-holder or not) filming a staff encounter in a provocative way is likely to be in breach of byelaw 6 (2) or (8) and liable to be required to leave the railway on this basis.

I go with 43066’s interpretation of this; namely if someone refuses to follow a (reasonable) instruction then at that point they can be instructed to leave. Obviously in that situation the member of staff would have to be able to justify / defend their actions, they can’t just do it because they take a dislike to someone. But if someone is behaving in a way that is causing a problem, especially if it’s potentially safety-related, then that is such a justification.

 

[43066]

Removing someone filming so the wrongdoing of the staff member is not recorded is not a reasonable belief they should act.

You are splitting hairs now, and we aren’t talking about whether the staff member is doing wrong or not, merely whether they can ask you to leave.

Again, if you read the relevant section (12.2), there’s no requirement that the belief be objectively reasonable, merely that it is held by the staff member at the time.

That makes perfect sense because if I as a train driver find you standing next to a signal and filming me distracting, it’s my opinion that matters, not your opinion, and not even the opinion of another train driver.

It's also not "in the interests of safety" which is a a critical part of that bylaw.

Are you seriously suggesting that a train driver asking someone to move because they find them distracting isn’t acting “in the interests of safety”?

I go with 43066’s interpretation of this; namely if someone refuses to follow a (reasonable) instruction then at that point they can be instructed to leave. Obviously in that situation the member of staff would have to be able to justify / defend their actions, they can’t just do it because they take a dislike to someone. But if someone is behaving in a way that is causing a problem, especially if it’s potentially safety-related, then that is such a justification.

Indeed. And of course that justification isn’t something that will take place in “real time”. The BTP certainly won’t want a debate on the finer points of the railway byelaws!

It’s odd that some enthusiasts find it so difficult to accept that being on railway premises is a privilege not a right, and that they need to do as they’re told by staff members. That authority is necessary for safe operation of the system, and would be immediately obvious to 99% of the travelling public!

 

[Kilopylae]

Most other businesses do not sell tickets authorising you to be on their premises, so people on their premises are there by the implied right of access, which I've explained to you multiple times. Many of those other businesses that do sell tickets, such as theatres and cinemas, make it an explicit condition of entry, notified before selling you a ticket, that you must not film on the premises. This allows them to remove people who break the condition.

Is it really the case that you can't be kicked out of a cinema unless you break the letter of the rules?

 

[43066]

Is it really the case that you can't be kicked out of a cinema unless you break the letter of the rules?

As with any business on private property you can simply be asked to leave by the owners/staff and then ejected using reasonable force.

The difference in the railway’s case is that railway trespass is a specific criminal offence, and then you have the bylaws which, as above, are very widely drawn.

 

[Kilopylae]

As with any business on private property you can simply be asked to leave by the owners/staff and then ejected using reasonable force.

This is as I would expect.