Yes, I was being lazy.Bit more specific than that in that they can only detain if a passenger refuses to give their name and address after not producing a ticket...
Yes, I was being lazy.Bit more specific than that in that they can only detain if a passenger refuses to give their name and address after not producing a ticket...
A mixture of both mainly. Regarding the specific knowledge, there’s so many safety aspects to the railway and dealing with incidents, that a specialist knowledge of how the railway works is paramount. The amount of times I’ve spoken to county police force officers who don’t know the track is live 24/7 365 days a year, or that we don’t turn the juice off overnight is frightening. Especially since it’s often them who respond to incidents in the first instance due to the lack of BTP close by.Why do we need a separate police force for transport? Is it because of specialist knowledge (but I'mnot sure what that would be), or was it to avoid any cross-boundary issues alluded to above?
Would it though? Surely it would introduce geographical jurisdiction issues that don't exist now.This would enable a more joined up approach to policing which is often not the case now.
Potentially tricky, I agree. This would be a potential concern on board trains travelling between stations, but the response would be more seamless as there would be no middle man (BTP) to pass jobs to. At present, BTP won’t even ask local police to attend incidents unless it’s of a serious nature, with all forces playing a part, there should be the same resources available for railway jobs as there are for any non-railway jobs.Would it though? Surely it would introduce geographical jurisdiction issues that don't exist now.
They are allowed to, if the criteria mentioned in intervening posts are met.That's interesting. I hadn't realised that they have those powers. Are they allowed to use force to detain a passenger in those circumstances?