Merseyrail "Draconian"

curtlyb

moob wrote: »

.......I'm from a different region entirely, why should my tax contributions deal with a regionalised transport company?

In the same way as the rest of Britain pay for the Underground in London and the £2m per carriage / £14m per train

curtlyb

moob wrote: »

It is entirely relevant given the matter should have been dealt with by the company privately, and not by using the courts.

What about the rumours in one paper this afternoon that the person in question refused to pay a fixed penalty notice offered instead opting for a court appearance ???

islandannie

curtlyb wrote: »

What about the rumours in one paper this afternoon that the person in question refused to pay a fixed penalty notice offered instead opting for a court appearance ???

Link please?

Dylanwing

What about the rumours in one paper this afternoon that the person in question refused to pay a fixed penalty notice offered instead opting for a court appearance ???

The judges comments would suggest that he was not aware of this.

BTW, whilst walking my dog, I took a small short-cut across private land - I think I got away with it!

Steve_xx

moob wrote: »

It is entirely relevant given the matter should have been dealt with by the company privately, and not by using the courts.

It is not relevant and it is unrealistic for anyone to say that their taxes should not be used nationally.

Maybe the company has tried to deal with these issues privately, got not very far, so decided to use the court system.

Seems to me that Merseyrail are well within their rights and I would expect that other train companies will follow. Reading the following it seems that their passengers want them to tackle this problem.

Keep your feet on the ground or face prosecution

From Monday 5 February 2007 Merseyrail will actively target passengers who put their feet on seats in their trains and prosecute if appropriate. Teams of security staff will be out on the network equipped with CCTV “head cams” which record high quality digital pictures and sound to gather evidence for possible prosecution of offenders in the Magistrates Court.

Prosecution will be based on the existing railway byelaws which apply across the UK under the section which covers “unacceptable behaviour” (Byelaw 6) after a specific protocol was agreed with Liverpool Magistrates Court.

A poster campaign, leaflets and public announcements are being used across the Merseyrail network to create awareness of the issue and give passengers an opportunity to change their habits to prevent them being taken to court.

Although “feet on seats” has always been an offence, it has not been realistic to prosecute offenders due to the problem of providing evidence in court. Up to now, a verbal warning was the only possible course of action.

This new initiative is in response to passengers feed-back and part of Merseyrail’s general approach to preventing anti-social behaviour in order to maintain a pleasant environment for the vast majority of passengers.

Merseyrail will be the only train company in the UK to prosecute offenders for putting their feet on seats.

Patrick Verwer, Merseyrail’s Managing Director, said: “We have listened to our passengers and found a way of enforcing the existing Byelaws. We will not tolerate anti-social behaviour in any form on our trains and putting your feet on our seats is an irritating and unhygienic habit that we want to put a stop to”.

Cllr Mark Dowd, Chair of Merseytravel, said: “We are taking action to deal with this problem. We’ve spent more than £32 million refurbishing the fleet of Merseyrail trains and we don’t want the seats being ruined. People who put their feet on seats are being anti-social. Other passengers don’t want to sit on a seat covered in mud or dirt and they shouldn’t have to.”</STRONG>

curtlyb

islandannie wrote: »

Link please?

It was on ic cheshire online about 2pm but it seems they have removed it since, not surprising since a spokeperson for Merseyrail has said that fixed penalties can't be legally issued. 250 people have been in court with 600 more due to appear for the same offence since February.............. now what were the outcomes of the other 250 court cases, i must have missed them :cool:

Merseyrail, the only rail company in the country to prosecute over the issue, defended the policy - and revealed 600 more passengers were due to appear in court in coming months.
A spokesman said fixed penalty notices could not be 'legally issued'.
The company has already prosecuted more than 250 passengers through court summonses since a 'zero tolerance' campaign was launched in February.

Dylanwing

I might have thought that the law in Merseyside might have had more pressing matters! This all sounds good in terms of 'Respect', but it is cluttering up the courts, and the costs are really disproportionate, and with all due respect, I think that there are more major crimes that need a zero tolerance approach.
Zero Tolerance can only work if there is commitment from Government, Police, the Legal System and Courts, and covering all aspects of anti-social behaviour. This is focussing on just one area, and no matter what the feedback for Merseyrail suggests, I suspect it is not the type of crime that most people would like to be targetted in isolation. The Government are de-criminalising things like shoplifting to free up court time, only for Merseyrail to fill it with even more trivial stuff. What next, de-criminalise burglary so that councils can pursue cases of putting the wrong recycling items in the wrong bin? Oh, and the Mail suggests that the Police will get ticket machines for more on-the-spot fines to cut the number of offences going to court. If court time is that valuable, Merseyrail are actually doing the justice system no favours by wasting it on these cases, thus preventing more anti-social crimes from reaching court.

Steve_xx

Dylanwing wrote: »

I might have thought that the law in Merseyside might have had more pressing matters! This all sounds good in terms of 'Respect', but it is cluttering up the courts, and the costs are really disproportionate, and with all due respect, I think that there are more major crimes that need a zero tolerance approach.
Zero Tolerance can only work if there is commitment from Government, Police, the Legal System and Courts, and covering all aspects of anti-social behaviour. This is focussing on just one area, and no matter what the feedback for Merseyrail suggests, I suspect it is not the type of crime that most people would like to be targetted in isolation. The Government are de-criminalising things like shoplifting to free up court time, only for Merseyrail to fill it with even more trivial stuff. What next, de-criminalise burglary so that councils can pursue cases of putting the wrong recycling items in the wrong bin? Oh, and the Mail suggests that the Police will get ticket machines for more on-the-spot fines to cut the number of offences going to court. If court time is that valuable, Merseyrail are actually doing the justice system no favours by wasting it on these cases, thus preventing more anti-social crimes from reaching court.

But the fact remains that it did come to court, and the barmy magistrates therein couldn't see further than the end of their noses and so they decided it'd be fun to let the girl off, humiliate Merseyrail in their efforts to do what they can to keep their trains nice and clean for the majority who want them that way. These barmy idiots have also sent out a signal to the yobs that damage the trains, that's it is okay to continue. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I think they ought to be relieved of their duties.

curtlyb

I'd like to know if the other 250 got away with it as well and why one person made it into the papers ??

seftonsun

curtlyb wrote: »

I'd like to know if the other 250 got away with it as well and why one person made it into the papers ??

I've not read any of the articles in the papers but did hear a lot about it on the radio who picked up the press reports.

From what I heard the reason it got in to the papers is that she was a reasonably attractive young lady and was prepared to be photographed showing rather a lot of bare leg and thigh. Need anymore be said?

With regards to this fixation with Fixed Penalties, it would appear that as I indicated in one of my earlier posts that this is not an option available for this offence. It's court or nothing. If that's the case then Magistrate who is reported to have made the comment regarding Fixed Penalties being more appropriate should examine whather they are a fit and proper person to be hearing such cases. Magistrates should be seen and not heard making irrelevant and what appear to be inaccurate and ill informed comments about cases they have sat on.

And I object to my taxes being used to:
educate the kids from the family next door;

1. offer social services support to my OAP neighbour;
2. lprovide medical care to after the cancer ridden mum of 4 small children;
3. support the Scottish education system;
4. provide parks and green spaces;
5. provide a library service;
6. etc......

After all, I never currently use these services so why should any of my taxes support them? I suggest some posters need to understand how the economic and political nuances or a nation work. Basically if we let everyone pick and chose how their individual taxes are spent we may as well turn off the lights on our way out of the country.