Merseyrail - Feet on Seat Frame

[Draconian]

LOL, I see the little Clique are out to play , What kind of people could defend Court summonses for ‘feat on train seats ‘? apart from TOC Drones attempting some kind of Damage limitation and pretending all is normal .so the public want realise you’ve lost the plot with your greed .

[Draconian]

And neither do I, Stigy. I think it is as much part of protecting the decent folk of this nook shotten isle of Albion as serving in the 3rd Foot & Mouth, lesser risks, of course, but all part of 'the same'. Incidentally, more than a few of the 'enforcers' are 'ex forces', including one dear old gent who proudly wears his Korea medal once a year on his station.

:lol:Oh Stigy your so right lol . Come on Wriggler Grow a pair . Be your own Man

[SRPO]

LOL, I see the little Clique are out to play , What kind of people could defend Court summonses for ‘feat on train seats ‘? apart from TOC Drones attempting some kind of Damage limitation and pretending all is normal .so the public want realise you’ve lost the plot with your greed .

 

Me, if its wilful & not on the frame.

Im ex-forces too & have mates still serving, however I wouldnt stoop as slow to use their service & sacrifice to support an argument for ignoring anti-social behaviour.

 

ps. im not a TOC drone either.

[Asterix]

I wish that someone would come and prosecute all the people who put their feet on the seats on my line. Why should I have to put up with getting my clothes dirty?

 

And it isn't 'yobs', it is all those city boys on their way home. Maybe they are just yobs in suits.

[Wriggler7]

When you examine what crime affects most people, it tends to be the 'low level' crime. Most of the people I end up talking with simply do not understand that their behaviour deeply upsets the majority of the public, and very often, they do not care either.

 

It is a basic lack of respect.

 

True, it isn't 'murder', but when I meet old ladies who are in effect prisoners because they don't want to go out and be faced with people spitting on the pavement, dropping litter and breaking bus shelters, I do wonder if there is a case to consider it as some form of wrongful imprisonment. Feet on seats is simply bad behaviour. It demonstrates a lack of consideration for other people.

 

I will 'defend' and 'mitigate' for clients, but privately, I do not condone or approve.

 

Yes, I read the Guardian from time to time, and I will check to see if there is 'bullying' by the state or by big organisations. And I will do the best for people who ask my assistance.

 

I just wish that people would act in a way that they do not need guidance 'after the event'.

[Draconian]

When you examine what crime affects most people, it tends to be the 'low level' crime. Most of the people I end up talking with simply do not understand that their behaviour deeply upsets the majority of the public, and very often, they do not care either.

 

It is a basic lack of respect.

 

True, it isn't 'murder', but when I meet old ladies who are in effect prisoners because they don't want to go out and be faced with people spitting on the pavement, dropping litter and breaking bus shelters, I do wonder if there is a case to consider it as some form of wrongful imprisonment. Feet on seats is simply bad behaviour. It demonstrates a lack of consideration for other people.

 

I will 'defend' and 'mitigate' for clients, but privately, I do not condone or approve.

 

Yes, I read the Guardian from time to time, and I will check to see if there is 'bullying' by the state or by big organisations. And I will do the best for people who ask my assistance.

 

I just wish that people would act in a way that they do not need guidance 'after the event'.

 

LOL ...Tell us do where you meet these 'Old Ladies' as you stated 'they do not go Out ' due to gangs of yobs spitting .... ?

Edited February 1, 2011 by Draconian
spelling error

[Draconian]

Me, if its wilful & not on the frame.

Im ex-forces too & have mates still serving, however I wouldnt stoop as slow to use their service & sacrifice to support an argument for ignoring anti-social behaviour.

 

ps. im not a TOC drone either.

Well straight from the Horse’s mouth ‘A Ticket Toc Inspector’ confesses ‘He is Happy to give British Citizens a criminal record for putting their feet momentarily on the worn seats of a Train ‘

Whilst you may have my respect as a comrade I do think it rather Tragic that a Man can be reduced to sneaking about on antiquated trains seeking out the Public for such petty Misdemeanours as this. On leaving the Forces many lower ranks find employment in security firms where most are bored to tears and soon miss the excitement of former years, but surely this kind of Low conduct cannot compensate you for the career and comradeship you once enjoyed. My advice would be seek something which has more Dignity and respect of the Public, for this is not a Noble profession. One more Point if you had read my previous remarks you would have seen that I said people who damage or stain seats should be fined.... you don’t see what others have said only what you want to see, also I was not aware I was having an argument with anyone ? Surely your here to support the consumer otherwise what would be your point of being here if not some hidden agenda?.

[SRPO]

Well straight from the Horse’s mouth ‘A Ticket Toc Inspector’ confesses ‘He is Happy to give British Citizens a criminal record for putting their feet momentarily on the worn seats of a Train ‘

Whilst you may have my respect as a comrade I do think it rather Tragic that a Man can be reduced to sneaking about on antiquated trains seeking out the Public for such petty Misdemeanours as this. On leaving the Forces many lower ranks find employment in security firms where most are bored to tears and soon miss the excitement of former years, but surely this kind of Low conduct cannot compensate you for the career and comradeship you once enjoyed. My advice would be seek something which has more Dignity and respect of the Public, for this is not a Noble profession. One more Point if you had read my previous remarks you would have seen that I said people who damage or stain seats should be fined.... you don’t see what others have said only what you want to see, also I was not aware I was having an argument with anyone ? Surely your here to support the consumer otherwise what would be your point of being here if not some hidden agenda?.

 

1) You havent read my post.

2) You do not know what my rank was.

3) You do not know what my profession is now.

4) I post on here to assist those I feel have genuinely fallen foul of the law without intending to do so.

[Djonn]

To drag this back on topic.

 

I received a letter today regarding an incident on the 4th Dec 2010 in which i had the tips of my feet rested on the metal FRAME of the seat opposite. I even took a picture of how my feet were positioned because I was so outraged with the ordeal:

 

i-min-us/iez5Kg-jpg

 

(Change hyphens to dots, only way I could show the pic was to circumvent the board restrictions.)

 

To cover my bases, in this pic I actually had my feet hovering slightly above the surface.

 

Anyways, the carriage I was in at the time was empty but in the adjacent carriage was a drunk guy being very loud and hassling people around him. The Merseyrail employee chooses to ignore him and instead picks on me. He comes over and asks me to take my feet down, which I did apologetically. I also explained how I didn't think the metal frame was considered a 'seat' as it is not a place where anyone would sit, but he told me I was wrong.

 

I also noted the signs in the carriage warning about feet on seats in no way mentioned the surrounding frame.

 

He then read me my rights, and was very intimidating during the whole process. He had already noted down my characteristics I noticed before he started talking to me, which means he had been watching me from a distance for some minutes before approaching.

 

I would also like to note I am an Engineering student so am very poor right now, I have no criminal record, and I am not a chav or anyone who looks like they act anti-socially in any way. I was on the train alone at around 8.30pm on the way to Wrexham to visit my girlfriend.

 

Anyway the guy gets off the train with me at Bidston where I needed to switch, finishes taking my details, calls some sort of police checker to ensure my details were correct, and then goes inside the staff area at Bidston station.

 

While I am standing there bemused over what just happened, a group of 5 or 6 very drunk guys get off the next train that pulls in, and one proceeds to urinate on the train track to the disgust of everyone else on the platform. Obviously the person who had just finished prosecuting me was either blind at this stage or being a coward, as he decided to do nothing about it.

 

The letter I received also detailed a £50 administrative fee. I am thinking of writing a letter back, basically explaining what I have just written in this post, and saying I have learned from my mistake, am truly sorry, and to please drop the charge.

 

Any further advice on the matter?

[Old-CodJA]

Oh My Good God I missed this one didn’t I. Well I’ve heard it all now Court summonses for ‘Feet on Seat’ for once I’m lost for words but I will try how about sickening beyond belief that in 2011 these money grabbing parasite are sending people to British courts for ‘Feet on Seat’ .

What Kind of Man who is a ‘Man ‘would be party or work for a company who’s conduct is so Low and Draconian it beggars belief . Any Magistrate who would debase themselves with presiding over and indeed wasting public money on such matters needs the Feet of the British Public Up the seat of their Pants .

Do You Parasites who work for these companies know there are Young Men serving and Dieing for this country in Foreign lands and behind there backs in this once great Britain You Shame us with your Petty disgraceful abuse of power .

 

No offence meant to any of the respondents such as Asterix, Wriggler7, Stigy & SRPO with whom I agree entirely, but I just wonder if it's worth any of us continuing to dignifying this drivel with any more replies?

 

All that anybody asks is that all people act reasonably, with care and condsideration for others and abide by the rules. Respect for other people's property and standards of common decency.

 

What's so hard about that?

 

If they cannot do so they deserve to face the penalty as laid down

 

I'm sure that Draconian would hit the roof if I walked into his lounge and parked my feet on the sofa.

[Old-CodJA]

I would also like to note I am not a chav or anyone who looks like they act anti-socially in any way.

 

Well I'm sure that I'll offend someone, but I must say I always find this kind of comment detracts from the real issue in any posting.

 

Please tell me what the person who looks like they act anti-socially in any way always looks like? It appears that you think there is a visual standard.

 

So many times we hear or read silly remarks like, 'I don't look like an offender, I was wearing a suit'....so was Crippen...

 

I'm not condoning anyones actions re the other incident that you refer to, but in trying to get the best outcome for your case, it doesn't help. Simply deflecting from the facts is irrelevance. Stick to the actual incident that you are concerned with and be truthful.

 

I'm not saying this is the case here, but many times I've had to deal with these sort of complaints about inspectors and there has been a diversionary whinge about some other allegation.

 

When facts have been checked and sometimes CCTV checked too, it frequently turns out that the claims about the 'other incident' are entirely spurious.

 

That then leads to doubting the word of the complainant entirely with inevitable results.

[Djonn]

I indeed do think there is a visual standard. I have lived in Liverpool and been on the public transport here long enough to know the guys smelling of marijuana, wearing full black tracksuits and headwear that covers most of their face are more likely to cause trouble and "interfere with the comfort or convenience" of those around them. (which is what I am being prosecuted under according to the letter.)

 

I mentioned the other cases in the HOPE the CCTV would be checked, because I would hope it would detract some of the credibility of the prosecuting Merseyrail employee and prove him to be a bully and a coward, and possibly gain me some sympathy.

[Wriggler7]

I tend to agree with Old Codja. The issue is not whether a person 'looks like' the sort of person who will be 'anti social'. Sadly, it is not about whether it is fair to 'do' you and ignore the urinating drunk.

 

The issue is 'did you commit an offence' and what can you do to minimise the effect of the consequences on you.

 

Feet on frame of seat? Could a ladies skirt brush against it and pick up dirt? I honestly don't know, I haven't been on a train north of Watford for years. I can see a possible argument, and I suspect that Merseyrail staff could produce one. Is it arguable that your feet wear out the paint on the frame?

 

That is all speculation and guesswork.

 

I suggest that you write to Merseyrail, in generally apologetic terms, without comment about the 'bullying', which I think will irritate them. (I never feel like irritating someone until after I have won all of the legal argument and got them firmly where I want them, and even then, it may be better to enjoy the moment in silence) Tell them exactly where your feet were. Explain that you (and not because of your standard of dress) are not the sort of person to be inconsiderate. Explain that you are 'poor' (I would use the word impecunious, but then you need to not appear to be belittling anybody) and explain that your feeling is that no offence has been committed, and therefore no payment is due.

 

The risk is that thy will slap the matter into Court. The offence is not recordable, if you repeat your story to Magistrates, there is a chance that they will dismiss the case. There is also the chance that they will not, and could fine you more than the £50.00 that Merseyrail ask for.

[Wriggler7]

If it were 'me', and if all of the facts are exactly as you report them, I would stand on principal, in the full knowledge that more people have been killed proving principals than enough, and be prepared to take my chance before the Court. However, it is not 'me'. The easiest solution is to 'swallow' and 'pay'.

 

And then complain like merry hell about the lack of action against the peeing drunk, and the bullying tactics and so on. I have always been a very bad loser, but keep the issues separate.

[Asterix]

I had to get an early train today. There were not many people on it, but they all seemed to have their feet on the seat. They were all sorts of people, builders, men in suits, one woman in what looked like a nursing uniform. And all those dumped papers. Why do people not take their rubbish with them. Perhaps c2c should ask Merseyrail where to get some of those bullies to make people behave properly.

[Djonn]

Thanks for the help all, I do have a few follow up questions.

 

Firstly, if I write to Merseyrail explaining my situation, saying it was an honest mistake and I am very sorry, but they do not decide to drop the charge, will it then be taken straight to court or will I still have a chance to pay the initial £50 'admin' fee?

 

Secondly, I would stand up to the charge in an instant, even if I lost and had to pay double the initial fee, at least I could put it down to experience and feel good that I stood up for myself. However it's having a criminal record that is the main concern with this approach, if I do fight it and then lose I assume I would pick up a criminal record that just paying the £50 would have led to me avoiding?

 

Also for those questioning the ambiguity of feet on the seat and on the frame, I would point you in the direction of the picture I linked in my first post. I guess needing to alter the URL a little to allow me to post it is putting people off, but it shows the exact style of seats the majority of people in this thread are referring to, and also exactly how my feet were positioned when I was pounced upon.

 

Thanks again.

[SRPO]

Byelaws are non recordable offences, only the court record will show a conviction, it wont be on PNC.

[Djonn]

Just wondering what would be the most effective way of approaching Merseyrail in regards to this matter.

 

An email would be instantaneous but I'm worried all I would receive is an automated response or no one important will ever get round to reading it.

 

I assume it would be better to actually send a written letter? The worry with this is the delivery time and possibly not receiving a response before my pay deadline is over.

 

Any advice in how to format it? Who to address it to and what general tone to use. I don't know whether to keep it strictly formal or show some personality and try to appeal to the reader by saying something along the lines of a £50 fine means eating pot noodles for a week.

 

Thanks again for any advice.

[Draconian]

Just wondering what would be the most effective way of approaching Merseyrail in regards to this matter.

 

An email would be instantaneous but I'm worried all I would receive is an automated response or no one important will ever get round to reading it.

 

I assume it would be better to actually send a written letter? The worry with this is the delivery time and possibly not receiving a response before my pay deadline is over.

 

Any advice in how to format it? Who to address it to and what general tone to use. I don't know whether to keep it strictly formal or show some personality and try to appeal to the reader by saying something along the lines of a £50 fine means eating pot noodles for a week.

 

Thanks again for any advice.

 

Hi Djonn

Both I would say E-mail and letter; a letter always has more weight providing it arrives that is.

If you go through any threads on here regarding Penalty Charges/summonses you will see that you have two options, One if you are unable to afford Legal representation then you must of course first off write to apologise for this event explain you case in simple terms without admitting liability which could be used against you at a later date. And the bottom line here is that’s all you can do. The ball is then in the Toc’s/Prosecution dept hands. I think there is a very good chance that they will drop the case as long as you have no previous with them on any issues. I would also not advise you calling the Inspector a coward lol or any form of address at all, just refer to him in third party sense.

Option two would be (If you could afford it) hiring yourself a good solicitor/Lawyer who would deal with the matter for you and hopefully giving the Prosecutor a “Good Kicking” in court , and of course the more people that did this the less of these cases we would hear about . Unfortunately the Tocs are well aware that the average citizen cannot afford the costs involved for ‘Legal Battle’ or indeed have the will to proceed with court action, thus the easy option is to pay up...... Then of course you could represent yourself in court, if you believe you have the confidence and deportment to do so? But please remember the ‘Prosecutor’ is a professional person who will know his business.

Good Luck Djonn and remember there are worse things than ‘Pot Noodles’ ?? Listening to the waffle and back slapping Ego’s of TOC employee’s on here comes to mind.

[SRPO]

Its always fun seeing a prosecutor getting a 'good kicking' from a defence solicitor at a trial for a strict liability offence.....dont you agree Wriggler7?

[Draconian]

Its always fun seeing a prosecutor getting a 'good kicking' from a defence solicitor at a trial for a strict liability offence.....dont you agree Wriggler7?

 

Actually I referred to Showing the Prosecutor up as a Nasty Draconian Little Man, and Throwing the case out or a Discharge and that would be worth the Solicitors fees.

But Thank you again SRPO for informing us you believe no defence Solicitor gets any client off on this charge.

“Don’t you agree England?”

[SRPO]

The british crime survey showed that low level crime had the biggest effect on the public, despite the politically motivated attempts to ignore this type crime in favour of 'serious offences' due to cost implications.

Personally, I think if the zero tolerance approach of the NYPD was followed here, the long term effect would be an overall reduction in crime & less burden onthe public purse.

[Wriggler7]

If there is a flaw in the case, the defence will point it out to the prosecutor, who will have the sense to withdraw.

 

Frankly, the only real advice with a strict liability case is to plead guilty and mitigate.

 

Even with the 'with intent' offences, once the 'defence' has read the law, and the footnotes that accompany it, and realise that the prosecutor is not going to waste his time with a no hope case, there is very little opportunity to 'kick' the prosecutor. Dont forget, that railway prosecutors have a very narrow bit of law to deal with, mountains of cases to get through, and therefore will not proceed with any dubious cases.

 

If Draconian wants to, he can come along to Court with me, I will gladly let him know what days are 'non CPS', and he can sit and watch, as I have many times, while railway prosecutors go about their business.

[Wriggler7]

Today, I thought I might see a railway prosecutor get a good kicking, one of those rare instances of a trial for a strict liability (BL18, BL23 and BL6 charges) with Counsel defending. I didn't get to see the fun, as the case was moved to another Court, but I did see both Defence Counsel and Railway prosecutor after the case.

 

The charges were proved, it was the defendant who got the kicking. Defence Counsel was less happy whilst leaving Court than on arrival.

 

Ho hum.

[Old-CodJA]

Today, I thought I might see a railway prosecutor get a good kicking, one of those rare instances of a trial for a strict liability (BL18, BL23 and BL6 charges) with Counsel defending. I didn't get to see the fun, as the case was moved to another Court, but I did see both Defence Counsel and Railway prosecutor after the case.

 

The charges were proved, it was the defendant who got the kicking. Defence Counsel was less happy whilst leaving Court than on arrival.

 

Ho hum.

 

A good example and indicative of what Draconian's posts all seem to overlook.

 

No matter how much we might sometimes like to disagree with them, Judges and Magistrates are not stupid.

 

Like it or not, 'strict liability' means just that. Seats for sitting, floor for feet.

 

All the prosecutor has to prove is that the defendant comitted the act. The defendant on the other hand has to prove he didn't, or might plead guilty with mitigation as is the very good suggestion by Wriggler7

 

The prosecutor will not be putting any case before any Court unless he (or she) is absolutely certain it will succeed. We all have far too many to deal with to waste time and money on half-chances.

 

Any mitigation has to be very compelling for the Court to give it serious consideration in strict liability matters.

 

We only ever hear one side of a story as has been pointed out so many times and I was quite amused by the reference to a photograph in this case. I understand Djonn's thinking in adding it to the post, but any prosecutor worth his salt would have that thrown out immediately if it were referred to in Court. It is a staged photograph taken after the event and by its nature would tend to support the defence version of events.

 

Only if there was a photograph taken at the instant in time when the defendant was challenged for the alleged offence would it have any relevance.

 

.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Old-CodJA