Observations: woman assaulted on train

From CroziervisionWiki

Author: Patrick Crozier
Permalink


This is the story of a middle-aged woman who was verbally abused and then physically assaulted on a train in Scotland. Although staff saw the whole thing they did nothing to help her. In a statement the train company claimed that they were committed to passenger safety.

Contents

[edit]

My View

  • This (someone being assaulted on a train) is typical both of train travel and life in general
  • It can be dealt with
  • It would be interesting to know why the train company and its staff acted in the ways they did. My suspicion is that the criminal law, health and safety law and the franchise system all played their part and this is one more reason why they should either be changed or abolished.
[edit]

Q&A

Typical?

  • Yes, it seems to be happening all the time

What makes you think that?

  • Newspaper reports, vandalism and graffiti

But the government says that crime is historically low?

  • As I understand it as far as the government is concerned, history starts in 1980
[edit]

Dealing with crime

How should it be dealt with?

  • Two options. Either go back to the criminal justice system that worked in the past or privatise the law and its enforcement on the railways

What makes you think crime was lower in the past?

  • Conversations with the older generation. Books and films from the era
  • Old photographs of railways and trains show almost no evidence of vandalism or graffiti
  • Statistics such as these
  • Accounts by policemen from bygone eras such as this one
  • When I was growing up in the 1970s armed robberies made national news. They don't anymore. Only murders will do
  • (As I understand it) in the 1930s it wasn't a political issue

But couldn't the lack of graffiti be because the spray can hadn't been invented?

  • Well, it's been invented in Japan too but there is precious little graffiti there. My understanding is that the same applies in places like Singapore

But maybe crime was low because there was nothing to steal

  • That would not account for the rise in violent crime
  • As Norman Dennis points out, there was plenty to steal

So, assuming that crime was lower in the past, why was that?

  • My guess is that:
    • there was less of a welfare state
    • police were more likely to arrest and charge
    • the state was more likely to prosecute
    • courts were more likely to convict
    • punishments were heavier

The welfare state causes crime?

  • I think so. Not quite sure about the mechanism but high crime and high welfare do seem to go together

So, you'd like to turn the clock back?

  • Yes, or privatise law and its enforcement

How would that work?

  • Simple, allow railways to enact laws applying to their own property and enforce them any way they choose, the one rider being that they would have to make reasonable efforts to tell people what the law was

But wouldn't they abuse their powers?

  • How? Would you travel on a railway which could arbitrarily arrest and detain you - or worse? They would have to be reasonable. My guess is that they would have to have some sort of independent judicial system for the more serious cases

But why would this be any better than the current system?

  • Railways want to make money. A safer railway is a more attractive railway. A more attractive railway (all things being equal) means more passengers which means more money and higher profits

All things being equal?

  • Of course, maybe they wouldn't be. It is possible that the costs of enforcing the law would outweigh the benefits. Though I doubt it.

Why?

  • Because, the railways would set the fines for misbehaviour to cover their costs. They would also have a policy of preventing access to their property to anyone who looked like they might misbehave
  • Because it seems to me that we, as customers, value our personal safety very highly. And, no, I have nothing on which to base it

But that could lead to social exclusion

  • some people really ought to be socially excluded
[edit]

Suspicions

You said you would like to know why the train company and its staff acted the way it did

  • Yes. Such as:
    • Why didn't they intervene?
    • Why did they make this crass statement about passenger safety being a top priority?
    • Why didn't they tell the truth?

And your suspicions...?

  • I suspect the staff didn't intervene because they were told not to intervene and because they know, like the rest of us, that if you intervene it will be you that will end up in trouble not the criminal
  • The company told their staff not intervene because if they did the company would be sued - probably under health and safety legislation
  • I suspect that the company didn't want to reveal the truth for fear of annoying the state

Why should the company fear annoying the state?

  • Because the state awards the train operating contracts. Not just this one but many others. Seeing as the contracts are confidential no one really knows what is in them or on what basis they are awarded (yes, I am sure the Public Accounts Committee could get a look but how many are they going to audit). It would be quite easy for the government to punish a loud-mouth TOC by withholding business.

What should be done?

Retrieved from "http://www.croziervision.com/wiki/index.php/Observations:_woman_assaulted_on_train"