Bicycle lights at station

[matticus]

Because it could be voter fraud ....you look a little dodgy on your avatar pic!

It's a scan from my Driving Licence :⁠-⁠\

 

[matticus]

So they followed the guidance and asked you some questions, when satisfied with the answers you were allowed to vote. What is "jobsworth" about that. I really can't see your problem. You messed up and the people at the polling station sorted it for you.

Nope:
ONE GUy was a Jobsworth. He thought he knew the rules, and tried to enforce them.
The OTHER THREE were helpful - and in this case got the rules right - god bless them.

HTH 👍

 

[matticus]

This thread is wild.

Election fever??

 

[Time Waster]

Thank you for taking the time to find that. But it seems to be clear that there is not a ban:


(and note:

Obviously this is just a guide but it gives the gist of what I assume is in the handbook. As I understood it the answer was not a ban or acceptance of right to vote no matter what. The details are in the questions to be asked if after 5pm. It would be interesting to find out those questions. How can you determine with confidence that your vote hasn't already been made? With your assumption of no postal ballot papers due to dog eating them. Of course with an intact postal ballot you just hand it in at the station, it is only the destroyed postal ballot situation that is relevant to this additional voting check process.

My thinking is that the default should be to prevent voting if it is not possible to determine that your postal ballot hasn't already been made. I also got the impression that the type of ballot paper you do get later on gets isolated and subject to further checks so perhaps the vote can be made but later filtered out if the postal ballot was already made. A basic question process as station check but the main check at the counting station. One woulld hope that nobody gets away with a double vote.

 

[AndyRM]

Didn't take long to get back off topic...

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Bicycle lights are a massive no-no on rail premises because of the risk to moving trains should the light should be seen by a driver and misinterpreted as a signal.

In reality it's probably pretty unlikely, but when the safety of hundreds of people is at stake you play every card in the deck and they're absolutely sheet hot on it.

I'm afraid you were very much in the wrong on that one, and he has every right under common law (presuming he's a legit employee) to use reasonable force to eject you. If you'd sparked off you'd potentially be committing an offence of disorderly conduct on railway premises.

Bottom line is it's a safety critical environment and when staff tell you to do something you should comply immediately. If you want to argue to should do so after youve finished obeying their lawful order.

Makes sense

although a reasonable employee would have explained this rather than just enforcing the law in a draconian manner

all he had to do was say - sorry - we can't have anything on the station which has a red light in case a train thinks it might be an emergency stop sign

a little jaw-jaw is always better than war-war
(no idea where I have knicked that from)

 

[matticus]

Didn't take long to get back off topic...

I think we've had a fascinating insight into the personalities of several CC members. A very worthwhile diversion.
Thank you for your patience x

 

[Moon bunny]

I think we've had a fascinating insight into the personalities of several CC members. A very worthwhile diversion.
Thank you for your patience x

We most certainly have.

 

[Brandane]

Didn't take long to get back off topic...

I have met oor @Pat "5mph" . These posters ignoring her requests are being very brave.

 

[Paulus]

Any light, even green, can be an emergency stop light on the railway if shaken up and down.

Or waved from side to side.

 

[classic33]

Obviously this is just a guide but it gives the gist of what I assume is in the handbook. As I understood it the answer was not a ban or acceptance of right to vote no matter what. The details are in the questions to be asked if after 5pm. It would be interesting to find out those questions. How can you determine with confidence that your vote hasn't already been made? With your assumption of no postal ballot papers due to dog eating them. Of course with an intact postal ballot you just hand it in at the station, it is only the destroyed postal ballot situation that is relevant to this additional voting check process.

My thinking is that the default should be to prevent voting if it is not possible to determine that your postal ballot hasn't already been made. I also got the impression that the type of ballot paper you do get later on gets isolated and subject to further checks so perhaps the vote can be made but later filtered out if the postal ballot was already made. A basic question process as station check but the main check at the counting station. One woulld hope that nobody gets away with a double vote.

All postal votes handed in are noted, the paperwork filled in for them. And when the Electoral Services officer in charge of that ward comes round(Every polling station at least three times during the day) they are handed to him/her and more paperwork filled in. Providing a paper trail for them all. They have time of day it was handed in, who by, name of the person receiving it, usually the station presiding officer, and the same for the person they have passed it onto.

All postal votes returned are checked to see the details match the person it was issued to. This creates a list of returned postal votes that can be checked by name. If a person has already returned a postal vote, and it has been counted as returned(put in the Ballot Box) then the voting in person would be seen as attempting to vote a second time, and wouldn't be allowed. If the person has voted in person first, then that excludes any postal vote, in their name going through the system.

In either case, if the same person tries to vote twice using both systems, one will flag the other up.

There isn't much more that can be added to this explanation that wasn't in the other.

 

[simongt]

a reasonable employee would have explained this

As with training, explaining why the rule is in place, then folk are more likely to understand and accept it.
Occasionally though, there is a rule which is simply there because some jobsworth has decided on said rule for no justifiable reason, but that's usually an exception.

 

[richardfm]

As with training, explaining why the rule is in place, then folk are more likely to understand and accept it.
Occasionally though, there is a rule which is simply there because some jobsworth has decided on said rule for no justifiable reason, but that's usually an exception.

I think rather than there being no justifiable reason it is more likely that there was a good reason when the rule was created but circumstances have changed and no one has rescinded the rule. Unless you can give an example of a rule created

because some jobsworth has decided on said rule for no justifiable reason

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Mod Note:
The bicycle light at train station question has been answered multiple times.
Thanks to those who took the time to answer.
The OT voting topic has also been covered by plenty of posts.
Thread now locked - have a great weekend.

Didn't take long to get back off topic...

I have met oor @Pat "5mph" . These posters ignoring her requests are being very brave.