Disabled comedian 'humiliated' by train staff rejects apology

A comedian has said an apology is “not enough” after she was forced to move her mobility scooter from a disabled space on a train. Tanyalee Davis, 37, said she was reduced to tears when a railway guard made her move so that a woman could put her pram in the wheelchair area. Her partner Kevin Bolden filmed the incident on his phone while they were travelling from Plymouth to Norwich on Sunday.

She said the guard announced over the tannoy: “We're going to be stopping in Taunton indefinitely because the woman in the mobility scooter is causing problems."

She added: "They are videotaping me and threatening to put it on the internet.

“That was the most despicable part - all of a sudden you have everybody's eyes on you - and people are freaking out because they have connections to Gatwick and all of a sudden they know it's because of me.

“It was so humiliating that I wanted to crawl under a rock and die.

“When he announced it, it was so embarrassing. I had to sit there for the next two hours crying.

“He threatened to call the police and have us arrested because we were videotaping him.”

Great Western Railway (GWR) said the incident “should not have happened” and has apologised to Ms Davis.

“GWR wants to apologise but that's not the point here - there's a bigger picture about whether or not to classify mobility scooters as the same as wheelchairs,” she said.

“An apology is not enough - it's fine to say 'sorry it shouldn't have happened' - but I have now been hearing other people's stories saying they had a very similar situation in a mobility scooter or a blind person.

“It's not just about GWR, it's transport in general across the UK and for me personally getting some sort of change in classification with mobility scooters and not trying to make us seem like we're not disabled.”

Ms Davis has dwafism and relies on her specially modified mobility scooter to get around as she cannot walk long distances.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/17/comedian-reject-apology-train-humiliation-disability-scooter/

I think that this trend of filming incidents and putting them on the internet to shame people who are doing their jobs is a bit out of hand, and it's becoming annoying. Perhaps that's why the guard was irritated.

As for mobility scooters, I think that they can be banned from places like shops as they're not the same as wheelchairs. I'm not sure what should be done about having them on trains though. They need to be transported somehow if the disabled person can't do without one.

Why should they be banned from shops ? I use one to get the shopping, my wife can't do it any more.
Supermarkets have room for Scooters. I go at 7am when there's not a lot of people there, Do you want us to starve ?

The disability scooter was parked in a disability bay on the train. The mother should have folded the pram (They all do) and plunked the kid either on her lap or in the seat next to her. Her pram would have been fine in the luggage area..
Keep filming jobsworths and indefensible actions by idiots.

nicko wrote:Why should they be banned from shops ?   I use one to get the shopping, my wife can't do it any more.
Supermarkets have room for Scooters.  I go at 7am when there's not a lot of people there,   Do you want us to starve ?

They're not necessarily banned from shops, and if there's room for a scooter, that's great. Some shops don't have room though, and if someone comes in on a scooter knocking everything over or causing a safety hazard, they can be asked to leave the scooter outside.

Angry Andy wrote:The disability scooter was parked in a disability bay on the train. The mother should have folded the pram (They all do) and plunked the kid either on her lap or in the seat next to her. Her pram would have been fine in the luggage area..
Keep filming jobsworths and indefensible actions by idiots.

It's not appropriate to threaten to film someone and put it on the internet though. If she had a complaint, she should go to the proper people. It's not nice to try to humiliate ordinary people doing their job.

Disability scooters are allowed on buses (depending on their size) and are given priority over pushchairs and prams.
Isn't it the same on trains?

Syl wrote:Disability scooters are allowed on buses (depending on their size) and are given priority over pushchairs and prams.
Isn't it the same on trains?

Are you sure they're given priority? I would have thought that wheelchairs were, but I'm not sure about mobility scooters.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that this trend of filming incidents and putting them on the internet to shame people who are doing their jobs is a bit out of hand, and it's becoming annoying. Perhaps that's why the guard was irritated.

It's not done for "shaming" people. It's done to create a record, for purposes of learning the truth. If the people caught by this are "shamed" or in any way found responsible/guilty, that is simply an unintended consequence of the truth...not the record.

Truth is what judges and juries--including public opinion--seek, is it not? If you think that's somehow unfair, go ahead and release all criminals who have been caught, by any visual evidence including witnesses.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that this trend of filming incidents and putting them on the internet to shame people who are doing their jobs is a bit out of hand, and it's becoming annoying. Perhaps that's why the guard was irritated.

It's not done for "shaming" people.  It's done to create a record, for purposes of learning the truth.  If the people caught by this are "shamed" or in any way found responsible/guilty, that is simply an unintended consequence of the truth...not the record.

Truth is what judges and juries--including public opinion--seek, is it not?  If you think that's somehow unfair, go ahead and release all criminals who have been caught, by any visual evidence including witnesses.

No it's not. If it's to create a record, there would be no need to threaten to post it on the internet. It could sent to the guard's boss in support of a complaint, but that's not the same as broadcasting it to the general public. This woman complained of being humiliated, but she planned to humiliate the guard who was doing his job. She can't have it both ways.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not done for "shaming" people.  It's done to create a record, for purposes of learning the truth.  If the people caught by this are "shamed" or in any way found responsible/guilty, that is simply an unintended consequence of the truth...not the record.

Truth is what judges and juries--including public opinion--seek, is it not?  If you think that's somehow unfair, go ahead and release all criminals who have been caught, by any visual evidence including witnesses.

No it's not. If it's to create a record, there would be no need to threaten to post it on the internet. It could sent to the guard's boss in support of a complaint, but that's not the same as broadcasting it to the general public. This woman complained of being humiliated, but she planned to humiliate the guard who was doing his job. She can't have it both ways.

Narratives have been falsified in the past, and sending it "to the guard's boss" is the problem they are trying to correct in the first place. The "guard's boss" is not necessarily objective; the actual video is objective.

As far as making it public is concerned, we live in a democracy, do we not? Why, in a democracy, do you want to keep the truth from the public? Do you not get that the public is the ultimate "guard's boss"?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not. If it's to create a record, there would be no need to threaten to post it on the internet. It could sent to the guard's boss in support of a complaint, but that's not the same as broadcasting it to the general public. This woman complained of being humiliated, but she planned to humiliate the guard who was doing his job. She can't have it both ways.

Narratives have been falsified in the past, and sending it "to the guard's boss" is the problem they are trying to correct in the first place.  The "guard's boss" is not necessarily objective; the actual video is objective.

As far as making it public is concerned, we live in a democracy, do we not?  Why, in a democracy, do you want to keep the truth from the public?  Do you not get that the public is the ultimate "guard's boss"?

Running to the public via Facebook and the press doesn't impress me, so I'm less sympathetic to the woman than I might otherwise have been. I don't suppose it's just who feels that way either. Running to Facebook can be very counterproductive. Trying to blackmail people who are doing their jobs by threatening to humiliate them on Facebook is really not on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Disability scooters are allowed on buses (depending on their size) and are given priority over pushchairs and prams.
Isn't it the same on trains?

Are you sure they're given priority? I would have thought that wheelchairs were, but I'm not sure about mobility scooters.

Not sure now you have mentioned it, but a disabled person is a disabled person, no matter how they get around.
There was a case a while ago disabled passenger in wheelchair v pram pusher, the outcome was disabled passengers in wheelchairs should be given priority over prams and pushchairs.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you sure they're given priority? I would have thought that wheelchairs were, but I'm not sure about mobility scooters.

Not sure now you have mentioned it, but a disabled person is a disabled person, no matter how they get around.
There was a case a while ago disabled passenger in wheelchair v pram pusher, the outcome was disabled passengers in wheelchairs should be given priority over prams and pushchairs.

Wheelchairs are different to mobility scooters though. In fact, train operators are not obliged by law to accept mobility scooters at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Not sure now you have mentioned it, but a disabled person is a disabled person, no matter how they get around.
There was a case a while ago disabled passenger in wheelchair v pram pusher, the outcome was disabled passengers in wheelchairs should be given priority over prams and pushchairs.

Wheelchairs are different to mobility scooters though. In fact, train operators are not obliged by law to accept mobility scooters at all.

I know I had a quick google earlier.
Some companies require mobility scooter users to take a short course before they allow them a permit to travel, others allow certain sized scooters on board but ban others.

Its more complicated that it seems.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Narratives have been falsified in the past, and sending it "to the guard's boss" is the problem they are trying to correct in the first place.  The "guard's boss" is not necessarily objective; the actual video is objective.

As far as making it public is concerned, we live in a democracy, do we not?  Why, in a democracy, do you want to keep the truth from the public?  Do you not get that the public is the ultimate "guard's boss"?

Running to the public via Facebook and the press doesn't impress me, so I'm less sympathetic to the woman than I might otherwise have been. I don't suppose it's just who feels that way either. Running to Facebook can be very counterproductive. Trying to blackmail people who are doing their jobs by threatening to humiliate them on Facebook is really not on.

TBH, I don't think the people responsible for making the video public were trying to impress you. You are important, but no more than anyone else among the public.

As I say, that the video is embarrassing to certain sorts is an unintended consequence of having objective truth. Instead of attacking truth, perhaps the answer is better training for guards and officials so that they do not cut corners or make wrong decisions at inopportune times.

Perhaps a cultural habit we ought to initiate is, doing it right in the first place.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Running to the public via Facebook and the press doesn't impress me, so I'm less sympathetic to the woman than I might otherwise have been. I don't suppose it's just who feels that way either. Running to Facebook can be very counterproductive. Trying to blackmail people who are doing their jobs by threatening to humiliate them on Facebook is really not on.

TBH, I don't think the people responsible for making the video public were trying to impress you.  You are important, but no more than anyone else among the public.

As I say, that the video is embarrassing to certain sorts is an unintended consequence of having objective truth.  Instead of attacking truth, perhaps the answer is better training for guards and officials so that they do not cut corners or make wrong decisions at inopportune times.

Perhaps a cultural habit we ought to initiate is, doing it right in the first place.

The guard could have told her to remove the mobility scooter from the train if it was causing disruption. Of course the woman wanted to impress the general public - by humiliating the guard.

What happened to old fashioned good manners and empathy for people worse off than yourself.
Surely the woman with the pushchair could have sat somewhere else and avoided all this drama and upset for the disabled woman, most of them fold up neatly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

TBH, I don't think the people responsible for making the video public were trying to impress you.  You are important, but no more than anyone else among the public.

As I say, that the video is embarrassing to certain sorts is an unintended consequence of having objective truth.  Instead of attacking truth, perhaps the answer is better training for guards and officials so that they do not cut corners or make wrong decisions at inopportune times.

Perhaps a cultural habit we ought to initiate is, doing it right in the first place.

The guard could have told her to remove the mobility scooter from the train if it was causing disruption. Of course the woman wanted to impress the general public - by humiliating the guard.

An unintended consequence by the designers of the system. But the truth is paramount in our open society and the video offers truth.

If the guard told the disabled person to remove the scooter from the train, it would have been because the train was not equipped to accommodate the scooter. Then--at least in this country--the train company would be subject to suit and/or sanction for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That's the law.

Syl wrote:What happened to old fashioned good manners and empathy for people worse off than yourself.
Surely the woman with the pushchair could have sat somewhere else and avoided all this drama and upset for the disabled woman, most of them fold up neatly.

You can get fold-up mobility scooters. If the woman travels regularly by train, maybe she could get one.

Syl wrote:What happened to old fashioned good manners and empathy for people worse off than yourself.
Surely the woman with the pushchair could have sat somewhere else and avoided all this drama and upset for the disabled woman, most of them fold up neatly.

+1

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The guard could have told her to remove the mobility scooter from the train if it was causing disruption. Of course the woman wanted to impress the general public - by humiliating the guard.

An unintended consequence by the designers of the system.  But the truth is paramount in our open society and the video offers truth.

If the guard told the disabled person to remove the scooter from the train, it would have been because the train was not equipped to accommodate the scooter.  Then--at least in this country--the train company would be subject to suit and/or sanction for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  That's the law.

I doubt it would be the same in this country as there is no legal requirement for trains to carry mobility scooters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

An unintended consequence by the designers of the system.  But the truth is paramount in our open society and the video offers truth.

If the guard told the disabled person to remove the scooter from the train, it would have been because the train was not equipped to accommodate the scooter.  Then--at least in this country--the train company would be subject to suit and/or sanction for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  That's the law.

I doubt it would be the same in this country as there is no legal requirement for trains to carry mobility scooters.

The issue is the accommodation for mobility scooters, not provision of them. Large markets actually provide mobility scooters, perhaps by law, perhaps for sales...I don't know. The actual provision of a motor scooter would not have alleviated this problem, however.

In the US, all transit must provide reasonable accommodation for mobility devices, including ingress/egress elevators or doors, and room for stationing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:What happened to old fashioned good manners and empathy for people worse off than yourself.
Surely the woman with the pushchair could have sat somewhere else and avoided all this drama and upset for the disabled woman, most of them fold up neatly.

You can get fold-up mobility scooters. If the woman travels regularly by train, maybe she could get one.

That would also depend on how disabled she actually is. The woman with the pushchair should have moved imo.

On buses they have disabled place for a scooter or wheelchair. Mums put there buggies there, so no room for them even if they wanted to get on.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I doubt it would be the same in this country as there is no legal requirement for trains to carry mobility scooters.

The issue is the accommodation for mobility scooters, not provision of them.  Large markets actually provide mobility scooters, perhaps by law, perhaps for sales...I don't know.  The actual provision of a motor scooter would not have alleviated this problem, however.

In the US, all transit must provide reasonable accommodation for mobility devices, including ingress/egress elevators or doors, and room for stationing.

Eh? When I say there is no legal requirement for trains to carry mobility scooters, I don't mean they don't have to provide them. I mean they don't have to allow them on board.

They do allow them. They put a ramp down for them to go on-board with. Also when they alight.

magica wrote:They do allow them. They put a ramp down for them to go on-board with. Also when they alight.

I didn't say they didn't allow them, I said they don't have to.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can get fold-up mobility scooters. If the woman travels regularly by train, maybe she could get one.

That would also depend on how disabled she actually is. The woman with the pushchair should have moved imo.

I agree. You can't give precedence to a mother and child over a disabled person. A child isn't a disability, it's a life choice. That poor woman can't walk, why should she move for some silly cow with a pushchair? I get sick to death of people using their kids as an excuse for priority over others. Their sense of entitlement is a joke.

And as for folding up her mobility scooter she can barely walk. How is she going fold that up? Able bodied over disabled. No fucking contest in my eyes.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

That would also depend on how disabled she actually is. The woman with the pushchair should have moved imo.

I agree.  You can't give precedence to a mother and child over a disabled person.   A child isn't a disability, it's a life choice.   That poor woman can't walk, why should she move for some silly cow with a pushchair?  I get sick to death of people using their kids as an excuse for priority over others.  Their sense of entitlement is a joke.

And as for folding up her mobility scooter she can barely walk.  How is she going fold that up?   Able bodied over disabled.  No fucking contest in my eyes.

+1. While I'm all in favor of encouraging children, it is no equivalent to a disability. Exlnt point.

" fold up disability scooters" if you can bend down, fold it up and lift it up, you aren't that disabled !
and I speak from experience .

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:They do allow them. They put a ramp down for them to go on-board with. Also when they alight.

I didn't say they didn't allow them, I said they don't have to.

I never said you did


Disabled people must come before buggies. It's only fair imo.

I agree about prams and pushchairs. My main objection to the woman is the threat to put the video on the internet.

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree about prams and pushchairs. My main objection to the woman is the threat to put the video on the internet.

Yes I agree. It's like you do anything now, it ends up on the internet. Fame lol.

Raggamuffin wrote:I agree about prams and pushchairs. My main objection to the woman is the threat to put the video on the internet.

There is way too much of that going on, I agree. In a world that films on gawping mobiles just about every death and cruelty one can imagine then this is just par for the course.

Agree also about the compulsion to video everything and show the world.
I havent seen a video of this to come to the conclusion the disabled woman should have been given priority...surely the written word can be just as powerful as a video in many cases.