CJG wrote:
In message , Cast_Iron
writes
There are some individuals on this NG (and others) who delight in
slagging off anyone and everyone. Don't take it personally.

I don't usual respond to personal insults.

It wasn't a personal insult, but if the cap fits ...

But it seems to be that its near impossible to have a debate or bring
up subjects or views that people don't agree with else you just get
insulted.
I may have criticised London Underground once or twice but I have
never made a personal attack anyone.

No, you persist in attacking *all* LU front-line staff, which is
understandably felt to be insulting by individuals who have not deserved the
attack. Did you manage to miss the bit about respect for the individual in
your training for your customer service job?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Stewart" wrote in message
...


"James Farrar" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
CJG writes

Where there is blame there is a claim!


Your posts seem to scoring more '****wit points' every day.


And, in this case, points for utter incomprehensibility.

May I ask why some people on this group are so rude to others ?

I'm quite new to this newsgroup, and am very interested in London's
transport, but I am scared to raise any points as I may get a barrel of
abuse.

A barrel of abuse?

"CJG" wrote in message
...
No I think this is a valid point.
If people can sue a council because they trespassed on council land
jumped in a pond surrounded by "DANGER. DO NOT SWIM" notices and claim
the council should have made it harder from them to break into the land
the pond was on.
I think commuters who suffer daily stress, distress have a good case.

The person you are referring to didn't win their claim.

It was a dark and stormy night when CJG
nks wrote in article ...
No I think this is a valid point.
If people can sue a council because they trespassed on council land
jumped in a pond surrounded by "DANGER. DO NOT SWIM" notices and claim
the council should have made it harder from them to break into the land
the pond was on.

That claim failed at appeal...

Grebbsy
--
"All vampires suck, but not all who suck are vampires."
(--B.J.Kuehl)

:::Grebbsy :::::::lemon curry?:::

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 22:14:37 +0100, Grebbsy McLaren
wrote:

It was a dark and stormy night when CJG
nks wrote in article ...
No I think this is a valid point.
If people can sue a council because they trespassed on council land
jumped in a pond surrounded by "DANGER. DO NOT SWIM" notices and claim
the council should have made it harder from them to break into the land
the pond was on.

That claim failed at appeal...

Grebbsy


CJG doesn't like the truth getting in the way of a good story....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Dave wrote in news:X$bdwMM4qiM$EwF
:

Stewart writes
May I ask why some people on this group are so rude to others ?

Only to fools.

I'm quite new to this newsgroup, and am very interested in London's
transport, but I am scared to raise any points as I may get a barrel of
abuse.

If you ask a 'sensible' question (e.g. one that hasn't already been
asked in the past few days) or make a 'sensible' point (e.g. not trying
to blame LU management for the hot weather), then you'll be fine.

The issue is not the hot weather but how LU management and staff respond to
such problems. When there are no trains/delays you never get decent
information, the station staff tend to huddle together rather than making
themselvels available for the people that are supposed to help. The lack of
initiative of these staff, when you suggest something the response is to
write to LU in rather than than take it on themselves despite that fact
that 50% of SAs serve no purpose since they are always around in pairs.

When there are problems you will frequently and without notice be chucked
of a train because the driver has to clock off, it may be 30mins before
clocking off time but they must get back to the depot to clock off. There
are two issues with this, one is the attitude of the drivers to sod the
passengers, the other is the stupidity of sending that driver on that route
and not warning people before that this train is going nowhere - i.e sod
the passengers again.

Even in normal operating trains will change destination to make the figures
look better, i.e. a full train going via bank will change to Charing X at
Camden because there are not enough trains on that branch, the calculation
that the people on the train were going to via bank does not matter - its
just about numbers of trains. Then there is "we are holding this train to
regulate the service", this usually happens when the train is full and
there is not customer benefit to delaying a full train of people but
management want to have a equal distance between trains - again sod the
passenger.

When the drivers strike because their 35K + generous holidays is not enough
the management play political games claiming whatever percent of service is
running despite the service being mostly non-existance; the would rather
save face then give the public useful information so they can attempt to
plan their journey.

The culture of LU is everything you don't want, there is a can't do
attitude to anything.

In message , Steve
writes
The issue is not the hot weather but how LU management and staff
respond to such problems. When there are no trains/delays you never get
decent information

Actually to be honest I think the whole reason I hate L.U is because you
can wait at station and wait and wait and wait and not be told anything.
Its frustration at the fact that your train hasn't come and you don't
know if its ever coming.
--
CJG

CJG wrote in news:ab+GWLBdwoN
:

In message , Steve
writes
The issue is not the hot weather but how LU management and staff
respond to such problems. When there are no trains/delays you never get
decent information

Actually to be honest I think the whole reason I hate L.U is because you
can wait at station and wait and wait and wait and not be told anything.
Its frustration at the fact that your train hasn't come and you don't
know if its ever coming.

I dunno, my recent experience was being told it was 10 minutes wait (I had to
go up the escalators to ask - finding three of them propping up the gates not
one on the platform). This was a lie and they later admitted they had been
saying 10 minutes for the last 20 or so despite no trains passing. The LU
apologists on here tried to defend the SAs with some pathetic excuse that
they must have been told to say that. If they ever gave a **** about the
passengers then they should be querying their seniors and refusing to lie to
the customers. They just don't want to admit when they mess up (which is so
frequent) even though telling the truth would enable passengers to make their
own minds up how to travel rather then rely on LU who are only interested in
short term image and not at all bothered about the passengers.

In message , Steve
writes
They just don't want to admit when they mess up (which is so frequent)
even though telling the truth would enable passengers to make their own
minds up how to travel rather then rely on LU who are only interested
in short term image and not at all bothered about the passengers.

And this is the reason why regular commuters pay no attention at all to
Station Assistants when they make announcements. I do. But I take it
with a pinch of salt. And then figure it out for myself
--
CJG

On 10 Aug 2003 19:10:13 GMT, Steve wrote:

I dunno, my recent experience was being told it was 10 minutes wait (I had to
go up the escalators to ask - finding three of them propping up the gates not
one on the platform). This was a lie and they later admitted they had been
saying 10 minutes for the last 20 or so despite no trains passing. The LU
apologists on here tried to defend the SAs with some pathetic excuse that
they must have been told to say that.


I'd agree that there are too many staff standing around doing nothing.
There are some really terrible staff working on the Underground and
some really great staff.

I suspect that other *LU apologists* would agree with me.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk