On 16 Oct, 20:38, Arthur Figgis wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 16 Oct, 12:41, John B wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:52 am, MIG wrote:

I can't watch it yet, but award for "most gratuitous abuse of RMT yet"
would seem to be in order.
Unions do not support abusive behaviour. *It might be their job to
ensure that a member got a fair hearing, but if the member was, for
example, racist, they might not even do that, and would probably expel
him/her.
Well, apart from the times, frequently documented on uk.r, where the
RMT has issued press statements in favour of staff members who've been
dismissed or disciplined for assaulting members of the public. And the
time *last month* where they went on strike to support one.

It's their job to represent someone sacked without a proper hearing,
not to condone what they are accused of (whether they did it or not).

I thought it was the staff member who was assaulted in that case.

In once recent case that appeared to be what they wanted the public to
think, but no details were made available to us. Did we ever hear the
outcome?

I don't know what union they might be, if any, but some DLR staff feel
able tell passengers that they can have passengers "done" simply by
making fictitious allegations of assault to the police, only to back
down when the customer mentions "CCTV"...

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

In the same way that a lawyer defending a murderer doesn't condone
murder, a union has to get its members a fair hearing without
condoning what they are accused of. That seems to me to be a Good
Thing, no matter what sh*ts some of them may be. In this case we
don't seem to know anything about the RMT's position or if the person
is a member. But let's stick in some abuse anyway.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.


This is also a union that advised its members to refuse to give any
evidence about the Grayrigg disaster, when there were clearly
negligent acts/omissions that were the direct cause of the derailment
of the Pendolino. By doing so, the union renders itself complicit
with that negligence, and denies itself any right to respect.

On 17 Oct, 14:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. *Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. *That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

This is also a union that advised its members to refuse to give any
evidence about the Grayrigg disaster, when there were clearly
negligent acts/omissions that were the direct cause of the derailment
of the Pendolino. *By doing so, the union renders itself complicit
with that negligence, and denies itself any right to respect.

Given the management failings that the reports revealed, avoiding
scapegoating of individuals was probably a Good Thing. Again,
advising people who one represents, in order to ensure that they get a
fair hearing, doesn't mean condoning what they are accused of.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:33:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:
On 17 Oct, 14:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. *Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. *That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

This is also a union that advised its members to refuse to give any
evidence about the Grayrigg disaster, when there were clearly
negligent acts/omissions that were the direct cause of the derailment
of the Pendolino. *By doing so, the union renders itself complicit
with that negligence, and denies itself any right to respect.

Given the management failings that the reports revealed, avoiding
scapegoating of individuals was probably a Good Thing.



The RMT members' silence ensured that management got off scot free.
Trial, conviction and punishment of the criminally negligent is what
we call justice, and its avoidance can never be "a Good Thing".

Indeed, to term it such indicates a suspension of belief in the
fundamental principles of right and wrong, and of justice.


Again,
advising people who one represents, in order to ensure that they get a
fair hearing, doesn't mean condoning what they are accused of.


On the contrary, it avoided any hearing at all. All it achieved was
the denial of justice to the injured and the bereaved, and the
continued employment of the negligent. A frightening thought.

On 17 Oct, 15:18, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:33:35 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 17 Oct, 14:13, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

In fact, I find that sort of crying wolf to be a disgusting betrayal
of colleagues who really are abused. *Any staff who have ever tried it
on should be thoroughly ashamed.

But my comments were about the way in which serious misbehaviour of
staff is trivialised by using it as an excuse for yet another
opportunity for gratuitous abuse of the RMT. *That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

This is also a union that advised its members to refuse to give any
evidence about the Grayrigg disaster, when there were clearly
negligent acts/omissions that were the direct cause of the derailment
of the Pendolino. *By doing so, the union renders itself complicit
with that negligence, and denies itself any right to respect.

Given the management failings that the reports revealed, avoiding
scapegoating of individuals was probably a Good Thing. *

The RMT members' silence ensured that management got off scot free.
Trial, conviction and punishment of the criminally negligent is what
we call justice, and its avoidance can never be "a Good Thing". *

Indeed, to term it such indicates a suspension of belief in the
fundamental principles of right and wrong, and of justice.

But that's not what I said was a Good Thing, so not really worth
mentioning.

In the recent past the pursuit of criminal charges prevented
investigations from continuing. Finding out what happened is more
important than blaming someone, but the experience of Southall (the
non-investigation of which may have led indirectly to Ladbroke Grove)
and other enquiries would have reduced trust.

"trainmanUK" wrote in message
...
On the film you dont actually see him swear so we dont really know
what happened before. It seems that the train he got his hand stuck
in ws terminating and the staff were emptying it. I dont quite
understand in that scenario he got his hand stuck in it.

I mean if he was getting off presumeably he would have been stuck in
the train and trying to get out. But this would not raise such a
problem for the staff as they would obviously have to reopen the door
to let him off. Might I suggest more likely he put his hand foward to
try and stop the doors from closing. Maybe he did not know what was
happening with the train and decided to take matters into his own
hands and provoke a reaction from the staff. If that is what he did
then that might well cause the staff to lose it especially as they
were trying to clear a train in the middle if the rush hour.

This does not condone the swearing and what happened later but might
be a reason for it. And despite his words the man does seem to have
remained on the train and continued his journey (unless I have missed
something).

The CCTV of the station should fill in some of the missing details. I
also find the attempt to link the fare rises with this incident
slightly strange. If there were no increases does this mean that this
would be OK?

I don't see why it is necessary to try and engineer a situation in which the
passenger was some way in fault to justify the actions of the member of
staff. We have no idea so why try and speculate.
Is it ok to slag off a member of staff because of the failing of LU?

Kevin

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

I was one accused of being abusive, despite the fact that I was the
one who was struck on the face by spittle. The member of staff did
not spit at me, but while he was nearly screaming at me some spittle
did emerge from his mouth and strike me on the face. Railway
management should sort these bad adverts for the railways out with
the help of Mr P45.

gratuitous abuse of the RMT. That's a union that has
done more to campaign against racism, attacks on civil liberties etc
than anyone posting here is ever likely to have done.

The RMT and its predecessors have indeed done many good things,
though I would not be so brave as to claim that they had done more
than anyone posting. They have also done a number of bad things,
including supporting staff who are a disgrace. However, I do agree
that the attack on RMT earlier in the thread was gratuitous.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:38:38 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

I was one accused of being abusive, despite the fact that I was the
one who was struck on the face by spittle. The member of staff did
not spit at me, but while he was nearly screaming at me some spittle
did emerge from his mouth and strike me on the face. Railway
management should sort these bad adverts for the railways out with
the help of Mr P45.


But are the management any better? The railway is notorious for
employing large numbers of ignorant people, often with a poor
educational background and lacking in customer service skills.

Such deficiencies are almost certainly not limited to the lower grades
of staff employed on the railway.

On 18 Oct, 21:47, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:38:38 +0100, David Hansen

wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:52:16 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

Don't get me wrong; I am apalled by the behaviour of some railway
staff (LU and NR) and have been on the end of the "being abusive"
claims just for disagreeing with them (when they are wrong).

I was one accused of being abusive, despite the fact that I was the
one who was struck on the face by spittle. The member of staff did
not spit at me, but while he was nearly screaming at me some spittle
did emerge from his mouth and strike me on the face. Railway
management should sort these bad adverts for the railways out with
the help of Mr P45.

But are the management any better? *The railway is notorious for
employing large numbers of ignorant people, often with a poor
educational background and lacking in customer service skills. *

Such deficiencies are almost certainly not limited to the lower grades
of staff employed on the railway.

Certainly not always. Virgin trains in particular, where the
management lie through their teeth rather than apologise for the
thuggish behaviour of their staff.