View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 30th 08, 02:08 PM posted to uk.transport.london
John B John B is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 942
Default Drunk passenger attack leads to strike

On Jul 30, 11:22 am, MarkVarley - MVP
wrote:
Seriously - anyone who uses violence against customers, no matter how
much the customer is a ******, has no place in a customer service job;
and anyone who can't see that has no place in a customer service job
either. Well done LUL; I hope you stand up to the RMT ******* here...


While that may be technically true, to what extent should an employment
contract override your basic legal right to defend yourself using a
level of force that seems reasonable to you in the light of a perceived
threat? It would be rather harsh to have to choose between your job and
not getting punched/stabbed/shot, after all. This is LUL, not the SAS.


Personally, if the police and CPS don't prosecute him, they presumably
think his actions were reasonable, so why don't LUL?


I'm inclined to agree.
No CPS action = his actions were reasonable self defence.
I don't believe you should ever be discouraged from defending
yourself.
This thing stinks.


Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,
without leaving a forwarding address, I suspect the lack of CPS action
was more based on lack of beyond-reasonable-doubt evidence that a
crime took place, rather than an assessment that the CSA's actions
were legitimate self-defence.

Weird the way that people who'd normally double-check if a LUL
employee told them the sun rose in the east (*waves at Boltar*) are
accepting this particular LUL employee's story without question,
innit?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org