On Sep 6, 11:32 pm, " wrote:
Why should we not be able to treat Crow with the same risible contempt
that he shows for Londoners everytime he decides to give his
supporters a few more days' holiday at Londoners' expense?

Or does Crow have a monopoly on senseless "gratuitous, abusive non-
sequiturs"?

Marc.


Funny how there are such strong objections when, for a brief period, a
trade union uses the same tactics that all businesses use every minute
of every day. Why is it good business to exploit opportunities for
some people, but cynical opportunism when we don't like their looks or
accent?

On Sep 7, 12:30 pm, bobrayner wrote:
On 6 Sep, 21:49, MIG wrote:

Bob Crow is nothing but a cynical opportunist. Notice that despite him
always mouthing off about safety he's not said a lot about the Virgin
crash at Grayrigg... Wonder why that might be.

Wasn't there a thread slagging him off for what he did say?

In fact there are threads slagging him off for what he actually says,
for what he is alleged to say but doesn't and for not saying anything,
whether he does or not.

Basically, a lot of people want to claim that he is an evil monster
and repeatedly do so in a series of gratuitous, abusive non-sequiturs.-

How about we stick to what Crow actually said, then?


So you agree that the previous poster was incorrect about him having
said nothing, while using the false assertion as an excuse to throw in
some gratuitous abuse.



For instance:
"You don't see bolts falling off planes and space ships. What Network
Rail should be doing is bringing all work into the public ownership"


Yes it should.



I thought the safety statistics showed the railways have got safer
since privatisation. Crow knows better, though; state-owned bolts
never fail, unlike those evil profit-motivated bolts!


So are you saying that the cause of the crash was simply that some
bolts failed? I don't remember reading that in the report. Oh yeah,
you want an excuse to abuse Bob Crow, referring to things he didn't
say about something that didn't happen.



And:
"Management have to take the rap when it goes wrong. We will not allow
our staff to be scapegoats."


Quite right. No one should be scapegoated ever.



And:
"If points failure is the cause there must be a robust investigation
into the management system's failings that led to it and there must be
no attempt simply to scapegoat staff."


I really don't see the problem with that.



Obviously it was all Management's fault. Didn't the union hold up the
RAIB investigation for a few days with silly demands?


I don't know of any. What were they?


That's no problem; because if you already know that Management are to blame, who
needs an investigation into the actual technical failure and the
surrounding maintenance work...?


Did he say that? In your quote he said that staff shouldn't be
scapegoated. Scapegoating staff (if anyone did it, which I don't
think they did) would also be an alternative to investigating the
actual problem.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, MIG wrote:

On Sep 6, 11:32 pm, " wrote:

Why should we not be able to treat Crow with the same risible contempt
that he shows for Londoners everytime he decides to give his supporters
a few more days' holiday at Londoners' expense?

Or does Crow have a monopoly on senseless "gratuitous, abusive non-
sequiturs"?

Funny how there are such strong objections when, for a brief period, a
trade union uses the same tactics that all businesses use every minute
of every day.

Oh yes, because businesses routinely shut down most of the London
Underground on a whim.

tom

--
Understand the world we're living in

On 8 Sep, 01:08, MIG wrote:
For instance:
"You don't see bolts falling off planes and space ships. What Network
Rail should be doing is bringing all work into the public ownership"

Yes it should.

I thought the safety statistics showed the railways have got safer
since privatisation. Crow knows better, though; state-owned bolts
never fail, unlike those evil profit-motivated bolts!

So are you saying that the cause of the crash was simply that some
bolts failed? I don't remember reading that in the report. Oh yeah,
you want an excuse to abuse Bob Crow, referring to things he didn't
say about something that didn't happen.

Your loyalty to the socialist dinosaur seems to have blinded you to
the fact that safety has *improved* since privatisation, that state-
owned infrastructure is no safer, and that bolts do in fact fall off
planes and spaceships. ;-)

And:
"Management have to take the rap when it goes wrong. We will not allow
our staff to be scapegoats."

Quite right. No one should be scapegoated ever.

So you agree with Crow that "Management" is to blame, rather than
whoever made the actual mistake?

And:
"If points failure is the cause there must be a robust investigation
into the management system's failings that led to it and there must be
no attempt simply to scapegoat staff."

I really don't see the problem with that.

The problem is that "Management" does not necessarily make every
mistake. The poor downtrodden labourers aren't necessarily infallible.
I'm surprised that even a Crow-supporter can't see that.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:08:56 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:30 pm, bobrayner wrote:
On 6 Sep, 21:49, MIG wrote:

Bob Crow is nothing but a cynical opportunist. Notice that despite him
always mouthing off about safety he's not said a lot about the Virgin
crash at Grayrigg... Wonder why that might be.

Wasn't there a thread slagging him off for what he did say?

In fact there are threads slagging him off for what he actually says,
for what he is alleged to say but doesn't and for not saying anything,
whether he does or not.

Basically, a lot of people want to claim that he is an evil monster
and repeatedly do so in a series of gratuitous, abusive non-sequiturs.-

How about we stick to what Crow actually said, then?


So you agree that the previous poster was incorrect about him having
said nothing, while using the false assertion as an excuse to throw in
some gratuitous abuse.


Not at all. He's been very quiet since it has emerged that it was
somebody slacking off and not doing what they should have done which
is, in all likelihood, the cause of the crash. Bit tricky to blame
management for that one, isn't it.

If you can find a quote from him on it I will, of course, stand
corrected.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:47:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


"Cheeky" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:06:02 -0700, John B wrote:

The other thing is that open access operators have to be allowed
access to domestic networks. EWS, for example, have an arm of their
company operating domestic freight services in France (despite the
best efforts of the French to make it as difficult as possible,
surprise, surprise).

The OP is talking rubbish.

Bob Crow is nothing but a cynical opportunist. Notice that despite him
always mouthing off about safety he's not said a lot about the Virgin
crash at Grayrigg... Wonder why that might be.

I thought he was pretty vocal at the time of Grayrigg, I'm sure his knee
jerk reaction will be on the internet somewhere...

Paul


Sorry. I should have been more clear. He's been very quiet since the
probable cause emerged (and it's not the fault of "the management").

On Sep 8, 2:19 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, MIG wrote:
On Sep 6, 11:32 pm, " wrote:

Why should we not be able to treat Crow with the same risible contempt
that he shows for Londoners everytime he decides to give his supporters
a few more days' holiday at Londoners' expense?

Or does Crow have a monopoly on senseless "gratuitous, abusive non-
sequiturs"?

Funny how there are such strong objections when, for a brief period, a
trade union uses the same tactics that all businesses use every minute
of every day.

Oh yes, because businesses routinely shut down most of the London
Underground on a whim.


They shut down whole industries to move to countries where workers are
cheaper etc etc, leaving thousands with no work to go to permanently.
This is good business and gets the best returns for the shareholders
(a legal requirement).

You don't have to look far to find people whose good business has done
more harm to jobs, public transport etc than Bob Crow.

On Sep 8, 11:32 am, bobrayner wrote:
On 8 Sep, 01:08, MIG wrote:

For instance:
"You don't see bolts falling off planes and space ships. What Network
Rail should be doing is bringing all work into the public ownership"

Yes it should.

I thought the safety statistics showed the railways have got safer
since privatisation. Crow knows better, though; state-owned bolts
never fail, unlike those evil profit-motivated bolts!

So are you saying that the cause of the crash was simply that some
bolts failed? I don't remember reading that in the report. Oh yeah,
you want an excuse to abuse Bob Crow, referring to things he didn't
say about something that didn't happen.

Your loyalty to the socialist dinosaur seems to have blinded you to
the fact that safety has *improved* since privatisation, that state-
owned infrastructure is no safer, and that bolts do in fact fall off
planes and spaceships. ;-)


This accident had nothing to do with bolts falling off and everything
to do with a bizarre dismantling of the points, it would seem. I
don't know why you repeat the non-sequitur about bolts.



And:
"Management have to take the rap when it goes wrong. We will not allow
our staff to be scapegoats."

Quite right. No one should be scapegoated ever.

So you agree with Crow that "Management" is to blame, rather than
whoever made the actual mistake?


Let's read the report before judging that (I have only read the
preliminary so far). It seems to be more to do with a bizarre
decision and subsequent deliberate actions than any kind of "mistake".



And:
"If points failure is the cause there must be a robust investigation
into the management system's failings that led to it and there must be
no attempt simply to scapegoat staff."

I really don't see the problem with that.

The problem is that "Management" does not necessarily make every
mistake. The poor downtrodden labourers aren't necessarily infallible.
I'm surprised that even a Crow-supporter can't see that.


Why would you think I couldn't, or that Bob Crow couldn't? It's Bob
Crow's job to look after RMT members. There are plenty more powerful
people already looking after the management.

On 8 Sep, 22:11, MIG wrote:
This accident had nothing to do with bolts falling off and everything
to do with a bizarre dismantling of the points, it would seem. I
don't know why you repeat the non-sequitur about bolts.

I repeat it because Bob Crow said it. Didn't you want a discussion
based on what Crow actually said? I don't for a moment believe it's an
accurate claim, but that's what he *said*.

So you agree with Crow that "Management" is to blame, rather than
whoever made the actual mistake?

Let's read the report before judging that (I have only read the
preliminary so far). It seems to be more to do with a bizarre
decision and subsequent deliberate actions than any kind of "mistake".

Yes. I, like you, would love to wait til more the facts are in before
leaping to judgement. Not Crow, however. He already seems quite sure
who the culprit might be, and it's certainly not a union member who
worked on that track. After all, he has to "look after" them, as you
put it.

Why do they need looking after? Most people do their job and get paid,
simple as that. A small minority do their job badly, and get in
trouble. If there's an investigation it's likely to find the truth
regardless of what Crow says. So who needs a socialist dinosaur to lie
on their behalf?

On Sep 9, 3:57 pm, bobrayner wrote:
On 8 Sep, 22:11, MIG wrote:

This accident had nothing to do with bolts falling off and everything
to do with a bizarre dismantling of the points, it would seem. I
don't know why you repeat the non-sequitur about bolts.

I repeat it because Bob Crow said it. Didn't you want a discussion
based on what Crow actually said? I don't for a moment believe it's an
accurate claim, but that's what he *said*.

I expressed it badly. Obviously bolts were involved, in the same way
that a train crash was involved, but this was consequential. The
problem seems to have been whatever strange working practice led to
parts being removed and not correctly replaced, and the subsequent
repeated failure of the inspection regime, not a one-off mistake by a
worker or anyone else. It's worth investigating the system that could
lead to that happening rather than just looking at who touched it
last.



So you agree with Crow that "Management" is to blame, rather than
whoever made the actual mistake?

Let's read the report before judging that (I have only read the
preliminary so far). It seems to be more to do with a bizarre
decision and subsequent deliberate actions than any kind of "mistake".

Yes. I, like you, would love to wait til more the facts are in before
leaping to judgement. Not Crow, however. He already seems quite sure
who the culprit might be, and it's certainly not a union member who
worked on that track. After all, he has to "look after" them, as you
put it.

Why do they need looking after? Most people do their job and get paid,
simple as that. A small minority do their job badly, and get in
trouble. If there's an investigation it's likely to find the truth
regardless of what Crow says. So who needs a socialist dinosaur to lie
on their behalf?


Investigations do exactly what they are paid to do. It's quite
possible that, without the existence of unions in the past, there
would be no system in place for the kind of investigation that's
taking place now, ie one that's has the job of finding the truth,
rather than, for example, justifying dangerous but lucrative
practices.

Individuals join unions because they don't tend to have the individual
resources that owners and directors of companies have. Unions allow
them to protect their interests on slightly less unequal terms. I
think that's a Good Thing.