Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, John B wrote:
Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,

So in other words he couldn't have been that badly injured or was
feeling guilty and legged it before he could be nicked.

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.

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV. If it is I'm sure
plod has already checked it.

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?

Look at it this way , if someone had assaulted you - especially a
public servant - and you felt you were the innocent party wouldn't you
hang around until plod turned up?

Just because I think LUL see passengers as nothing more than cattle to
milk for money doesn't mean I approve of assaulting their staff!

B2003

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On 30 Jul, 15:49, wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, John B wrote:

Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,

So in other words he couldn't have been that badly injured or was
feeling guilty and legged it before he could be nicked.

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.

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV. If it is I'm sure
plod has already checked it.

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?

Look at it this way , if someone had assaulted you - especially a
public servant - and you felt you were the innocent party wouldn't you
hang around until plod turned up?

Just because I think LUL see passengers as nothing more than cattle to
milk for money doesn't mean I approve of assaulting their staff!


There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.

Regardless of the merits of anyone's case, the RMT's job is to ensure
that its members get a fair hearing, while the entire political and
business establishment's job is there to ensure that employers get a
fair hearing. Everyone is entitled to representation.

Whatever people may complain about the RMT being involved in
"political" campaigns, I can't see what possible reason John B has for
complaining about them carrying out their basic advocacy role with
respect to members.

The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 3:49 pm, wrote:
Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,

So in other words he couldn't have been that badly injured

....which makes it OK to attack him?

or was feeling guilty and legged it before he could be nicked.

....which means the force used against him was reasonable?

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.

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV. If it is I'm sure
plod has already checked it.

But without a victim, a conviction is unlikely.

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?

Look at it this way , if someone had assaulted you - especially a
public servant - and you felt you were the innocent party wouldn't you
hang around until plod turned up?

Probably not. If I was ****ed-up, or if I was sober but black/chavvy/
other 'considered-less-respectable' group, then I'd expect the plod to
take the public servant's side irrespective of what actually happened.
Doubly so if I'd been giving the public servant some verbal grief
before he hit me...

Just because I think LUL see passengers as nothing more than cattle to
milk for money doesn't mean I approve of assaulting their staff!

We're not talking about whether punching LUL staff is good, we're
talking about whether the account of the staff member is reliable.

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

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

Is everything which doesn't result in prosecution by the CPS appropriate
behaviour in your employment?

No, but reasonable things shouldn't be considered inappropriate.


--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:11 pm, MIG wrote:
There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.
[...]
The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".

No: if I thought the chap in question was necessarily a criminal, I'd
suggest that he should be taken to court.

LU has the kind of rigorous and fair staff discipline process that
you'd expect in a heavily unionised, public sector industry, with
strong staff representation at all stages. It's not as if this case
had taken place last week and the CSA had been booted out on the spot
- rather, there has been a lengthy and detailed investigation since
the incident took place in Jannuary, with union representation at all
stages.

This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in
the court of the people who believe otherwise...

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:12 pm, John B wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:49 pm, wrote:

Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,

So in other words he couldn't have been that badly injured

...which makes it OK to attack him?

Don't put words in my mouth. If it had been a vicious assault by a
member of staff then I doubt he'd be able to just walk off.

or was feeling guilty and legged it before he could be nicked.

...which means the force used against him was reasonable?

Quite possibly if he attacked the staff member first. Why should being
in a specific type of job prevent you from defending yourself?

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV. If it is I'm sure
plod has already checked it.

But without a victim, a conviction is unlikely.

Not necessarily. The police manage it all the time with motorists and
other groups.

Probably not. If I was ****ed-up, or if I was sober but black/chavvy/
other 'considered-less-respectable' group, then I'd expect the plod to
take the public servant's side irrespective of what actually happened.

Wheres my violin when I need it.....

We're not talking about whether punching LUL staff is good, we're
talking about whether the account of the staff member is reliable.

If the police don't consider a crime has been committed then theres no
reason for LUL to sack him.

B2003

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On 30 Jul, 16:33, John B wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:11 pm, MIG wrote:

There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.
[...]
The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".

No: if I thought the chap in question was necessarily a criminal, I'd
suggest that he should be taken to court.

LU has the kind of rigorous and fair staff discipline process that
you'd expect in a heavily unionised, public sector industry, with
strong staff representation at all stages. It's not as if this case
had taken place last week and the CSA had been booted out on the spot
- rather, there has been a lengthy and detailed investigation since
the incident took place in Jannuary, with union representation at all
stages.

This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in
the court of the people who believe otherwise...

I still can't find any information about this at all. We assume that
the sacking was carried out after an investigation by the right sort
of chaps, and we know that it is opposed by the wrong sort of chaps.

Therefore ... what? (Apart from an excuse for more gratuitous abuse
of the RMT.)

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:33 pm, John B wrote:
This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in
the court of the people who believe otherwise...

No doubt like most companies the rules for gross misconduct are vague
and open to interpretation however is expedient at the time. Probably
theres some clauses in there about "bringing LUL into disrepute" or
"altercation with a passenger" or similar catch all phrases that don't
take into account being nutted by a psycho and having to defend
yourself while doing your job.

B2003

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, wrote:

On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, John B wrote:

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.

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV.

Yeah, like when that bloke got shot at Stockwell.

Oh no, wait.

tom

--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, MIG wrote:

The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be assumed
to be a criminal".

Is he an RMT member? That's enough to make him a criminal, as far as i'm
concerned. String 'em up!

tom

--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10