Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, wrote:

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

Yeah, like when that bloke got shot at Stockwell.

Oh no, wait.

I heard an interesting rumour about that a few weeks ago, which I pass
on without the benefit of any knowledge to assess its accuracy !

The reason why there was no CCTV footage of Stockwell, which IIRC was
stated to be because the cameras "weren't working", may have been because
many/most/all of the hard drives of many/most/all of the video recording
systems from across TfL were at that moment sitting in a big pile in a
police station somewhere, awaiting police time to review the footage
for evidence related to the then-recent bombing attempts, but nobody
had anticipated that more than a couple of spare hard drives would be
needed across the network so there were too few to install in their place.

As usual I'd welcome being told where I am wrong ! ;-)

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 6th June 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:42 pm, wrote:
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.

Which is utter bull****. If a LUL staff member at your local station
tracked down your details and called you a dickhead every time you
passed through the barrier, he'd be obviously and blatantly guilty of
gross misconduct without having committed a crime.

I'm amused to discover you're *so* right-wing in authoritarian terms
that it outweighs your hatred of the public sector in economic terms
and makes you spout nonsense that's irrational even in the context of
your belief system, but not at all surprised.

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:42 pm, wrote:
But without a victim, a conviction is unlikely.

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

Sorry, missed this. Without a victim *for a crime that requires one*.
Similarly, if the police apprehend someone with an enormous bag of
crack, they're unlikely to get very far with "err, I didn't mean to
hurt anyone". These are offences where the presence or otherwise of a
victim is irrelevant in law.

However, if you beat someone up and they're not willing to give a
police statement, much less testify, then you won't be prosecuted.

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 4:45 pm, 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.

Right, yeah. And the reason why LU thinks that this incident brought
them into disrepute, despite the fact that the CSA in question was
acting perfectly reasonably at the time and it was all a stitch-up-
honest-guvna, was what precisely?

I mean, if the chap in question had been accused of attacking
$FAMOUS_PERSON, or indeed had made a complaint at all rather than
disappearing, or if there was any reason at all for LU to favour the
customer over the staff member, then I'd be equally cynical.

But given that LU derives no conceivable benefit from not following
(or 'bending to negative interpretation') its own rules in this case,
whereas the sacked chap obviously has a lot to gain from being
misleading about the situation, this is an occasion where my cynicism
definitely leads me in favour of LU and not of sacked chap...

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 7:44 pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
I heard an interesting rumour about that a few weeks ago, which I pass
on without the benefit of any knowledge to assess its accuracy !

The reason why there was no CCTV footage of Stockwell, which IIRC was
stated to be because the cameras "weren't working", may have been because
many/most/all of the hard drives of many/most/all of the video recording
systems from across TfL were at that moment sitting in a big pile in a
police station somewhere, awaiting police time to review the footage
for evidence related to the then-recent bombing attempts, but nobody
had anticipated that more than a couple of spare hard drives would be
needed across the network so there were too few to install in their place.

No idea whether that's true, but I like it a lot and it certainly has
a ring of truth to it...

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

Mike Bristow wrote

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.

But the internal hearing followed by an Employment Tribunal if the
dismissed employee wishes should find the facts and make a judgment on
that.

Suppose the employee had been acquitted by a jury who accepted
self-defense that would still not entitle him not to be dismissed and
Tfl could still have to pay damages for what their employee did.

In a recent judgment of the House of Lords in Ashley (Fc) and Another
(Fc) v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police.

"the test of self-defence as a defence in a civil action is
well-established and well-understood. There is no reason
in principle why it should be the same test as obtains in a criminal
trial, since the ends of justice which the two rules respectively exist
to serve are different."

(Ashley, unarmed and naked, was shot dead in his bedroom. Constable
Sherwood was tried and acquitted of murder. The Chief Constable was
willing to admit negligence and pay damages but not to admit that
anyone behaved unreasonably).



--
Mike D

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

In message
,
John B writes
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...

My experience is that, that can frequently mean diddly.

I've seen enough instances of staff being dismissed only for LU to
finally agree that they were wrong to not necessarily believe what's
printed.

I'll try and get some information tomorrow and let you know the proper
story.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 31, 12:20 am, John B wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:42 pm, wrote:

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.

Which is utter bull****. If a LUL staff member at your local station
tracked down your details and called you a dickhead every time you
passed through the barrier, he'd be obviously and blatantly guilty of
gross misconduct without having committed a crime.

I was talking about this specific case, not in general. There was
obviously a fight and obviously the staff member defended himself or
plod would have hauled him off.

I'm amused to discover you're *so* right-wing in authoritarian terms
that it outweighs your hatred of the public sector in economic terms

I don't hate the public sector, I hate getting ripped off whether its
a public sector company like LUL or a private sector one like my
electricity company. I can change the latter , can't do much about the
former if I have to travel into central london.

and makes you spout nonsense that's irrational

Well, you'd know all about that.

B2003

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 31, 12:32 am, John B wrote:
Right, yeah. And the reason why LU thinks that this incident brought

Yes, right. And if you had a proper job instead of "freelancing" you'd
know about dismissal rules.

B2003