John B wrote:


In other news, the witness statements from other policemen in police
brutality cases always say that the suspect fell down the stairs...

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?

Tom

On Jul 30, 11:01 am, Tom Barry wrote:
John B wrote:

In other news, the witness statements from other policemen in police
brutality cases always say that the suspect fell down the stairs...

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.

Quite. Its one thing having to be polite to some ****** giving you a
load of verbal, its quite another to expect to have to stand there
doing nothing while you're assaulted. Everyone has the right to self
defence. For once I'm in agreement with the RMT.
What would LUL bosses have said if their employee had been
hospitalised or even killed? Usual platitudes such as "a tragic
event", "lessons must be learnt" etc etc blah blah.

B2003

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:01:49 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote this gibberish:

John B wrote:


In other news, the witness statements from other policemen in police
brutality cases always say that the suspect fell down the stairs...

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?

Tom#

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.
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

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

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

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".

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

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.)

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

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)