Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

A drunk passenger attacked a member of staff, Jerome Bowes, on New Year's Eve and this led to his sacking. A 24 hour strike was called by RMT members working on the Charing Cross Group. Any right thinking person should abhor both the behaviour of the passenger and the action of the London Underground bosses. Please protest on behalf of Jerome to the Boris Johnson The Mayor and Tim O'Toole managing director of LUL. For more details of the case go my Blog TheDuckShoot.com

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

DaveKnight gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

A drunk passenger attacked a member of staff, Jerome Bowes, on New
Year's Eve and this led to his sacking.

Why do I get the feeling this isn't quite the _whole_ story...?

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On 30 Jul, 07:13, Adrian wrote:
DaveKnight gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

A drunk passenger attacked a member of staff, Jerome Bowes, on New
Year's Eve and this led to *his sacking.

Why do I get the feeling this isn't quite the _whole_ story...?

Reads to me that the drunk passenger was the one who was sacked, which
knowing the RMT has every chance of being right.

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

Paul Weaver gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

A drunk passenger attacked a member of staff, Jerome Bowes, on New
Year's Eve and this led to Â*his sacking.

Why do I get the feeling this isn't quite the _whole_ story...?

Reads to me that the drunk passenger was the one who was sacked, which
knowing the RMT has every chance of being right.

Heh.

A quick google suggests Bowes "defended himself" in such a robust manner
as to break his wrist...

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

On Jul 30, 9:32 am, Adrian wrote:
A drunk passenger attacked a member of staff, Jerome Bowes, on New
Year's Eve and this led to his sacking.
Why do I get the feeling this isn't quite the _whole_ story...?
Reads to me that the drunk passenger was the one who was sacked, which
knowing the RMT has every chance of being right.

Heh.

A quick google suggests Bowes "defended himself" in such a robust manner
as to break his wrist...

(that's Bowes's own wrist, ambiguity fans)

I like this from the RMT's PR: "Jerome has now been sacked by Tube
bosses. This despite the fact that the witness statements from other
staff all back Jerome"

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...

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

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

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

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.

Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
 

Tom Barry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

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 doesn't. Which is why he's not been prosecuted for assault, presumably.

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?

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