|
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 |
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
|
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 |
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 |
Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
On Jul 31, 8:09 am, Adrian wrote:
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? Oh, c'mon... He was stood there with a broken wrist - and claiming he'd been shoved/pushed in the back... Its quite easy to bugger up your wrist if you throw a punch wrong - or hit a wall instead of the person. It doesn't mean he punched the living daylights out of him. B2003 |
Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Nick Leverton wrote:
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. I've also read this, but again, not in definitely reliable sources. tom -- roger and kay payne, symmetry, piercing, archaeology, position, in ,, |
Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:33:48 -0700 (PDT), John B 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... It doesn't ring true with me. Why then was there CCTV footage available of the ticket hall and escalators? Why was only the footage of the platform missing? |
Drunk passenger attack leads to strike
On 30 Jul, 16:45, MIG wrote:
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.)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Quite......32 posts here discussing pure heresay. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk