On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500
wrote:


In article , () wrote:

On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT
James Farrar wrote:

Your post contradicts the subject line.

Care to explain?

Oh dear!

So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the driver not
bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on the part of the staff
then?

Hmm , interesting.

B2003

In article , () wrote:

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500 wrote:

In article , () wrote:

On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT
James Farrar wrote:

Your post contradicts the subject line.

Care to explain?

Oh dear!

So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the
driver not bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on
the part of the staff then?

Hmm , interesting.

It's the way you tell 'em!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Aug 4, 8:31�pm, wrote:
In article , () wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500 wrote:

In article , () wrote:

On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT
James Farrar wrote:

Your post contradicts the subject line.

Care to explain?

Oh dear!

So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the
driver not bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on
the part of the staff then?

Hmm , interesting.

It's the way you tell 'em!

--
Colin Rosenstiel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes
of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point
being made by Boltar about L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation
that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally
flawed.

But, more to the point, about bloody-minded staff: a few weeks ago, a
particularly bolshie specimen was in charge of a Westbound, late-night
District Line train. All along the route, from Temple to Earl's Court,
the train had been advertised as an Ealing Broadway train.

At Earl's Court, the driver announced "This train is now calling at
all stations to Parson's Green" - as the doors were closing!

He must have got a particularly big hard-on when he saw literally
hundreds of passengers getting out at West Brompton, in a particularly
heavy rain shower.

Marc.

In article
,
() wrote:

On Aug 4, 8:31_pm, wrote:
In article , () wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:27:10 -0500
wrote:

In article , ()
wrote:

On 4 Aug 2009 08:04:55 GMT
James Farrar wrote:

Your post contradicts the subject line.

Care to explain?

Oh dear!

So the things I posted - the blocked dot matrix indicator and the
driver not bothering to wait - were indicative of high intellect on
the part of the staff then?

Hmm , interesting.

It's the way you tell 'em!

Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes
of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point
being made by Boltar about L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation
that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally flawed.

But, more to the point, about bloody-minded staff: a few weeks ago, a
particularly bolshie specimen was in charge of a Westbound, late-night
District Line train. All along the route, from Temple to Earl's Court,
the train had been advertised as an Ealing Broadway train.

At Earl's Court, the driver announced "This train is now calling at
all stations to Parson's Green" - as the doors were closing!

He must have got a particularly big hard-on when he saw literally
hundreds of passengers getting out at West Brompton, in a particularly
heavy rain shower.

I'm surprised no-one pulled the emergency alarm at Earl's Court!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:24:03 -0500
wrote:
I'm surprised no-one pulled the emergency alarm at Earl's Court!

I did something similar-ish about 3 years ago but on a Thameslink train. Got
on at City Thameslink to go to Farringdon (it was raining and its a 10 min slog
on foot). Doors closed and off we went - to the end of the platform, where
theres another signal for reasons best known to National Rail where we stopped
and the driver announced some problem ahead. Why he couldn't have just stayed
further down the platform with the doors open christ knows. After 20 mins I
actually knocked on the drivers door asking if he could open the doors - no,
he wouldn't not even selectively appearently because we were one friggin set
of doors past the official end of the platform (not the actual end mind you).
So I thought **** you pal, went down the carraige , pulled the emergency door
release and got off. Cue shouting from arsehole in cab. Gave him 2 fingers
and walked out the station. Stupid jobsworth ****. Felt good though

B2003

On 4 Aug, 23:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes
of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point
being made by Boltar about *L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation
that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally
flawed.

You think Bob Crow is a LUL employee? *I think you'll find he's a full
time union employee and LUL has little choice put to deal with his union
in collective bargaining. The other point here is that he is simply the
figurehead - it is the union exec who take the decisions re settlements
etc.

There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow
lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. Have you
noticed what he's done to the weather lately?

On Aug 5, 7:23�am, MIG wrote:
On 4 Aug, 23:03, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes
of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point
being made by Boltar about �L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation
that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally
flawed.

You think Bob Crow is a LUL employee? �I think you'll find he's a full
time union employee and LUL has little choice put to deal with his union
in collective bargaining. The other point here is that he is simply the
figurehead - it is the union exec who take the decisions re settlements
etc.

There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow
lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. �Have you
noticed what he's done to the weather lately?

I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy
is more than enough for me. Obviously, the late Peter Sellers had
imagined him, several decades in advance, when he played the union
leader in "I'm Alright Jack". But there is a difference - that
character had at least an appearance of learning and intelligence,
characteristics so patently lacking in Crowe.

"Gratuitous" suggests "uncalled for". I beg to differ. Indeed, Crowe
is a rare example of someone being a parody of himself.


Marc.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 01:12:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy
is more than enough for me. Obviously, the late Peter Sellers had
imagined him, several decades in advance, when he played the union
leader in "I'm Alright Jack". But there is a difference - that
character had at least an appearance of learning and intelligence,
characteristics so patently lacking in Crowe.

"Gratuitous" suggests "uncalled for". I beg to differ. Indeed, Crowe
is a rare example of someone being a parody of himself.


This "Bob Crowe" character sounds appalling.

Is he any relation to Bob Crow*, the leader of the RMT union?


*When ranting on about an individual's "appearance of learning and
intelligence", or lack of it, wouldn't it look better is you used
whatever learning and intelligence you have yourself and spelt the
person's name correctly?

wrote in message



I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy
is more than enough for me.

Bob Crow may be odious, but he's certainly not an idiot. He's well paid,
probably popular with his members (for whom he delivers increased wages
and holidays on fine days when there's good sport on the telly) and is
possibly the best known trade unionist in Britain. I suppose he's the
communist equivalent of Michael O'Leary, who is also very successful in
what he sets out to do.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:19:17 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Bob Crow may be odious, but he's certainly not an idiot. He's well paid,
probably popular with his members (for whom he delivers increased wages
and holidays on fine days when there's good sport on the telly) and is
possibly the best known trade unionist in Britain. I suppose he's the
communist equivalent of Michael O'Leary, who is also very successful in
what he sets out to do.

Bob Crowe isn't the only problem - the union "members" are too. Theres far
too many militant idiots who seem to think they deserve endless payrises
and unjustifiable conditions of work and constantly vote to go on strike.
Reality should be introduced into the rail industry with the idea of a job
for life firmly booted into touch. All new workers in the industry should
be hired on a rolling contract basis - no more permanent employment. And if
they cause trouble or don't want to do their jobs then the contract isn't
renewed and someone else from the 3 million unemployed in this country
takes their place.

B2003