|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 29, 2008 23:13
DaveKnight yahoo.co.uk> 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...?
|
| |
|
| | 32 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paul WeaverPaul Weaver Date: Jul 30, 2008 01:16
On 30 Jul, 07:13, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> DaveKnight yahoo.co.uk> 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.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 30, 2008 01:32
Paul Weaver isorox.co.uk> 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.
Heh.
A quick google suggests Bowes "defended himself" in such a robust manner
as to break his wrist...
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Jul 30, 2008 02:34
On Jul 30, 9:32 am, Adrian gmail.com> 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...
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom BarryTom Barry Date: Jul 30, 2008 03:01
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 wanker, 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 tossers 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thagor2008thagor2008 Date: Jul 30, 2008 03:17
On Jul 30, 11:01 am, Tom Barry blueyonder.co.uk> 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 wanker, 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 tossers 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...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 30, 2008 03:22
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:01:49 +0100, Tom Barry blueyonder.co.uk>
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...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Jul 30, 2008 03:57
Tom Barry blueyonder.co.uk> 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?
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Jul 30, 2008 07:08
On Jul 30, 11:22 am, MarkVarley - MVP softhome.net>
wrote:>>> Seriously - anyone who uses violence against customers, no matter how
>>> much the customer is a wanker, 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 tossers 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. ...
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: thagor2008thagor2008 Date: Jul 30, 2008 07:49
On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, John B johnband.org> 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!
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
