Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

LowLevel · 17 Jun 2019

Filming works both ways. I once had a "lady" on board travelling off route with an advance for 11 hours time with booked with a railcard she freely admitted she didn't own. I was intending to issue a UPFN. She responded by filming me while screaming obscenities about making me famous.

I responded by putting my UPFN book away and calling the police to book her for a) threatening behaviour and b) fare evasion.

I had the last laugh as she was dragged away.

RailUK Forums

philthetube · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Problem is, some companies are scared to provide First Aid "things" in case the person has some sort of reaction to it.
Then the person who needed the aid could end up taking the company to court.
This is the approach at least two companies I have worked for took - only authorised Medical Department staff were able to issue plasters and such.

Don't know what the relevant company policy says but I do know that London Underground say that you should help, even if you have no training, unless you try something stupid like open heart surgery you are almost always going to do more good than harm.

They have never had action taken against them for inappropriate medical treatment

whhistle · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
And the counterpoint, or certainly mine, is that it does not matter how much he was provoked - it is part of his job to remain calm in all circumstances, or if he is unable to to withdraw himself from the situation.

If he is not capable of that he's in the wrong job.

While I mostly agree, nobody should be expected to be like that all the time, under any cirumstances.
People are people, not robots.

I'm not saying charging out of an office like someone has let off a stink bomb is a great approach either but people are affected by non-work situations in work. There isn't enough support for people who need time out of work. All the "Empoyee Assistance Programmes" are there but in reality, I don't know many staff who use them and get helpful use out of them.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Mag_seven said:
What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Is it bad that I read that with a Scottish accent?

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
While I mostly agree, nobody should be expected to be like that all the time, under any cirumstances.
People are people, not robots.

I'm not saying charging out of an office like someone has let off a stink bomb is a great approach either but people are affected by non-work situations in work. There isn't enough support for people who need time out of work. All the "Empoyee Assistance Programmes" are there but in reality, I don't know many staff who use them and get helpful use out of them.

Fair point, though I still think assault is too far. I'd agree with this if he had simply had a shouting match with the customer through the glass.

yorkie · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
The problem is it's very easy to say but not so easy to do.

Not everyone is suited for a customer-facing role.

whhistle said:
Especially when customers accuse staff members of things that just aren't right. More so, the customer isn't interested in learning they are in the wrong. Instead, customers decide the best course of action is to start filming and asking provoking questions like "are you saying you're not going to help me?".

I can't think of many situations that a camera isn't used as an aggressive tool to escalate the situation. And I can't understand why the camera operator doesn't think it will only make things worse?
The staff member isn't going to help them any more.

Does that go both ways too, in your opinion?

whhistle said:
Customers need to learn they are not God and if they act like they can say and do whatever they want, they will not be helped. No staff member deserves to be treated badly.

If a member of staff had been assaulted, do you think it would be an appropriate response to suggest the member of staff was "at fault", and saying that no member of the public deserves to be treated badly? Is that how you would respond? I suspect not!

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
@yorkie: It seems like you’re deliberately misinterpreting what’s been written, almost as though you’ve decided that you know what’s been said without actually reading it.

I don’t believe that @bramling is saying anything of the sort, but rather that ALL evidence should be considered when deciding what should happen to this member of staff rather than relying solely on a heavily edited piece of video posted to social media. There may be more to this incident than we have seen so far. There may be some extenuating circumstances to which we are not privy. As such, perhaps it’s better to allow the relevant manager(s) to decide what action is appropriate to take and whether or not dismissal is appropriate.

Agreed. All evidence should be considered, and anyone who thinks otherwise is quite frankly deluded. The stark reality is though, a company isn’t obliged to do so, especially in these circumstances, in order to form their “reasonable belief” that something took place.

The end result shouldn’t have been as it was. Obviously. However, it would be wrong to simply go by some amateur footage of less a minute. I think we have to take in to account outside factors too, in that people have all manner of stuff going on in their personal lives which may contribute to how they react in certain circumstances. Railway staff are only human too. This needs to be thoroughly investigated by the TOC. It doesn’t matter how much we debate it here. Amateur footage should never be used by itself in these incidences and I believe that’s all that’s being suggested here.

As I said before, I don’t like how people are so quick to get their camera out these days. And I certainly don’t like how some people reach for their cameras for the sole reason of provoking a reaction. I’m all for this sort of footage being used in the correct circumstances, but only in conjunction with a full investigation.

Although there’s no laws against filming staff, I’ll also advise staff to cover their faces if they are being recorded against their will. They have as much right to do this as they do being filmed in the first place, after all.

whhistle · 17 Jun 2019

Pluto said:
It sounds like the cyclist had sustained relatively minor injuries, he probably just wanted a bandage or sticky plaster which he could put on himself?

Yep, but not sure what that has to do with what I posted:

I wasn't suggesting the ticket office staff put a plaster on the person and not sure if that's what you are getting at? Or what in my post made you think this way?

whhistle · 17 Jun 2019

Pluto said:
In any job, railway industry or elsewhere, it's never going to be acceptable to swear at members of the public.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow someone with tourettes, who swears as their tic, in any public facing job?
I suspect not.

If a young kid swears at me, if I felt the need to swear back then I would do.
Luckily, I don't really use swear words as part of my vocab. But I understand and accept others do, and use them as a way to vent anger. So we're saying that it's allowed if you're a customer but not as a member of staff? Even though both parties need to vent anger, and may do so using swear words?
If that's the case, perhaps the staff member will keep their anger in and continue to do so, which isn't great for their health. But we're saying that's okay?
I'm not saying staff members should be allowed to swear at customers whenever, but if a customer gets the staff member in a place where it's not staff vs customer anymore (IE, the customer has made it personal - happens frequently), then I can understand and accept the staff member may let out some howlers during the conversation. Not saying it's completely right, but it is completely understandable.

whhistle · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I'd agree with this if he had simply had a shouting match with the customer through the glass.

Amen to this!
I'm learning that I simply can't be bothered if someone annoys me in life at the moment.
I've watched too many videos of motorway situations where one car has cut up a lorry, then slowed right down, then sped up when the lorry goes to over take, then slow again... I couldn't be bothered with those sorts of games any more. A few years back, maybe I'd play the game. Not now.

whhistle · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
Not everyone is suited for a customer-facing role.

Indeed. But many are stuck in one.

yorkie said:
Does that go both ways too, in your opinion?

Yes.
If a staff member is clearly doing something that isn't helping or winding the customer up, then that isn't right and they should tell the customer to seek assistance elsewhere. Sounds crazy but the staff member isn't likely to change their approach to that customer, so that's the only solution.
Remember, the staff member isn't likely to act in that manner with every customer.

yorkie said:
If a member of staff had been assaulted, do you think it would be an appropriate response to suggest the member of staff was "at fault".

The problem here is the word "assault".
There's a whole world of difference between calling someone a "fat old bat" and physically punching someone, yet they're both classed as "assault" - I would suggest one is worthy of a job loss, but the other, certainly not.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Indeed. But many are stuck in one.

Yes.
If a staff member is clearly doing something that isn't helping or winding the customer up, then that isn't right and they should tell the customer to seek assistance elsewhere. Sounds crazy but the staff member isn't likely to change their approach to that customer, so that's the only solution.
Remember, the staff member isn't likely to act in that manner with every customer.

The problem here is the word "assault".
There's a whole world of difference between calling someone a "fat old bat" and physically punching someone, yet they're both classed as "assault" - I would suggest one is worthy of a job loss, but the other, certainly not.

I’d say both are definitely worthy of a job loss, however former is will usually require more investigation as there would be a lot of ‘tit for tat’ going on. It’s certainly not okay to go around being rude to customers, even if they are being an idiot. Nothing wrong with being firm and assertive, but you lose all credibility when you start swearing or getting “personal” with people.

Iskra · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Indeed. But many are stuck in one.

Yes.
If a staff member is clearly doing something that isn't helping or winding the customer up, then that isn't right and they should tell the customer to seek assistance elsewhere. Sounds crazy but the staff member isn't likely to change their approach to that customer, so that's the only solution.
Remember, the staff member isn't likely to act in that manner with every customer.

The problem here is the word "assault".
There's a whole world of difference between calling someone a "fat old bat" and physically punching someone, yet they're both classed as "assault" - I would suggest one is worthy of a job loss, but the other, certainly not.

No that’s wrong, to ‘assault’ someone all you have to do is intimidate them. You don’t have to touch them.

Once it gets physical it becomes ‘battery.’

Above that it becomes GBH/ABH.

The law has it nicely covered, but many members of the public misuse the term assault, when they really mean battery or more serious crimes.

Antman · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow someone with tourettes, who swears as their tic, in any public facing job?
I suspect not.

If a young kid swears at me, if I felt the need to swear back then I would do.
Luckily, I don't really use swear words as part of my vocab. But I understand and accept others do, and use them as a way to vent anger. So we're saying that it's allowed if you're a customer but not as a member of staff? Even though both parties need to vent anger, and may do so using swear words?
If that's the case, perhaps the staff member will keep their anger in and continue to do so, which isn't great for their health. But we're saying that's okay?
I'm not saying staff members should be allowed to swear at customers whenever, but if a customer gets the staff member in a place where it's not staff vs customer anymore (IE, the customer has made it personal - happens frequently), then I can understand and accept the staff member may let out some howlers during the conversation. Not saying it's completely right, but it is completely understandable.

I'm not getting into people with tourettes, I can only reiterate that swearing at members of the public is completely unacceptable in any job.

matt_world2004 · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow someone with tourettes, who swears as their tic, in any public facing job?
I suspect not.

If a young kid swears at me, if I felt the need to swear back then I would do.
Luckily, I don't really use swear words as part of my vocab. But I understand and accept others do, and use them as a way to vent anger. So we're saying that it's allowed if you're a customer but not as a member of staff? Even though both parties need to vent anger, and may do so using swear words?
If that's the case, perhaps the staff member will keep their anger in and continue to do so, which isn't great for their health. But we're saying that's okay?
I'm not saying staff members should be allowed to swear at customers whenever, but if a customer gets the staff member in a place where it's not staff vs customer anymore (IE, the customer has made it personal - happens frequently), then I can understand and accept the staff member may let out some howlers during the conversation. Not saying it's completely right, but it is completely understandable.

With torrettes there is no malice behind the swearing and the majority of people would be able to see that when dealing with an employee with torettes. It would be different if they were working in a telephone based customer service role whereby it might be impractical for them to do their job

Disability equality legislation does not require people to be provided with a job that their disability makes them unsuitable for. Just that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure disabled people can do a job where possible.

So the use of people with torettes to try and excuse for the behaviour by this member of southeastern railway staff is not only a fallacy but offensive.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow someone with tourettes, who swears as their tic, in any public facing job?
I suspect not.

To be honest, yes, we probably are in a job of this nature. There are some disabilities which sadly do make one unsuitable for a particular job. Someone who cannot communicate clearly[1] isn't going to be suitable for that kind of job, just as a wheelchair user isn't going to be suitable to be traincrew in case they have to access the ballast in an emergency. There are plenty of jobs which both can do.

Sorry, that's just how it is. Reasonable adjustments can be made but not every adjustment is reasonable.

[1] It's not about the actual swearing, which as someone else said is not malicious and is therefore quite different to this case.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

Iskra said:
No that’s wrong, to ‘assault’ someone all you have to do is intimidate them. You don’t have to touch them.

Once it gets physical it becomes ‘battery.’

Above that it becomes GBH/ABH.

The law has it nicely covered, but many members of the public misuse the term assault, when they really mean battery or more serious crimes.

@whhistle basically said that anyway.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
To be honest, yes, we probably are. There are some disabilities which sadly do make one unsuitable for a particular job. Someone who cannot communicate clearly[1] isn't going to be suitable for that kind of job, just as a wheelchair user isn't going to be suitable to be traincrew in case they have to access the ballast in an emergency.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

[1] It's not about the actual swearing, which as someone else said is not malicious and is therefore quite different to this case.

Absolutely. As unfortunate as it may be, one has to adopt a certain amount of common sense. It would actually be unfair to have somebody with a severe case of Tourettes in a customer facing role on the railway I would suggest. And in some cases dangerous.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Stigy said:
Absolutely. As unfortunate as it may be, one has to adopt a certain amount of common sense. It would actually be unfair to have somebody with Tourettes in a customer facing role on the railway I would suggest. And in some cases dangerous.

Agreed, and I doubt they'd want to be either.

To be fair, there is a customer facing role they could do well if they wanted one - written/Twitter customer services work.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Agreed, and I doubt they'd want to be either.

To be fair, there is a customer facing role they could do well if they wanted one - written/Twitter customer services work.

Indeed. Tend to forget about the indirect customer facing roles of the modern world.

yorkie · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Are you suggesting we shouldn't allow someone with tourettes, who swears as their tic, in any public facing job?
I suspect not.

How is that in any way related to this incident?

whhistle said:
If a young kid swears at me, if I felt the need to swear back then I would do.

At work? What do you think would happen if you did this?

whhistle said:
Luckily, I don't really use swear words as part of my vocab. But I understand and accept others do, and use them as a way to vent anger. So we're saying that it's allowed if you're a customer but not as a member of staff? Even though both parties need to vent anger, and may do so using swear words?

It's not "allowed" but I've worked in customer-facing jobs including dealing with challenging individuals and situations and I have occasionally been sworn at and once had a projectile thrown at my eye. But if I had sworn in retaliation I would have been in big trouble; if I had ran out of an office towards someone and got in their face while swearing aggressively I would have resigned before I was sacked. I could not use "but they swore at me first" as an excuse; it wouldn't wash!

whhistle said:
If that's the case, perhaps the staff member will keep their anger in and continue to do so, which isn't great for their health. But we're saying that's okay?
I'm not saying staff members should be allowed to swear at customers whenever, but if a customer gets the staff member in a place where it's not staff vs customer anymore (IE, the customer has made it personal - happens frequently), then I can understand and accept the staff member may let out some howlers during the conversation. Not saying it's completely right, but it is completely understandable.

The behaviour depicted in the video is not in any way "understandable" for someone in a customer facing role. I don't understand why people are trying to downplay the seriousness of that behaviour. The only reason people are doing so is because the person in question is railway staff; you would not be making this argument if the roles were reversed.

Llanigraham · 17 Jun 2019

Stigy said:
I’d say both are definitely worthy of a job loss, however former is will usually require more investigation as there would be a lot of ‘tit for tat’ going on. It’s certainly not okay to go around being rude to customers, even if they are being an idiot. Nothing wrong with being firm and assertive, but you lose all credibility when you start swearing or getting “personal” with people.

But being firm and assertive might be fine with one customer but rude,aggressive and threatening to another.

Bromley boy · 17 Jun 2019

bramling said:
There’s a vibe I’m getting off this thread and it’s not a nice one, but I’d perhaps best leave it at that. Brick walls spring to mind.

I couldn’t agree more with this, and your other extremely sensible contributions to this thread.

It’s unfortunate that these threads only ever go one (predictable) way.

yorkie said:
The behaviour depicted in the video is not in any way "understandable" for someone in a customer facing role. I don't understand why people are trying to downplay the seriousness of that behaviour. The only reason people are doing so is because the person in question is railway staff; you would not be making this argument if the roles were reversed.

But isn’t it the case that people aren’t downplaying it, but are merely saying that all evidence should be reviewed before a rush to judgement?

It’s a sad sign of the times that anyone (on the railway or otherwise) working in customer facing role in a uniform is liable to find their faces splashed all over social media.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Bromley boy said:
But isn’t it the case that people aren’t downplaying it, but are merely saying that all evidence should be reviewed before a rush to judgement

I don't think anyone is arguing that the appropriate procedures should not be followed - I just find it very difficult to envisage a scenario where the outcome of that would be anything other than dismissal, as there is no valid excuse for the behaviour exhibited.

It’s a sad sign of the times that anyone (on the railway or otherwise) working in customer facing role in a uniform is liable to find their faces splashed all over social media.

If they were doing their job well (and the company not asking for enforcement of unreasonable policies), that would be something to be proud of for both the employer and employee - someone shown doing their job to an excellent level of quality. The platform staff in the Crewe incident mentioned above were a good example of this - they were shown doing an excellent job in the face of what I see to be serious misconduct from a member of the company's staff and nobody has criticised them.

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
The behaviour depicted in the video is not in any way "understandable" for someone in a customer facing role. I don't understand why people are trying to downplay the seriousness of that behaviour. The only reason people are doing so is because the person in question is railway staff; you would not be making this argument if the roles were reversed.

Honestly, this forum has become so black and white that it's a wonder I need a colour monitor to read it.

Asking for all the evidence to be considered is not downplaying the seriousness of the incident. Clearly something went very wrong and the customer must have had a role to play in it, because this isn't the normal reaction to someone asking for a day return to Orpington.

Bletchleyite said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that the appropriate procedures should not be followed - I just find it very difficult to envisage a scenario where the outcome of that would be anything other than dismissal, as there is no valid excuse for the behaviour exhibited.

And that may yet be the outcome. But lets allow the procedures to take their course and see what happens rather than all jumping on the bandwagon baying for this person's instant dismissal.

bramling · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
The only reason people are doing so is because the person in question is railway staff; you would not be making this argument if the roles were reversed.

What makes you so sure about this? I note this idea has been repeated ad nauseam throughout the thread.

At the end of the day what has been suggested will happen by some of us on here will almost certainly happen, unless the gentleman chooses to resign, and rightly so. This doesn’t mean he won’t be dismissed, however he will get a fair investigation - regardless of what forum members think, thankfully.

Bromley boy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that the appropriate procedures should not be followed - I just find it very difficult to envisage a scenario where the outcome of that would be anything other than dismissal, as there is no valid excuse for the behaviour exhibited.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but without knowing what happened before, what the staff member’s record is like etc. It just seems premature to rush to talking about dismissal.

Dismissal might be one outcome, but if the staff member has a good record, is going through a difficult time personally etc. action short of dismissal might also be appropriate.

Bletchleyite said:
If they were doing their job well (and the company not asking for enforcement of unreasonable policies), that would be something to be proud of for both the employer and employee - someone shown doing their job to an excellent level of quality. The platform staff in the Crewe incident mentioned above were a good example of this - they were shown doing an excellent job in the face of what I see to be serious misconduct from a member of the company's staff and nobody has criticised them.

There is an increasing tendency these days for people to deliberately provoke and goad people in public facing roles, and then shove a camera in their face to film the aftermath, in order to raise their own social media profile.

We have seen evidence of that on several recent threads, in addition to this one - most notably involving Tanyalee Davis.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Bromley boy said:
We have seen evidence of that on several recent threads, in addition to this one - most notably involving Tanyalee Davis.

Though I don't think all of her videos have been provocation. In the Crewe case so far as I can see the railway (specifically the VTWC guard) was completely in the wrong. And I see no issue with posting evidence of actual misconduct publically at all; it seems to work quite well to get companies who would otherwise gloss over it to deal with it by harming their reputation if they don't.

WelshBluebird · 17 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Problem is, some companies are scared to provide First Aid "things" in case the person has some sort of reaction to it.
Then the person who needed the aid could end up taking the company to court.
This is the approach at least two companies I have worked for took - only authorised Medical Department staff were able to issue plasters and such.

Nobody will be taken to court if their actions were in good faith and not negligent (basically use your damn brain). We are not (yet) the USA where you could get sued for anything.
Where you have enough staff that having dedicated "Medical" or "First Aid" members of staff is an option, then fine. But for smaller workplaces that isn't realistic.

philthetube said:
Don't know what the relevant company policy says but I do know that London Underground say that you should help, even if you have no training, unless you try something stupid like open heart surgery you are almost always going to do more good than harm.

They have never had action taken against them for inappropriate medical treatment

Thank you for some sanity!

Gems · 17 Jun 2019

Anyone who shoves a phone in my face will have it shoved where the sun doesn't shine. And if I felt that would cost me my job, I'd take the view 'Better to be slaughtered for a sheep than slaughtered for a lamb'
I don't go around shoving phones in their face. Doing to me might make their noses bleed.

Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member