Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

That's a hop, step and a jump from mob justice, though. Who is deciding whether or not someone has done something wrong? The person behind the camera or the subject's employer? (And, just to placate @yorkie before he complains, I apply that to anyone in any role and not just railstaff.) Providing clear evidence of wrongdoing is one thing, but threatening to go public to harm a company's reputation is something else entirely.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Gems said:
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.

Respectfully, if you are in a customer-facing role and you actually mean that you would be best off out of the railway's employment or working in a non-customer-facing role such as a driver.

Killingworth · 17 Jun 2019

6 pages of discussion on an unfortunate incident where we've established;

1. A man bought a ticket.

2. He'd suffered a cycling accident and asked to use a first aid kit.

3. We don't know how those two requests were made or in what order.

4. The station should have had a first aid kit, we don't know if it had, or if the staff member was aware of where it was.

5. The member of staff left the protected area and swore at the customer.

6. The customer did not immediately board a train but called the police.

7. We know nothing about any other persons present during the 20 minutes while the customer waited for the police, who apparently rendered first aid.

What I'd have done as customer or counter clerk is largely irrelevant, although I hope I'd have asked in such a way as to get a helpful response, or given a helpful response if asked. For me the f word is unacceptable, especially to a member of the public, but I know some who use it in every other sentence.

What I would not want to do is judge either party on the media reports of part of the incident now circulating. There has to be more to the story. Constant social media regurgitation of that part is unfair to both parties and helps neither.

None of us would have expected to be sworn at. Most of us would expect to be on a disciplinary if we'd done so. None of us who ever made a mistake would like it blazened around the world without the ability to explain, and probably apologise.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
That's a hop, step and a jump from mob justice, though. Who is deciding whether or not someone has done something wrong? The person behind the camera or the subject's employer? (And, just to placate @yorkie before he complains, I apply that to anyone in any role and not just railstaff.) Providing clear evidence of wrongdoing is one thing, but threatening to go public to harm a company's reputation is something else entirely.

Companies can solve that by actually respecting their customers and taking an interest in solving their problems. It's only a different, more modern version of Watchdog or the radio consumer phone-ins. For instance, that disability campaigner would have no campaign at all if reasonable adjustments were always made rather than her being fobbed off. In particular, the railway assistance procedure simply does not work properly.

These things wouldn't exist or would be discredited if the companies didn't give such scant regard to those who pay their bills.

It's no different to the fact that drivers bring private parking enforcement companies on themselves by inconsiderate parking. If everyone parked properly they'd be gone completely within a couple of months.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Respectfully, if you are in a customer-facing role and you actually mean that you would be best off out of the railway's employment or working in a non-customer-facing role such as a driver.

Driving is still very much a customer facing role, though some tend to believe it isn’t...if one can’t handle a bit of customer service, they really should be in a depot where customers don’t have access, and not wear anything bearing their company’s name whilst travelling to work.

Bromley boy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Companies can solve that by actually respecting their customers and taking an interest in solving their problems. It's only a different, more modern version of Watchdog or the radio consumer phone-ins. For instance, that disability campaigner would have no campaign at all if reasonable adjustments were always made rather than her being fobbed off.

But in many cases we only see one heavily edited version of events, and the conduct of the person holding the camera is clearly intended to provoke.

Watchdog from what I remember of it was a lot more measured in its approach, wouldn’t name and shame individuals and would allow an organisation the chance to respond to allegations against it.

I would suggest that the correct way to pursue a complaint is to use the official channels for doing so, but of course that won’t lead to social media views and articles in the Daily Mirror, which is what many of these complainants are seeking.

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

Bromley boy said:
But in many cases we only see one heavily edited version of events, and the conduct of the person holding the camera is clearly intended to provoke.

Watchdog from what I remember of it was a lot more measured in its approach, wouldn’t name and shame individuals and would allow an organisation the chance to respond to allegations against it.

I would suggest that the correct way to pursue a complaint is to use the official channels for doing so, but of course that won’t lead to social media views and articles in the Daily Mirror, which is what many of these complainants are seeking.

Agreed. This is not the same thing at all.

**EDIT**

I would also additionally say that "solving customers problems" is not the same thing as "acquiescing to every demand". A customer/provider relationship is a contract into which both parties enter, and each are bound by expectations and responsibilities.

al78 · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Respectfully, if you are in a customer-facing role and you actually mean that you would be best off out of the railway's employment or working in a non-customer-facing role such as a driver.

The best thing that can happen to those who think they can batter anyone who does something they don't like, is to let them get on with it, and wait until they try to apply their attitude to someone who is more than capable of ripping their head off and spitting down their neck. No matter how tough you think you are, there is always someone who is capable of putting you in your place.

Bromley boy · 17 Jun 2019

Stigy said:
Driving is still very much a customer facing role, though some tend to believe it isn’t...if one can’t handle a bit of customer service, they really should be in a depot where customers don’t have access, and not wear anything bearing their company’s name whilst travelling to work.

For DOO drivers the customer service bit generally ends with making PA announcements. Beyond that, drivers are rarely in a position to deal with timetable/platform enquiries, and usually direct passengers to platform staff who can better deal with their queries.

I think there’s a persuasive case for non-DOO drivers not to wear uniform at all, as I believe is the case on the continent (DOO drivers do need to be visible incase of train evacuations etc.)

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

Stigy said:
Driving is still very much a customer facing role, though some tend to believe it isn’t...if one can’t handle a bit of customer service, they really should be in a depot where customers don’t have access, and not wear anything bearing their company’s name whilst travelling to work.

For DOO at least true - I still remember a DOO driver and member of platform staff having a stand-up argument about who was going to unload a wheelchair user from his train.

To me that seriously damaged the TOC's reputation (I think it was old Govia Thameslink) and it deserved splashing around everywhere to show just how seriously (or not) wheelchair using passengers were considered on that TOC.

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
I would also additionally say that "solving customers problems" is not the same thing as "acquiescing to every demand". A customer/provider relationship is a contract into which both parties enter, and each are bound by expectations and responsibilities.

I agree, but all too often the companies fail on this repeatedly and frequently, yet when the customers fail on their part they're all ready to PF and prosecute. The balance of power is wrong, and this provides a means of redressing it. The staff are the unfortunate "piggies in the middle".

yorkie · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
I would also additionally say that "solving customers problems" is not the same thing as "acquiescing to every demand". A customer/provider relationship is a contract into which both parties enter, and each are bound by expectations and responsibilities.

Yes but this isn't really a debate about how reasonable the request for a first aid kit was; whatever the rights and wrongs of the request, and whatever conversation took place, and whether or not the passenger has done anything wrong or not, there just isn't any set of circumstances that could possibly excuse the behaviour seen in the video.

It's most surprising to see clear evidence of someone rushing from a position of safety to get into someone's face while aggressively verbally abusing them, and then read reactions where people desperately try to place blame on the victim and try to deflect the seriousness of the shocking behaviour for which the evidence is absolutely clear. This reaction would absolutely NOT occur if the roles were reversed; no-one is denying that.

Yes I am sure the BTP will be looking at whether or not there was wrongdoing on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that the behaviour in the video is shocking and totally unacceptable, and is largely an irrelevance; it would not matter how much provocation I was under, I could never ever get away with reacting like that, and rightly so; I would not expect to!

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

Then it must be fair and impartial, which is something that this video is not.

yorkie · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
Then it must be fair and impartial, which is something that this video is not.

The video cannot be used to determine guilt or otherwise of the customer.

But it's clear evidence that the member of staff behaved totally unacceptably in a manner that no organisation could ever accept their customer-facing staff to behave. There is no way that anyone who behaves in such a manner could possibly expect to retain a customer facing role.

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
Yes but this isn't really a debate about how reasonable the request for a first aid kit was; whatever the rights and wrongs of the request, and whatever conversation took place, and whether or not the passenger has done anything wrong or not, there just isn't any set of circumstances that could possibly excuse the behaviour seen in the video.

You will notice that I do not excuse it.

yorkie said:
It's most surprising to see clear evidence of someone rushing from a position of safety to get into someone's face while aggressively verbally abusing them, and then read reactions where people desperately try to place blame on the victim and try to deflect the seriousness of the shocking behaviour for which the evidence is absolutely clear. This reaction would absolutely NOT occur if the roles were reversed; no-one is denying that.

The reaction of the forum is the fault of the forum caused by the way it is being lead and moderated. This is not the rail industry's fault. And I will say again that asking for the incident in it's entirety to be considered is what needs to happen rather than a knee-jerk reaction calling for instant dismissal.

yorkie said:
Yes I am sure the BTP will be looking at whether or not there was wrongdoing on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that the behaviour in the video is shocking and totally unacceptable, and is largely an irrelevance; it would not matter how much provocation I was under, I could never ever get away with reacting like that, and rightly so; I would not expect to!

I agree. So lets wait and see what transpires from this.

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
The video cannot be used to determine guilt or otherwise of the customer.

Now you're getting it!! So you support the idea of looking at all the evidence?

Bletchleyite · 17 Jun 2019

O L Leigh said:
Now you're getting it!! So you support the idea of looking at all the evidence?

He said it does not give any evidence as to the guilt of the customer.

It absolutely does give evidence of the guilt of the member of staff.

Bromley boy · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
For DOO at least true - I still remember a DOO driver and member of platform staff having a stand-up argument about who was going to unload a wheelchair user from his train.

To me that seriously damaged the TOC's reputation (I think it was old Govia Thameslink) and it deserved splashing around everywhere to show just how seriously (or not) wheelchair using passengers were considered on that TOC.

That sounds like a highly irregular situation. I would suggest the platform staff member was well out of line there - there should have been no argument. As a rule drivers do not load or unload wheelchair passengers.

Drivers are generally not trained on using ramps, and God forbid someone ends up being tipped into the cess.

I appreciate that isn’t much help to the passenger.

Antman · 17 Jun 2019

Gems said:
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.

You might well lose not only your job but your liberty as well? Obviously shoving a phone literally in somebody's face isn't acceptable but that's not what happened in the incident at High Brooms.

WelshBluebird · 17 Jun 2019

Gems said:
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.

Not exactly convinced that admitting you would physically assault someone on an open internet forum is a great idea tbh!

Antman · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
For DOO at least true - I still remember a DOO driver and member of platform staff having a stand-up argument about who was going to unload a wheelchair user from his train.

To me that seriously damaged the TOC's reputation (I think it was old Govia Thameslink) and it deserved splashing around everywhere to show just how seriously (or not) wheelchair using passengers were considered on that TOC.

Must have made the wheelchair user feel really good, totally unprofessional behaviour. Inevitably staff are going to have arguments from time to time but it shouldn't take place in public.

NorthernSpirit · 17 Jun 2019

Gems said:
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.

Someone once did to a mate of mine who was being goaded and wound up, the result was the other parties phone ended up in the four foot after he sent it flying.

The way I'm seeing it, people only film others to try and goad them to get a reaction out of it then when the fuzz turns up the person filming claims that they've got all the evidence until CCTV is looked at and that is when the filmers plan backfires.

Its has to be said that these cameraphones are nothing but trouble.

Wombat · 17 Jun 2019

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?
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.

OK, but should we show a similar amount of understanding to passengers who are abusive towards staff? To be honest, I think there's a touch of double standards going on in this thread.

Darandio · 17 Jun 2019

WelshBluebird said:
Not exactly convinced that admitting you would physically assault someone on an open internet forum is a great idea tbh!

Why? They could get banned for it? Arrested even?

Shoving a phone in someones face wouldn't be the brightest idea either. I've no idea how I would react unless it happened, but i'm certain it wouldn't be a friendly exchange.

bramling · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
Yes but this isn't really a debate about how reasonable the request for a first aid kit was; whatever the rights and wrongs of the request, and whatever conversation took place, and whether or not the passenger has done anything wrong or not, there just isn't any set of circumstances that could possibly excuse the behaviour seen in the video.
!

No one has "excused" the behaviour of the member of staff. However some thoughts have been offered which attempt to put the incident into context. Some posters don't seem able to see beyond "sack him on the spot", which simply isn't a realistic course of action, and nor should it be (IMO).

Likewise some posters seem unable to grasp that this booking office window wasn't staffed by a computer algorithm, it was staffed by a human. Humans are flawed characters, and they make mistakes and have misjudgements - particularly when under stress. This doesn't mean that what he's done is being excused, nor does it mean that people are saying that dismissal might not be appropriate - merely that the decision should come following an investigation which looks at the entire situation from start to finish, not a selected fragment of it.

yorkie said:
people desperately try to place blame on the victim

Now we're getting emotive. I can't see anyone is "deparately" trying to do anything in this thread. I'm certainly not that wound up about it, although I must admit the rigid attitude of some here irritates me, likewise the way some seem to be attempting to turn it into a railway staff versus everyone else circular argument.

yorkie said:
shocking behaviour

More emotive language. Yes it shouldn't have happened, but in the grand scheme of things it really *isn't* the end of the world.

yorkie said:
This reaction would absolutely NOT occur if the roles were reversed

This seems to be the crux of a lot of this discussion. I think you're completely barking up the wrong tree with this, on a total false premise.

yorkie said:
it would not matter how much provocation I was under, I could never ever get away with reacting like that, and rightly so; I would not expect to!

No one has suggested he should "get away" with it, unless you take the view that "getting away with it" is any outcome other than being dismissed on the spot. As has been pointed out numerous times that simply won't be happening.

Stigy · 17 Jun 2019

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

It could be, but you can only do so much. You have to be assertive if the customer is having a go at you. There is a fine line, between assertive and aggressive, but a well trained member of staff will be able to balance it.

tony_mac · 17 Jun 2019

yorkie said:
whatever conversation took place, and whether or not the passenger has done anything wrong or not, there just isn't any set of circumstances that could possibly excuse the behaviour seen in the video.

I've come up with a couple, but they do need some imagination!

WombatDeath said:
OK, but should we show a similar amount of understanding to passengers who are abusive towards staff? To be honest, I think there's a touch of double standards going on in this thread.

I think at least the first 10 posts, who expressed an opinion, all said 'there must be more to it'....
If a member of staff is assaulted, it must be very rare for anyone here to post 'well, they must have been goaded'.

I think that there are good reasons for the double standards - rail staff are much more likely to be on the receiving end - but they are still double standards.

I get cameras pointed at me all the time by rail staff, as they go around looking for people with their feet on the seats. I don't particularly like it, but that's not a good reason to be abusive towards them.

Darandio · 17 Jun 2019

tony_mac said:
I get cameras pointed at me all the time by rail staff, as they go around looking for people with their feet on the seats. I don't particularly like it, but that's not a good reason to be abusive towards them.

They aren't filming though, are they? Unless activated during an incident/dispute?

mallard · 17 Jun 2019

Darandio said:
They aren't filming though, are they? Unless activated during an incident/dispute?

There's no way for a normal member of the public to know. It's best to assume that all cameras are recording at all times.

O L Leigh · 17 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
He said it does not give any evidence as to the guilt of the customer.

It absolutely does give evidence of the guilt of the member of staff.

Yes I got that, thank you.

But why so hung up on “guilt”? It strikes me that both parties are just as responsible for this incident. All I’m saying is that this incident needs to be put back into its context, a context that is completely absent from the posted video.

There are bound to be consequences for the staff member involved, and if that’s appropriate then I support it. But it needs to be balanced taking into account all the factors including the conduct of the customer.

Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member