RMT argument to protect the role of guard

[CC 72100]

I find it very strange that a new member should choose to make their first post such an old story. I'm disappointed that the thread has continued for so long. I would have hoped that people would have been a bit more suspicious of the OP's identity and motive, and not taken the bait.

Indeed. Could it not make sense closing the thread, to avoid any more bad blood and quite heated exchanges? I'm all for debate, but it looks like this has gone a bit far and some people have come off quite bad from it

 

[Clip]

people who pay your wages

coming from somebody who, for all I know could either be working for a nationalised bank or sitting at home on benefits I am paying for don't help.

It was me who made the original comment about they paying our wages.

If a statement of fact offends anybody[/B], I'm not apologising for it, it's up to them to deal with the information that their opinion may not be as important as they think.

And if you're on about facts then I would suggest you get yours right first time before you go multi quoting me in response to someone else. I have documented myself on here many times as someone who works in the rail industry and I started off at the bottom and am well aware about all the issues and the assaults that happen because they have happened to me.

Im sorry if this statement of facts offends you.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Here we go - that old we pay your wages nonsense. The reality is apart from the spongers at each end of the social spectrum everyone pays each others wages.

Maybe we should have a Political Rant sub forum.

 

[Clip]

Here we go - that old we pay your wages nonsense. The reality is apart from the spongers at each end of the social spectrum everyone pays each others wages.

Maybe we should have a Political Rant sub forum.

I never said we - I said they. Read posts properly. If you think this is not true then please highlight who actually does pay our wages?

As I said in my original post(did you bother to read that?) this is what the general public are saying and getting annoyed about - I know I have to listen to it not only from them but also local rail user groups and borough and parish councils in the meetings I have to attend on behalf of the Railway.

Im all for a fair wage and conditions but again.... Ahh sod it, you know what Im not going to bother repeating myself time and again to people who just dont want to see a much bigger picture then their own insular world.

 

[Legzr1]

Seems someone has a 'clip' on their shoulder...

 

[90019]

As I said, certain posters (by all means not not all) on this and other threads need a reality check.

That goes for some of the railway staff on here, as well as some of the enthusiasts and passengers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I find it very strange that a new member should choose to make their first post such an old story. I'm disappointed that the thread has continued for so long. I would have hoped that people would have been a bit more suspicious of the OP's identity and motive, and not taken the bait.

I wish to second what AdamW has requested that this thread be closed by the moderators for the very reason that he has said.

I sincerely hope that Carter USM and ANorthernGuard do not leave the forum as a direct result of this thread.

 

[Greenback]

I really hope that members such as CarterUSM and ANorthernGuard continue to post on the forum. I personally find them very valuable members of this site, who have a lot of useful and interesting things to say.I hope that they will not be beaten by an old story outlining the RMT's aspirations for bettering the conditions of their members.

I must repeat the advice that is often given by forum staff - if anyone has a problem with a particular post, please use the report button. I was unaware of the existence of this thread until this morning, I would have questioned the OP about their motives if I had read the thread earlier, as it is quite possible that they have only registered to cause trouble. It is not beyond the realsm of possibility that they have previously been sanctioned or banned.

That said, the role of the guard is in the spotlight at the moment, thanks to McNumpty and the recent government statement in the House of Commons. I think it is a subject that is topical, and that people will want to debate it. I would not want to see discussions on the future role of the guard banned, but I do share Flamingo's concerns that there are a small number of posters who seem determined to attack the role and grade of the guard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. Could it not make sense closing the thread, to avoid any more bad blood and quite heated exchanges? I'm all for debate, but it looks like this has gone a bit far and some people have come off quite bad from it

As I have said, I would not like to see the subject banned in any way, but I do think that perhaps this thread has run its course.