Video Shows SouthEastern Ticket Office Staff Assaulting Person

[yorkie]

I can understand how shoving a camera in someone’s face at close range would not be well received...

What's that got to do with this thread?

The staff member went up to someone's face at close range, but the video does not show the passenger going up to the staff member's face.

and I can well understand how this might get someone’s back up sufficiently to provoke a bad reaction. Try doing it to the average person on the street and see what happens.

The staff member went up to someone's face at close range, so what are you suggesting could have happened as a reaction?

I can only assume you saying the member of staff should not have gone up to the passenger's face and that they are lucky they didn't get assaulted themselves?

Either that or you are talking about a completely different incident.

It’s a trend I wish would end, though sadly it won’t. I remember an incident a couple of years ago where a gentleman sadly died of a heart stack in a station booking hall. Unbelievably, whilst the ambulance crew were trying to save the gentleman people were gathering round filming it on their camera phones. Ironically, the BTP’s reaction was very similar indeed to what we heard at High Brooms, albeit with a bit added on to the end mentioning what would happen if they didn’t.

I don't see how this has got anything to do with the thread, and I find it hard to believe a BTP officer ran out of an office towards a person, and got right in their face while swearing at them aggressively.

I'll take this with a pinch of salt; the term 'clutching at straws' springs to mind.

As an aside, and something which has a vested interest for many of us here, it’s a trend which could well one day be used as justification for a total ban on all photography whilst on railway property.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that evidence of the assault exists and it would be better if there was no such evidence?

Would you be saying the same thing about an attacker if a member of staff had been assaulted? Have you read this post?

 

[farleigh]

A ban on photography will not happen.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The real world approach of (competent) management is thankfully a lot more nuanced than the standard forum “sack them on the spot” approach.

If you come running out of your office at a customer, yelling at them to f*** off, you're going to be facing a P45 in most walks of life. We're not talking aboit two colleagues having a dustup in a back office (and even then, a final written warning would be the least they'd get).

 

[Tetchytyke]

In *every* circumstance the correct response to this is to carry on being reasonable.

Indeed. As much as anything, it's more entertaining to keep smiling.

So you’ve never, ever, made a heat-of-the-moment misjudgement at work when in a stressful or heated situation?

I have a very stressful job dealing with many extremely vulnerable people, not all of whom are easy to deal with. I've never come running out of my office yelling at them to f*** off. It's basic professional standards.

I have left the room or ended the call and had a long and sweary rant about them in a private area. Which is what should have happened here.

 

[bramling]

A ban on photography will not happen.

Why not? Tyne & Wear Metro already pretty much have a ban (albeit with few staff to enforce it), and Glasgow Subway came close but gave in to external pressure. Put one’s self in the shoes of the GWR train manager or the VT staff at Crewe involved in the recent wheelchair bay disputes, and it’s easy to see why there might be some call for this.

It’s one thing having one’s picture taken at distant range whilst, for example, driving a train, but a camera stuck in the face is another matter, especially if it’s clearly destined for social media.

 

[yorkie]

It’s one thing having one’s picture taken at distant range whilst, for example, driving a train, but a camera stuck in the face is another matter, especially if it’s clearly destined for social media.

What's that got to do with this thread?

The staff member went up to someone's face at close range, but the video does not show the passenger going up to the staff member's face.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that evidence of the assault exists and it would be better if there was no such evidence?

 

[bramling]

What's that got to do with this thread?

The staff member went up to someone's face at close range, but the video does not show the passenger going up to the staff member's face.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that evidence of the assault exists and it would be better if there was no such evidence?

The camera appears to have been placed up against the ticket window at some point, as in one of the reports there’s two stills clearly showing the member of staff inside the ticket window. Likewise the clip we see also starts with the camera pointing through the window.

What I’m saying is that I’d prefer if it was left to the station CCTV to show what has happened during a given incident. Reviewing this would be the first thing the investigating manager would be doing, rather than worrying about what’s on social media.

However, the other two incidents I was referencing involved staff who had not (allegedly) carried out an assault, in these cases they were attempting to deal with a problem situation as best they could. How do we think they felt finding themselves on social media?

 

[Antman]

The camera appears to have been placed up against the ticket window at some point, as in one of the reports there’s two stills clearly showing the member of staff inside the ticket window. Likewise the clip we see also starts with the camera pointing through the window.

What I’m saying is that I’d prefer if it was left to the station CCTV to show what has happened during a given incident. Reviewing this would be the first thing the investigating manager would be doing, rather than worrying about what’s on social media.

However, the other two incidents I was referencing involved staff who had not (allegedly) carried out an assault, in these cases they were attempting to deal with a problem situation as best they could. How do we think they felt finding themselves on social media?

If he hadn't come charging out of the ticket office shouting and swearing he wouldn't be on social media.

 

[bramling]

If he hadn't come charging out of the ticket office shouting and swearing he wouldn't be on social media.

So what about the staff at Crewe? They certainly didn’t come out shouting and swearing, they were simply doing their best to resolve the situation - indeed the member of staff with whom the passenger had the issue with (the VT TM) was barely featured.

In our case at High Brooms the person was clearly filming before the member of staff came storming out. Fortunately station CCTV will (hopefully) give the investigating manager the opportunity to review the entire incident, not a selected fragment.

 

[Antman]

So what about the staff at Crewe? They certainly didn’t come out shouting and swearing, they were simply doing their best to resolve the situation - indeed the member of staff with whom the passenger had the issue with (the VT TM) was barely featured.

In our case at High Brooms the person was clearly filming before the member of staff came storming out. Fortunately station CCTV will (hopefully) give the investigating manager the opportunity to review the entire incident, not a selected fragment.

I don't know anything about an incident at Crewe.

Why did the staff member at High Brooms come out shouting and swearing? Why didn't he stay in the ticket office and call the police if necessary?

 

[bramling]

I don't know anything about an incident at Crewe.

Why did the staff member at High Brooms come out shouting and swearing? Why didn't he stay in the ticket office and call the police if necessary?

The point I was making regarding the Crewe incident (and the Taunton HST one) was a general one about filming staff (or anyone for that matter) at close range, and how personally I find it undesirable and provocative, and I think many would find same. This *may* have been what caused, or contributed to, the staff member’s adverse reaction at High Brooms.

As for the questions, we don’t know. The investigating manager probably does by now though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what about the staff at Crewe? They certainly didn’t come out shouting and swearing, they were simply doing their best to resolve the situation - indeed the member of staff with whom the passenger had the issue with (the VT TM) was barely featured.

And it's clear to anyone watching the video that the conduct of the platform staff was very good - so again what's the issue? The video is not useful in criticising them as it does not show them (as distinct from the guard) doing anything wrong. If anything, it acts as evidence to commend them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is was making regarding the Crewe incident (and the Taunton HST one) was a general one about filming staff (or anyone for that matter) at close range, and how personally I find it undesirable and provocative, and I think many would find same. This *may* have been what caused, or contributed to, the staff member’s adverse reaction at High Brooms.

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 (in this case by closing the window and remaining in the booking office while he calmed down and obtained assistance if necessary).

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

It's no different from a nightclub bouncer who, like they used to, would kick someone's head in out of anger because they mouthed off at him, rather than use calm, measured, reasonable force to remove him from the premises.

 

[farleigh]

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 (in this case by closing the window and remaining in the booking office while he calmed down and obtained assistance if necessary).

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

It's no different from a nightclub bouncer who, like they used to, would kick someone's head in out of anger because they mouthed off at him, rather than use calm, measured, reasonable force to remove him from the premises.

This exactly

 

[bramling]

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 (in this case by closing the window and remaining in the booking office while he calmed down and obtained assistance if necessary).

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

It's no different from a nightclub bouncer who, like they used to, would kick someone's head in out of anger because they mouthed off at him, rather than use calm, measured, reasonable force to remove him from the premises.

You may well be right that he’s in the wrong job, and for all we know that conversation may have already taken place. However equally he *could* have many years exemplary service. Personally I don’t think what *might* be one isolated incident should automatically ruin that.

Any industry that employs humans will find that nasty things happen from time to time, that’s the nature of human life - a good manager will at least make some attempt at making the best of a bad situation. That isn’t always feasible, and dismissal may well be appropriate in this situation, but I object to the notion that it should be the first thought that springs to mind.

I have to say I do tire sometimes with the way some on this forum are so black and white. I dread to think what some on here would be like if their job was to mediate workplace grievances!

 

[Wombat]

The point is was making regarding the Crewe incident (and the Taunton HST one) was a general one about filming staff (or anyone for that matter) at close range, and how personally I find it undesirable and provocative, and I think many would find same. This *may* have been what caused, or contributed to, the staff member’s adverse reaction at High Brooms.

It's entirely possible that I'm making this up, but I seem to recall reading that staff at certain stations would be equipped with lapel-mounted cameras. If that's correct then I think it's a good thing, and by the same token I don't object to passengers taking their own footage. It would be great if all passengers and staff could be trusted to behave appropriately, but we know that's not the case and the existence of video evidence should encourage at least some to behave themselves.

 

[bramling]

It's entirely possible that I'm making this up, but I seem to recall reading that staff at certain stations would be equipped with lapel-mounted cameras. If that's correct then I think it's a good thing, and by the same token I don't object to passengers taking their own footage. It would be great if all passengers and staff could be trusted to behave appropriately, but we know that's not the case and the existence of video evidence should encourage at least some to behave themselves.

I can understand body cameras for staff who work in roles where conflict is highly likely, for example revenue protection, or outside of the railway in roles like traffic warden. However I’d like to think they shouldn’t be necessary elsewhere. I’m a little uncomfortable with the face cameras now found on self-service tills in some supermarkets.

 

[farleigh]

You may well be right that he’s in the wrong job, and for all we know that conversation may have already taken place. However equally he *could* have many years exemplary service. Personally I don’t think what *might* be one isolated incident should automatically ruin that.

Any industry that employs humans will find that nasty things happen from time to time, that’s the nature of human life - a good manager will at least make some attempt at making the best of a bad situation. That isn’t always feasible, and dismissal may well be appropriate in this situation, but I object to the notion that it should be the first thought that springs to mind.

I have to say I do tire sometimes with the way some on this forum are so black and white. I dread to think what some on here would be like if their job was to mediate workplace grievances!

Yes - perhaps after five years service you should be allowed one go at charging a customer and telling them to 'Get out of the ****ing station' with no blemish put on record.

 

[bramling]

Yes - perhaps after five years service you should be allowed one go at charging a customer and telling them to 'Get out of the ****ing station' with no blemish put on record.

... which no one has suggested will or should happen. Again, why is it on here comments have to be taken to extreme?

 

[yorkie]

What's that got to do with this thread?

The camera appears to have been placed up against the ticket window at some point, as in one of the reports there’s two stills clearly showing the member of staff inside the ticket window. Likewise the clip we see also starts with the camera pointing through the window.

So you admit that your claim that the customer went into the staff members face was inaccurate? In fact, it was the other way round.

Are you saying it's a bad thing that evidence of the assault exists and it would be better if there was no such evidence?

What I’m saying is that I’d prefer if it was left to the station CCTV to show what has happened during a given incident.

So you really are saying you would prefer this evidence of the crime did not exist. Wow.

Reviewing this would be the first thing the investigating manager would be doing, rather than worrying about what’s on social media.

If any investigating manager refused to look at clear video and audio evidence, then that would be a matter of concern.

I also don't understand why you are trying to go off-topic about unrelated and non-comparable incidents in an apparent attempt to justify your views.

 

[bramling]

So you admit that your claim that the customer went into the staff members face was inaccurate? In fact, it was the other way round.

So you really are saying you would prefer this evidence of the crime did not exist. Wow.

If any investigating manager refused to look at clear video and audio evidence, then that would be a matter of concern.

I also don't understand why you are trying to go off-topic about unrelated and non-comparable incidents in an apparent attempt to justify your views.

My “claim” was that the customer *seems* to (as we don’t know what happened initially) have put the camera in the staff member’s face through the booking office window, which is evidenced by at least two stills seen in one of the media reports, plus the way the clip we see starts. I also “claimed” as a general point that many people would find that provocative to a greater or lesser extent. I certainly would as I don’t really like my picture being taken in that way, a dislike shared by many people.

*Something* has clearly gone on for the staff member to become so strung up. Or alternatively perhaps the staff member has mental health problems? If so (where I am at least) there’s mechanisms in place for support to be provided, which doesn’t mean the disciplinary process won’t happen, merely that there will be some concern shown towards the member of staff. He’s been involved in a confrontation, and like it or not a duty of care is owed to him. As stated before, there’s no such thing as instant dismissal.

Again, we have comments being taken to extreme. I did not say I would expect the investigating manager would “refuse” to look at such footage, of course it would form *part* of an investigation. However a far more valuable piece of evidence would be the station CCTV, which should give a grandstand view of the whole incident from start to finish, including the bits before and after which we haven’t seen. The next most important component of the investigation after that will then be the interview notes with the member of staff, during some kind of fact-gathering interview - that little thing that many on this thread apparently gloss over with their “instant dismissal” rhetoric, and which if not carried out would leave the door wide open for an ET.

I don’t see why the referenced incidents are off-topic when they also relate to staff / people being filmed at close range, a practice many dislike, and as stated above *may* well have been a factor in this incident escalating.

I have not said that I don’t feel dismissal may well be a justifiable outcome, indeed my first comments in this thread alluded to exactly that. However equally I can’t help but pick up a theme of bitterness at times in this thread. Dismissal is always a bad outcome, it’s a sign of failure all round as it means the recruitment, training, management or competence assurance process has gone awry somewhere along the line, wasting time and money along the way, and quite often demotivating others in the process. Sometimes it’s inevitable, but even in cases where a member of staff has done something absolutely terrible it’s still nothing to be excited about.

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.

 

[O L Leigh]

Are you saying it's a bad thing that evidence of the assault exists and it would be better if there was no such evidence?

What I’m saying is that I’d prefer if it was left to the station CCTV to show what has happened during a given incident. Reviewing this would be the first thing the investigating manager would be doing, rather than worrying about what’s on social media.

So you really are saying you would prefer this evidence of the crime did not exist. Wow.

@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.

 

[Mag_seven]

The station chappie appears to be Scottish.

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

 

[bramling]

And it's clear to anyone watching the video that the conduct of the platform staff was very good - so again what's the issue? The video is not useful in criticising them as it does not show them (as distinct from the guard) doing anything wrong. If anything, it acts as evidence to commend them.

That’s all well and good, but many staff simply wouldn’t like being filmed in that way and then placed on social media. I can certainly think of a few examples of situations where people I know have told people to stop filming them doing something or other, normally along the lines of “if you want the service to start moving again then I suggest you put that away”, which normally works fairly well. (I don’t really get why picking up a mobile phone off the track is sufficiently exciting to be worth filming, but there we go!)

I wouldn’t have handled the situation in the way the staff at Crewe did - I’d have instructed the woman to retreat from the edge of the platform in order to allow the train to depart, with an undertaking given that I would then look to deal with her issue, if she didn’t comply then I would simply call the BTP and only continue the matter in their presence. To be fair to the Crewe staff they were clearly doing their absolute best to try to get the train moving and resolve the impasse, but unfortunately all this achieved was several minutes of social media - with the woman continuing to take things at their most literal and looking at things from a very black-and-white perspective.

I don’t enjoy being filmed at all at work, although I accept that this is something which to some extent comes with the territory so I don’t have a problem with something that’s not directly in my face. However I would have been extremely unhappy had I been the subject of any of the three situations referenced on this thread.

 

[whhistle]

I can think of no valid reason for an on duty employee swearing at a member of the public, no matter how disruptive.

To pose a question:

Should there be acceptance that is how that member of staff deals with that sort of situation?
If society is expected to make allowances for how certain people deal with certain situations, why doesn't this count?
Especially if, judging by the other comments in the thread, the cameraman is at fault.

If the cameraman swears at the on duty member of staff, they are obviously fine with that sort of language.
Why are they bothered when staff use it?
Because it's okay for only the public to use it as an insult?

 

[whhistle]

Also the H&S execute do recommend that if you have members of the public on your workplace site then you also include them in your First Aid planning and provide first aid tho those too.

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.

 

[Antman]

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.

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?

 

[Antman]

To pose a question:

Should there be acceptance that is how that member of staff deals with that sort of situation?
If society is expected to make allowances for how certain people deal with certain situations, why doesn't this count?
Especially if, judging by the other comments in the thread, the cameraman is at fault.

If the cameraman swears at the on duty member of staff, they are obviously fine with that sort of language.
Why are they bothered when staff use it?
Because it's okay for only the public to use it as an insult?

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

 

[yorkie]

If society is expected to make allowances for how certain people deal with certain situations, why doesn't this count?
Especially if, judging by the other comments in the thread, the cameraman is at fault.

If a video showed the roles reversed, ie. a member of the public behaved in the manner that the member of staff did (i.e. running out of a room towards a member of staff and getting in their face, shouting the same words), would you be claiming the member of staff was at fault?

If the cameraman swears at the on duty member of staff, they are obviously fine with that sort of language.
Why are they bothered when staff use it?
Because it's okay for only the public to use it as an insult?

We don't know what the member of the public did, but whatever they did, no company can possibly accept a member of staff reacting in the way evidenced in the video.

Because it's okay for only the public to use it as an insult?

No, and we do not know if anyone did that, and no-one is saying that. But a member of public-facing staff has to be capable of dealing with challenging situations without resorting to assaulting someone. I refer you to previous posts on this matter!

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

Exactly. I find it extremely worrying that some people fail to recognise just how damning the footage is and just how serious this is and are seemingly trying to downplay the seriousness of such behaviour.

 

[whhistle]

If someone is winding staff up, then that needs to be dealt with appropriately and professionally.

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

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.

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.