FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[andrew]

Yes he did. 20 seconds in, when he said, "I'll sit here all night, I'm getting paid for this. They'll start moaning," he basically said that if the passengers want to get the train moving, they'll have to move the kid off on their own. If he took control of the situation from the beginning (like saying what I suggested in my earlier post), no one would have felt obliged to take matters into their own hands.

That is the very definition of passing the buck. Let someone else deal with it.

I still don't see that as passing the buck, but more trying to reason with the punk. The conductor is pointing out to the objectional little poo that he's the one holding everyone else up by trying to get a free ride. The kid was caught out but refused to deal with it. We've all been on public transport when this has happened (and I'm sure a few of us have been away to do what the bloke did and throw the twat off) and the driver or conductor always tries to reason with the passanger by point out that everyone else has paid their fare or that the passanger is holding everyone up. There's not really a whole lot else that can be done apart from reason with the passanger. Calling for the police is the last resort and a waste of tax payers money.

If you call that reasoning, it is the very worst kind possible. Think of it from the perspective of an average passenger. It's just not acceptable for an employee involved in customer service to start "reasoning" by repeatedly saying, "I can sit here all day," in the presence of customers, and on top of that suggest that the only backlash the delinquent will experience is from the other passengers. It's the employee's job to deal with s*** like that so customers don't have to - for convenience and safety. I sure wouldn't want to ride on that train after seeing how they handle themselves.

So in my opinion, everyone in that video acted poorly. The kid first and foremost, obviously, but also the employee and the "big man".

I'm honestly surprised the train company isn't being sued for essentially encouraging the passengers to gang up on the kid.

Oh, and I agree that calling the police for that would be a waste of their time, though still preferable to what happened here. The train company should have the capacity to handle situations like this on their own.

The conductor acted as he will have been trained to do so and he has a point in what he says. It doesn't matter to him if the train goes or not, he still stops at his stopping time and gets paid regardless but the kid is holding up the passangers who want to get home. The only people getting annoyed will be the passangers. The kid got what he deserved, the conductor acted as he was supposed to by reasoning with a mouthy little punk (which is a pointless exercise anyway) and the big yin did the decent thing and gave the kid what he deserved. OK it maybe wasn't the right thing legally, but given the circumstances I think the big yin should be bought a pint and the whole thing forgotten about.

I wouldn't be bothered about being on that or any other train as I have nearly found myself in the position of "the big man" before when I was trying to get another bus after the one I was on. Some heavily drunk and near paralytic twit was giving the driver hassle and I was in a hurry so had just stood up and left my seat when the driver got up and hauled the drunk off the bus himself and left the guy leaning against a lamp post. These things happen all the time.

[bud]

Agh i love the Scots Good on him, I'm totally against politically correct bullpoo, if the kid got hurt by the "big man" whilst being ejected then it falls on him for trying to get a free ride in the first place.

[Hammer278]

In my view, the catalyst for this whole situation was the ineffective train staff. You're going to make your paying customers "sit there all night" and "moan" to get the little prick off the train? That's your job. You're not "getting paid to sit there all night" - you get paid to make the train run as efficiently and safely as possible. To pass the buck to the general public is wrong from a business standpoint as well as a general safety standpoint. Luckily, that scenario was relatively harmless, but what if the kid was as big as the guy that threw him off? What if he had a weapon?

I understand the train staffer was an older guy, but call in some backup or something. Surely there was some sort of security detail nearby that should have been notified. "We apologize for the delay, but we have security/police on the way to resolve the situation. Please remain calm, and we will get the train moving as quickly as possible. We thank you for your patience." Not that difficult.

So if that were my train, my staff would be getting one helluva refresher course on how to handle unruly customers, general customer service, and safety.

Says it all really. You never take the law into your own hands, and someone else did here. The 'good samaritan' could have easily turned bad if he caused harm/injury to other passengers or the kid himself.

[racechick]

Yes he did. 20 seconds in, when he said, "I'll sit here all night, I'm getting paid for this. They'll start moaning," he basically said that if the passengers want to get the train moving, they'll have to move the kid off on their own. If he took control of the situation from the beginning (like saying what I suggested in my earlier post), no one would have felt obliged to take matters into their own hands.

That is the very definition of passing the buck. Let someone else deal with it.

I still don't see that as passing the buck, but more trying to reason with the punk. The conductor is pointing out to the objectional little poo that he's the one holding everyone else up by trying to get a free ride. The kid was caught out but refused to deal with it. We've all been on public transport when this has happened (and I'm sure a few of us have been away to do what the bloke did and throw the twat off) and the driver or conductor always tries to reason with the passanger by point out that everyone else has paid their fare or that the passanger is holding everyone up. There's not really a whole lot else that can be done apart from reason with the passanger. Calling for the police is the last resort and a waste of tax payers money.

If you call that reasoning, it is the very worst kind possible. Think of it from the perspective of an average passenger. It's just not acceptable for an employee involved in customer service to start "reasoning" by repeatedly saying, "I can sit here all day," in the presence of customers, and on top of that suggest that the only backlash the delinquent will experience is from the other passengers. It's the employee's job to deal with s*** like that so customers don't have to - for convenience and safety. I sure wouldn't want to ride on that train after seeing how they handle themselves.

So in my opinion, everyone in that video acted poorly. The kid first and foremost, obviously, but also the employee and the "big man".

I'm honestly surprised the train company isn't being sued for essentially encouraging the passengers to gang up on the kid.

Oh, and I agree that calling the police for that would be a waste of their time, though still preferable to what happened here. The train company should have the capacity to handle situations like this on their own.

The guy that threw him off had no business doing that. The correct procedure for Scotrail staff is that they call transport police to come to the next stop, keep the train going then when they reach said stop, transport police come on and eject the trouble maker safely. It's a pretty simple procedure to follow so I really don't understand why the ticket inspector did what he did - effectively inciting other train go-ers to get involved.

Yes, exactly.

Have to agree with this having thought about it. The ticket guy didnt act professionally.
Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

[Hammer278]

Have to agree with this having thought about it. The ticket guy didnt act professionally.
Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

No.....unless there's a 'hot' before female?

[andrew]

Have to agree with this having thought about it. The ticket guy didnt act professionally.
Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

I wouldn't change my opinion at all unless it was someone who was mentally handicapped in which case it could be an honest mistake.

The ticket collector acted exactly as he should. He tried to reason with the arrogant wee baw bag by stating the facts, the kid was becoming aggresive so a pasanger asked if he wanted help and he said on you go.

Had the big yin been an off duty police officer or the ticket collector been a female the reaction to this would have been totally different.

[bud]

Have to agree with this having thought about it. The ticket guy didnt act professionally.
Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

I wouldn't change my opinion at all unless it was someone who was mentally handicapped in which case it could be an honest mistake.

The ticket collector acted exactly as he should. He tried to reason with the arrogant wee baw bag by stating the facts, the kid was becoming aggresive so a pasanger asked if he wanted help and he said on you go.

Had the big yin been an off duty police officer or the ticket collector been a female the reaction to this would have been totally different.

exactly the young w***er was acting like many teenagers of today, no respect! he deserved what was coming to him.

[acosmichippo]

Had the big yin been an off duty police officer or the ticket collector been a female the reaction to this would have been totally different.

Not at all. Doesn't matter who the people are; they all acted like children.

[andrew]

Had the big yin been an off duty police officer or the ticket collector been a female the reaction to this would have been totally different.

Not at all. Doesn't matter who the people are; they all acted like children.

I don't believe that for one second.

[What's Burning?]

It's likely that kid didn't receive the best parenting. So when does he get his reality television show?

[acosmichippo]

Had the big yin been an off duty police officer or the ticket collector been a female the reaction to this would have been totally different.

Not at all. Doesn't matter who the people are; they all acted like children.

I don't believe that for one second.

Um, ok. Hardly worth having a discussion if you think I'm lying to you.

[LewEngBridewell]

Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

Absolutely not.

[racechick]

Out of interest, would anyone change their viewpoint if the non paying person were a female, an old person, or a child? Im just curious here.

Absolutely not.

I ask because whilst the 'good Samaritan' did what he did for all the right reasons, had he manhandled a woman of the train he'd probably be in more trouble. And had he dumped a child off the train with no way of getting home, well, the consequences of that could be bad.
Which is why it would best have been dealt with more professionally. Even though a silent cheer goes to the Samaritan. And the fault really has to come back to the ticket guy who was the official person who should have dealt with it.

[andrew]

And the fault really has to come back to the ticket guy who was the official person who should have dealt with it.

No it doesn't. The ticket collector did everything he was trained to do i.e. try and reason with a moron. If a member of the public takes it upon themselves to step in then that's their issue, not the ticket collectors. It's not as if the big yin was another kid, they are a mature adult so they knew exactly what they were doing.

[acosmichippo]

The ticket collector did everything he was trained to do i.e. try and reason with a moron.

If that's how the transit company trains its employees (and I doubt that it is given zurich_allan's quote below), then the company should be held partly responsible as well. That is just not how you handle a sketchy situation. I really don't understand how you cannot see that the ticket collector encouraged a mob-like attitude in the nearby passengers. You can see it in everyone, not just the "big man".

The correct procedure for Scotrail staff is that they call transport police to come to the next stop, keep the train going then when they reach said stop, transport police come on and eject the trouble maker safely.