Staff accused via Twitter

[Stephen55a1960]

I notice that someone has accused a member of East Coast staff of consuming alcohol whilst on duty via the East Coast twitter feed. The duty tweeter for East Coast, rather unwisely in my opinion, has asked for more details and the member of staff has been named. Obviously I'm not going to repeat the allegation here, but it is quite specific (even giving the train's headcode) and, on the face of it, does not appear to be malicious or mischievous. Apart from the question of whether the allegation is true or not, it is very worrying to note that no-one from East Coast or otherwise has acted to delete or modify the tweet which actually names the person. I should add that, as far as can be determined, the person involved is not a member of operational staff.

Very unwise to have tweeted the allegation, in the first place. Surely a phone call/email to BTP/ EC would have sufficed? We all know what happens, when allegations against a named individual get on to Twitter? I'm mentioning no names or allegations here. A recent legal action may give a clue?

 

[reb0118]

........ On boarding the train at St Pancras (and looking a mess having been up all night) the guard told me that I should be in Second Class without even asking to see my ticket............

Correct course of action taken. It's hard to explain to someone who is not born to travel 1st Class that it takes more than a ticket to fit it. One requires not only the correct dress code but also a casual air of indifference. A natural feeling of subtle superiority does not go amiss either.

If one does not fit the criteria then one should be ejected from 1st Class forthwith ~ regardless of ticket held.

Unfortunately most TOCs these days are behind the diminishing standards in 1st Class with the introduction of 1st Class Advance fares thus severely abstracting from one of the main benefits of 1st in that it used to price out the riff raff.

However, what is even more unfortunate is that I myself rarely measure up to my own high standards so I have had to banish myself from 1st Class sine die.

 

[D2022]

Correct course of action taken. It's hard to explain to someone who is not born to travel 1st Class that it takes more than a ticket to fit it. One requires not only the correct dress code but also a casual air of indifference. A natural feeling of subtle superiority does not go amiss either.

If one does not fit the criteria then one should be ejected from 1st Class forthwith ~ regardless of ticket held.

Unfortunately most TOCs these days are behind the diminishing standards in 1st Class with the introduction of 1st Class Advance fares thus severely abstracting from one of the main benefits of 1st in that it used to price out the riff raff.

However, what is even more unfortunate is that I myself rarely measure up to my own high standards so I have had to banish myself from 1st Class sine die.

That is disgusting!

 

[Wolfie]

But a TOC holds no sway over what a passenger does without getting the police involved. And would the BTP be bothered? probably not.

But again, the TOC has to be seen to do something with the incident as they only heard one side of the stroy until it was investigated. You are trying t5o castigate the employee who replied for doing their job in the correct manner.

Sopt on, and if the complaint was correct and the TOC did nothing they would quite rightly be crucified in the media.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct course of action taken. It's hard to explain to someone who is not born to travel 1st Class that it takes more than a ticket to fit it. One requires not only the correct dress code but also a casual air of indifference. A natural feeling of subtle superiority does not go amiss either.

If one does not fit the criteria then one should be ejected from 1st Class forthwith ~ regardless of ticket held.

Unfortunately most TOCs these days are behind the diminishing standards in 1st Class with the introduction of 1st Class Advance fares thus severely abstracting from one of the main benefits of 1st in that it used to price out the riff raff.

However, what is even more unfortunate is that I myself rarely measure up to my own high standards so I have had to banish myself from 1st Class sine die.

I was about to explode with "you must be joking" then got to your last sentence....trolling instead!

 

[BestWestern]

Agree totally - possibly the original accusation could be considered fair. The followup by the TOC and the subsequent naming of the person involved is the bit that could land the TOC and/or accuser in the crapper if it turns out to have been inaccurate in any way (not on Twitter any more so can't check exact details).

The TOC should have asked the OP to make further contact in a private conversation.

Absolutely. The TOC - if indeed they did ask for further details via Twitter - has acted unacceptably, and it were me being accused I would be talking to the Union solicitor!

I imagine it's only a matter of time before the slow death of corporate Twitter accounts, certainly from service industries with as many hostile customers on a daily basis as we have on the railway; they will eventually become more hassle than they're worth. Once a significant number of TOCs have had to deal with the inevitable grievances from deeply disgruntled staff who have been subjected to abuse/false accusations/malicious photography & bating etc etc by idiots out for a fight, I think we'll see it slide. It simply isn't appropriate to provide people with such an open and unregulated tool to abuse staff under the company's own banner, and the Unions will doubtless push for action in cases of clear abuse. I would be interested to see whether allowing random members of the public to direct personal abuse at employees via a Twitter account would be deemed a lack of the required duty of care towards an organisation's staff?

 

[reb0118]

I was about to explode with "you must be joking" then got to your last sentence....trolling instead!

Not at all. Trying to insert a little humour into the thread (humour is subjective though and not everyone is on ones wavelength so to speak - probably a good thing in my case)

Seriously though in my opinion "complaint via social media" is not the correct way to go about it. People are justified to complain but it is probably best to do so rationally in the cold light of day otherwise the complaint may turn into a rant before long.

With regard to my post above, now that I have raised some hackles, does the forum think that there is behaviour that would warrant removal from the first class area BUT crucially not from the train itself?

 

[richw]

Not at all. Trying to insert a little humour into the thread (humour is subjective though and not everyone is on ones wavelength so to speak - probably a good thing in my case)

From experience Humour doesnt go down well with some members of this forum. Some members do need to lighten up. I avoid humour as it always attracts negative comments.

 

[12CSVT]

Absolutely. The TOC - if indeed they did ask for further details via Twitter - has acted unacceptably, and it were me being accused I would be talking to the Union solicitor!

I imagine it's only a matter of time before the slow death of corporate Twitter accounts, certainly from service industries with as many hostile customers on a daily basis as we have on the railway; they will eventually become more hassle than they're worth. Once a significant number of TOCs have had to deal with the inevitable grievances from deeply disgruntled staff who have been subjected to abuse/false accusations/malicious photography & bating etc etc by idiots out for a fight, I think we'll see it slide. It simply isn't appropriate to provide people with such an open and unregulated tool to abuse staff under the company's own banner, and the Unions will doubtless push for action in cases of clear abuse. I would be interested to see whether allowing random members of the public to direct personal abuse at employees via a Twitter account would be deemed a lack of the required duty of care towards an organisation's staff?

If a member of the public made a false allegation about railway staff on Twitter, isn't this already illegal under libel laws ?

 

[tirphil]

...but when it comes to alcoholism, employers should be doing their utmost to assist their staff as much as reasonably possible, whether it is out of the job or the medical assistance they offer.

TOC's and FOC's have policies (well the FOC and TOC that I have worked for have) for assisting any member of staff if they advise that they have a problem such as this BUT staff cannot advise that they have a problem AFTER they have failed an alcohol test. Drugs are just a complete no no.

 

[BestWestern]

If a member of the public made a false allegation about railway staff on Twitter, isn't this already illegal under libel laws ?

I really don't know, possibly. But then I suppose the complainant might argue that they were simply 'mistaken' and were only trying to raise a legitimate safety concern for the greater good etc etc. I would like to think that the employer, as the body hosting the page and thus harbouring the problem posts, would be ultimately responsible for taking measures to prevent their staff being expose to such abuse. If previous posts have contained such abuse, then it ought to be argued that clearly the employer needs to address the issue.

 

[jon0844]

From experience Humour doesnt go down well with some members of this forum. Some members do need to lighten up. I avoid humour as it always attracts negative comments.

I've noticed that. It seems that without a smiley, some members fail to spot something that is obviously sarcastic and not serious. These are often members who might have read hundreds of posts and probably have a fairly good idea about the character of various members.

The safe solution is to use smileys all the time! [Wait, was I joking now?]

 

[Clip]

If a member of the public made a false allegation about railway staff on Twitter, isn't this already illegal under libel laws ?

Not as far as I know.

Put it this way, the passenger saw what he thought he saw and reported it- the correct course of action should anyone see someone doing something that they think is wrong.
If it turned out to be false then they may have just been mistaken for what they saw and everyone makes mistakes.

Theres a massive difference about that and the twitter storm last month.

 

[johnnychips]

Are you sure?

'I've heard/read on the internet Lord X is a paedophile.'... 'Oops, sorry I was wrong'. People who tweeted like that, especially those with a high profile, are being pursued in law, even though it was merely repetition.

'I saw Rail Employee Y drinking alcohol' is a direct accusation, and potentially very damaging to that person's career.

 

[Clip]

Yes. *

It is an accusation yes. An accusation that can be investigated by the relevant party. If the person has done nothing wrong then how can it affect their career?


* Actually im not but libel is different from what has transpired as far as I understand it.

 

[johnnychips]

No smoke without fire? But is being mistaken a defence against libel? We need to get Ian Hislop on here.

 

[Clip]

What?Dont be silly.

 

[jon0844]

I think accusing someone of abusing children and possibly having a drink on duty, which might lead to disciplinary action but isn't illegal (unless it was a driver and they subsequently exceeded a legal limit), is very different.

 

[johnnychips]

I think we're crossing replies/edits here. I don't think it's silly, the way gossip works.

 

[Clip]

Lets put it another way which you may understand.

This person believes they have watched a severe breach of rules and regs on the railway and such a breach could put the lives of not only the person but also other staff and members of the public in danger.

They are acting in good faith in reporting this because they know you are not allowed to drink whilst on duty. They are not being malicious.

 

[transmanche]

If a member of the public made a false allegation about railway staff on Twitter, isn't this already illegal under libel laws ?

There's nothing libellous by tweeting "xx has got their feet on the seat" or "xx is drinking cider in uniform".

I would like to think that the employer, as the body hosting the page and thus harbouring the problem posts, would be ultimately responsible for taking measures to prevent their staff being expose to such abuse.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Twitter works here. The 'problem posts' (as you call them) would not appear on the TOCs page. As I mentioned in post #37, you would only see them by actively searching for tweets mentioning the TOC's account name (or some other term that matched in a search).

 

[johnnychips]

This person believes they have watched a severe breach of rules and regs on the railway and such a breach could put the lives of not only the person but also other staff and members of the public in danger.

They are acting in good faith in reporting this because they know you are not allowed to drink whilst on duty. They are not being malicious.

I agree something should be done in that case. But (and I don't know) is there somebody in the train company permanently monitoring Tweets? Would it not be more appropriate to call the police?

Otherwise, could the Twitter monitor change the name to 'X' (if they can) and reply that the complaint is being investigated at once?

 

[transmanche]

Otherwise, could the Twitter monitor should change the name to 'X' (if they can)

No they can't.

 

[johnnychips]

There's nothing libellous by tweeting "xx has got their feet on the seat" or "xx is drinking cider in uniform".

Even if it's not true? Seems strange. But thanks for the explanation of how the posts work.

 

[Clip]

I agree something should be done in that case. But (and I don't know) is there somebody in the train company permanently monitoring Tweets? Would it not be more appropriate to call the police?

Otherwise, could the Twitter monitor should change the name to 'X' (if they can) and reply that the complaint is being investigated at once?

They wont be there watching it 24/7 and they can not change other peoples tweets.

Calling the police is an idea but where do you want them and what happens if they get off when the BTP have not yet arrived.

Its just not libellous.

 

[johnnychips]

Its just not libellous.

Because it's a genuine belief?

 

[Clip]

Because it's a genuine belief?

No. You are not getting it. They are acting in good faith and not being malicious.

 

[johnnychips]

I think I am. Good faith = Genuine belief!

 

[transmanche]

Because it's a genuine belief?

Firstly, even if you consider it to be a libellous statement, there is a defence of 'fair comment'; if the "statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held" (although this defence may fail if the person making the statement acted out of malice).

 

[johnnychips]

Firstly, even if you consider it to be a libellous statement, there is a defence of 'fair comment'; if the "statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held" (although this defence may fail if the person making the statement acted out of malice).

Yep. I don't know what the Tweet said, but I've just read around a bit, and if he had prefaced it with 'I think' it would not be libellous; and even if he hadn't it could be construed as 'fair comment'. Quite surprised to be honest. Anyway it's been an educational evening.

 

[BestWestern]

No. You are not getting it. They are acting in good faith and not being malicious.

And how do you determine between the two?!

There's nothing libellous by tweeting "xx has got their feet on the seat" or "xx is drinking cider in uniform".

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Twitter works here. The 'problem posts' (as you call them) would not appear on the TOCs page. As I mentioned in post #37, you would only see them by actively searching for tweets mentioning the TOC's account name (or some other term that matched in a search).

Ok, understood (I don't use it myself!). But presumably the TOC is likely to have 'followers' or whatever who would see posts relating to them? They are ultimately public, rather then private?