Power mad staff

[43066]

It's evens in that neither is defensible, but staff (who are, at that moment, being paid to know better) have the added pitfall of conduct unbecoming while on the clock. Which is regrettably common to the point it, too, cannot be ignored

You can't have it both ways.

I’m simply pointing out that’s it’s a false equivalence. There is a tendency for a minority of the public to speak to uniformed staff in an appalling way because they know they cannot retaliate properly without risking their jobs. Obviously there are instances of poor staff
behaviour (and I have personally called out and complained about poor gateline staff behaviour before), but abuse on staff and assaults *far* outweighs the few bad passenger-staff interactions seen on here, both in terms of severity and scale. To suggest that it’s “evens” is wide of the mark.

I watched the video. The member of staff wasn’t the most diplomatic but I do understand his perspective.

- It’s a fragment of a conversation, missing a lot of context. We don’t know what happened prior to that short clip, or what Francis and the others present did.
- The member of staff says that Francis had “entered the station” and accessed the platform without a ticket or permission.
- It’s clear that Francis isn’t alone, there’s someone else filming the member of staff (which is a little intimidating) and at other points in the video it’s clear that Francis is with a larger group.

I think filming the incident and posting it online is a bit off really. Complaining through the proper channels is fine, but individual members of staff don’t deserve trial by social media. Especially when the video is lacking a lot of the context.

Precisely my view.

Yes, so you keep saying; let's now draw a line under that, as it is clear that neither of us are going to change our views

Do you have any evidence that the wider public have a view that is in line with yours?

That does not say what you claimed it said; it's clearly a dud move because it's got them a lot of negative publicity and no doubt got the attention of relevant managers.

It did not say that, but - as I said above - it is important to quote the post concerned, so that people can see for themselves that it did not say what you interpreted it as saying.

See above.

Yes, you aren't going to change your mind, so let's leave it there.

Indeed. Nothing to be gained by discussing further at this point.

 

[DesiroOperator]

In amongst your completely pointless argument about how famous or well known this person may or may not be you have brought up a much more relevant fact.

"He is always at Wembley"

If this is the case then there is every chance it is not the first encounter this staff member has had with him being on the mainline platforms when he shouldn't or otherwise making a nuisance of himself. Being hostile at someone out of the blue is not the same as dealing with a repeat offender where skipping the pleasantries and bluntly making it clear that their behaviour is not tolerated is very much warranted.

You may think it pointless, but if railway staff who have a tendency to forget they were employed by a process that highlighted customer focus, can’t muster a decent amount of it with someone who is filming them, (it’s 2024 you’re always on camera and should think about that), then I don’t think they are suited to the role without a bit of retraining personally.

The only reason I’m pointing it out is that he has more followers than the UK prime minister, or Graham Norton (combined), in this day and age I think it’s wise to be thinking about who a vlogger, (know of them or not they are easy to pick out), might be before demonstrating a lack of customer service skills, and I'm sorry but there is a tendency to talk to members of the public this way amongst railway staff that I haven’t experienced in other similar industries.

There’s a lot I’ll defend, but this… no, it was unnecessarily rude and I maintain I’d be surprised if someone working at that station wasn’t aware of who he is and acted with a bit more diligence in their approach, it *shouldn’t* matter who he is but when the SM manager sees this online it probably will.

This isn’t me saying, “how dare he treat poor Luke that way”, it’s me saying how daft to act in a way that will so easily come back to bite him.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I’d see it as a matter of integrity that he’s not treated any better (or worse!) than any other member of the public.

Though as he’s a professional content creator, and works on railway premises on a daily basis, I might hold him to a higher standard in terms of liasing with staff and not causing any issues while filming.

Ultimately I don’t think the member of staff can be fairly criticised on the basis of that soundbite.

 

[bramling]

But we all know there is a yawning gap between “model” behaviour in a job interview setting, and what might pass muster when doing the job on a bad day, when stressed etc. The reaction wasn’t ideal. It was grumpy, brusque, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call it inappropriate.



Perhaps amongst the individuals commenting on this thread but opinion on this thread isn’t reflective of what the wider public might think.

I suspect the wider public would probably take the view that it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, with neither party particularly shining.

I’m genuinely in different minds over this, hence why I’d love to have had the opportunity to see what happened beforehand.

It’s quite possible that the member of staff encountered some issues when they were found on the platform, and if so then it would certainly explain the attitude.

But what, to me, tips the balance of suspicion away from that is the way the member of staff keeps emphasising the word “permission”. I find that rather strange that if the central problem is that they shouldn’t have been on those platforms for safety reasons - in which case the presumption is that permission wouldn’t be granted anyway - then why is the member of staff making such a thing about permission.

I’d be more inclined to favour the member of staff’s position if the subject of the shouting was because they’d endangered themselves by going on a platform that was cordoned off. But this isn’t mentioned at all.

Hence, from what we have seen, I’m inclined to take the view that the member of staff seems, at face value, to have been out of order. And, let’s be honest, it does railway station staff no favours with any wider audience - it just looks like a scruffy overweight member of staff throwing a wobbly, regardless of any rights or wrongs.

 

[Krokodil]

I think filming the incident and posting it online is a bit off really. Complaining through the proper channels is fine, but individual members of staff don’t deserve trial by social media. Especially when the video is lacking a lot of the context.

Hear, hear. I am tired of social media footage (usually aimed at the police) being posted to form an online lynch mob formed of reactionary types who only know half of the facts.

People should stick to official channels for making complaints.

 

[jon0844]

I don’t even know what an amateur auditor is… how ever I should imagine that’s another can of worms for a separate thread.

They're mostly people who go around filming things by saying they're checking public servants/property is/are following the rules, and seek to publish videos where they can incite an incident that they think their fanbase will love. They'll monetise such videos and take donations on Patreon or the like to help fund their mission to go and cause as much fuss as possible.

But they have the perfect alibi in that they're just trying to check things are being done properly, so are considered heroes by many.

At the end of the day, nobody wants to watch a video that has someone walking about saying 'everything is as it should be' but they will watch videos with confrontation. You'd likely see an auditor going around trying to gain access to private areas or filming CCTV cameras to attract attention and then film from there.

The USA is full of these videos, but new laws have been brought in to deal with it. I don't think it's really a big deal here, but I also don't think many auditors are going to railway properties right now either. If they did, it would likely result in tougher measures being brought in that would harm the honest train enthusiast.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Francis is one of the nicest kids you could ever hope to meet. Smiles and selfies with everyone who asks.

Some staff just go around looking for confrontation and won’t be happy until they find someone to argue with or shout at.

 

[jon0844]

Francis is one of the nicest kids you could ever hope to meet. Smiles and selfies with everyone who asks.

Some staff just go around looking for confrontation and won’t be happy until they find someone to argue with or shout at.

He's essentially playing a character though, so at some point he's going to be his normal self. I too have heard nothing but nice things about him, but people need to remember this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Francis would not have initiated that level of conflict with volume and anger. He’s very shy and polite in real life even if he was likely in the wrong in being where he was.

 

[AverageJoe]

So I just watched the bit with the interaction.

So Francis should have had a ticket to be in the area he was and he didn’t have one? Is that correct?

 

[m0ffy]

Hear, hear. I am tired of social media footage (usually aimed at the police) being posted to form an online lynch mob formed of reactionary types who only know half of the facts.

People should stick to official channels for making complaints.

While I understand the sentiment behind this, there is a significant power imbalance at play. The railway has its own police force, bylaws, prosecuting power, and a seemingly captive judiciary. You have none of that.

 

[AlterEgo]

So I just watched the bit with the interaction.

So Francis should have had a ticket to be in the area he was and he didn’t have one? Is that correct?

It’s likely he arrived legitimately on a train, but remained on the platform when it closed. It’s not really possible to be without a ticket at Wembley Central as it’s gated and manned.

 

[snookertam]

Such attitudes certainly do exist, but it is very much a minority, albeit a very vocal and visible minority.

The problem is that such behaviour, even if only exhibited occasionally, has a disproportionate impact, and brings the industry into disrepute.

What I find staggering is that some people appear to justify and condone the behaviour, but again this is very much a minority.

On the recent ScotRail overtime ban thread there was someone claiming to be a ScotRail member of staff displaying such an attitude. In fact there were a couple of examples where there was an attitude to anyone who wasn’t a railway staff member.

To show how far the anti-railway attitude goes, I’m told there’s a significant minority view among ScotRail staff wishing that the West Highland line be closed. A universally popular route, through some of the most stunning parts of Scotland, transporting tourists, visitors, day trippers, locals and enthusiasts alike. Just how much of a curmudgeon would one need to be to have such a response? Yet I’m told a number of ScotRail staff hate its very existence.

 

[DesiroOperator]

Francis is one of the nicest kids you could ever hope to meet. Smiles and selfies with everyone who asks.

Some staff just go around looking for confrontation and won’t be happy until they find someone to argue with or shout at.

Hear hear.

 

[Krokodil]

While I understand the sentiment behind this, there is a significant power imbalance at play. The railway has its own police force, bylaws, prosecuting power, and a seemingly captive judiciary. You have none of that.

That's irrelevant, there are plenty of official channels for getting a complaint looked at (up to and including involving your MP). There is no need for an online lynch mob for the 'likes'.

 

[dosxuk]

But what, to me, tips the balance of suspicion away from that is the way the member of staff keeps emphasising the word “permission”. I find that rather strange that if the central problem is that they shouldn’t have been on those platforms for safety reasons - in which case the presumption is that permission wouldn’t be granted anyway - then why is the member of staff making such a thing about permission.

You can do pretty much anything if you get permission for it, all the way up to killing people.

I'm sure it would be possible to get permission to film at Wembley Central on these platforms - sure, if you just rock up on the day and tell them you're a social media content creator and you want free reign, it's going to get denied - but if you turn up with plan of what you're going to do, a risk assessment and a willingness to comply with their instructions and restrictions it's far more likely to be allowed. Some places you're going to need to bring in higher powers than a station manager to get that permission - and it might be the restrictions on what you can do make it so it's not worthwhile getting that permission ("sure, you can come film here, but on Boxing Day when there's no trains, and only between the hours of 3am and 5am") - but getting permission will not be impossible.

 

[Wolfie]

That's irrelevant, there are plenty of official channels for getting a complaint looked at (up to and including involving your MP). There is no need for an online lynch mob for the 'likes'.

If l was being cynical the "circle the wagons" mentality amongst some rail staff - he/she is one of us so we will seek to defend the indefensible - directly results in public scepticism about your much vaunted "official channels". Hence people resorting to self-help. That is only likely to get worse.

Not to mention the number of previously covered-up scandals - not the rail industry but society-wide - which have belatedly come to light. People are much more doubting and sceptical than they used to be.

Powerful TUs undertaking their (l acknowledge absolute legitimate role in looking after members' interests) protecting such people hardly help public confidence in "official channels" either.

 

[RJ]

Francis would not have initiated that level of conflict with volume and anger. He’s very shy and polite in real life even if he was likely in the wrong in being where he was.

It doesn’t seem awfully nice to create a situation where his behaviour on the narrow platform is sufficient to attract the attention of the supervisor, then stand there protesting that he’s videoing trains, then choosing to upload the footage and centre the video on this interaction, deliberately omitting the wider context of what caused this two way conflict to start.

It’s funny there’s no explanation that it’s well known to enthusiasts who video trains locally that loitering on that platform specifically is virtually guaranteed to get the staff to tell you to leave if you don’t get permission first, because of long established safety procedures.

I’ve got nothing against him and would say exactly the same for anyone else who behaves like this - the behaviour is bordering on entitled and uploading the member of staff following this behaviour is possibly poor judgement. If doing something wrong in first place then probably better to keep it quiet, and pick literally any other station in the UK to film, where platform access is fine without having to speak to staff first.

 

[Wolfie]

It doesn’t seem awfully nice to create a situation where his behaviour on the narrow platform is sufficient to attract the attention of the supervisor, then stand there protesting that he’s videoing trains, then choosing to upload the footage and centre the video on this interaction, deliberately omitting the wider context of what caused this two way conflict to start.

It’s funny there’s no explanation that it’s well known to enthusiasts who video trains locally that loitering on that platform specifically is virtually guaranteed to get the staff to tell you to leave if you don’t get permission first, because of long established safety procedures.

I’ve got nothing against him and would say exactly the same for anyone else who behaves like this - the behaviour is bordering on entitled and uploading the member of staff following this behaviour is possibly poor judgement. If doing something wrong in first place then probably better to keep it quiet.

Agreed. My previous post was deliberately couched in general terms. In this specific situation l have a lot of sympathy with the staff member.

Methinks that "Francis" may find all staff at Wembley Central much less welcoming in future.

 

[jon0844]

Agreed. My previous post was deliberately couched in general terms. In this specific situation l have a lot of sympathy with the staff member.

Methinks that "Francis" may find all staff at Wembley Central much less welcoming in future.

And many TOCs not wanting to work with him in the future, although I'd heard some had ended their relationships a while ago.

 

[Krokodil]

If l was being cynical the "circle the wagons" mentality amongst some rail staff - he/she is one of us so we will seek to defend the indefensible - directly results in public scepticism about your much vaunted "official channels". Hence people resorting to self-help. That is only likely to get worse.

If all proper avenues had been exhausted then by all means go to the press (or the 21st Century equivalent). People who post videos online have rarely done so though, YouFace is the first response.

I come across videos all the time squealing about "police brutality" as two officers struggle to restrain a large male. Those videos inflame tensions and funnily enough just happen to cut out the point at which the detained person was brawling, and also the part when the officer recovered a knife from the person's trousers.

If I activate a Bodyworn Camera, I can't just post the footage online. It's tightly controlled under GDPR and I haven't ever seen it. Yet someone with a mobile phone can happily post edited footage without comeback? Even if I mobilised a solicitor (at my own expense) they can't act quickly enough to stop me being doxxed.

 

[AlterEgo]

It doesn’t seem awfully nice to create a situation where his behaviour on the narrow platform is sufficient to attract the attention of the supervisor, then stand there protesting that he’s videoing trains, then choosing to upload the footage and centre the video on this interaction, deliberately omitting the wider context of what caused this two way conflict to start.

It’s funny there’s no explanation that it’s well known to enthusiasts who video trains locally that loitering on that platform specifically is virtually guaranteed to get the staff to tell you to leave if you don’t get permission first, because of long established safety procedures.

I’ve got nothing against him and would say exactly the same for anyone else who behaves like this - the behaviour is bordering on entitled and uploading the member of staff following this behaviour is possibly poor judgement. If doing something wrong in first place then probably better to keep it quiet, and pick literally any other station in the UK to film, where platform access is fine without having to speak to staff first.

The staff member shouldn’t be pointing fingers and raising their voice. It’s not really that hard. None of what you said excuses the staff member’s behaviour or would give them cause to be so openly hostile and aggressive.

 

[RJ]

The staff member shouldn’t be pointing fingers and raising their voice. It’s not really that hard. None of what you said excuses the staff member’s behaviour or would give them cause to be so openly hostile and aggressive.

It’s not professional and I don’t condone it, but working on stations, a minority of people don’t understand courteous requests to comply with safety instructions and only seem to respond when a more candid approach is taken.

If everybody only recorded a small part of an extended exchange and presented it as rudeness, it would paint a lot of staff in a bad light.

 

[AverageJoe]

Personally, if I did something I should not have done, I’d expect to be spoken to in that manner and I wouldn’t see and issue with it.

Sometimes you just have to take your medicine.

Everyone using a train station should abide by the same rules.

 

[yorkie]

If all proper avenues had been exhausted then by all means go to the press (or the 21st Century equivalent). People who post videos online have rarely done so though, YouFace is the first response.

I come across videos all the time squealing about "police brutality" as two officers struggle to restrain a large male. Those videos inflame tensions and funnily enough just happen to cut out the point at which the detained person was brawling, and also the part when the officer recovered a knife from the person's trousers.

This sounds like whataboutery and false equivalence to me.

If I activate a Bodyworn Camera, I can't just post the footage online. It's tightly controlled under GDPR and I haven't ever seen it. Yet someone with a mobile phone can happily post edited footage without comeback?

That's completely different; the balance of power is totally different and it is not in any way an equivalence. The reality is what it is; people who take on a public-facing role should know that they would be expected to behave in a professional manner and there is absolutely nothing to stop a member of the public from uploading a video of an encounter.

The member of staff could have avoided his outcome by behaving in a professional manner.

Even if I mobilised a solicitor (at my own expense) they can't act quickly enough to stop me being doxxed.

Are you suggesting this in any way relates to what has actually happened in this case, or are you talking about something else entirely? Feel free to create a new thread if you wish to discuss any spin-off topics.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

Personally, if I did something I should not have done, I’d expect to be spoken to in that manner and I wouldn’t see and issue with it.

Again, if you believe that such behaviour is acceptable, you are entitled to that opinion, but you can't seriously tell me that you would say in an interview for a public-facing role that this is how you would behave and expect to get a job!

Sometimes you just have to take your medicine.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Everyone using a train station should abide by the same rules.

Do you have a list of these rules? Are you referring to actual rules or guidelines? Are you making an allegation of wrongdoing as if so this should not be unubstantiated.

 

[Elybob]

Typical jobsworth, we've all experienced prats like this who get the tiniest bit of authority and feel the need to lecture to you like a child

 

[87electric]

I have never signed in for permission before. Are all TOCs different in this process? I mean is it a standard form to fill in with personal details? I’m presuming this would absolve the company of liability of any accidents/deaths that occur which the enthusiast might be involved in. Is there small print that explicitly states this on whatever is signed?

 

[AverageJoe]

This sounds like whataboutery and false equivalence to me.

That's completely different; the balance of power is totally different and it is not in any way an equivalence. The reality is what it is; people who take on a public-facing role should know that they would be expected to behave in a professional manner and there is absolutely nothing to stop a member of the public from uploading a video of an encounter.

The member of staff could have avoided his outcome by behaving in a professional manner.

Are you suggesting this in any way relates to what has actually happened in this case, or are you talking about something else entirely? Feel free to create a new thread if you wish to discuss any spin-off topics.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==


Again, if you believe that such behaviour is acceptable, you are entitled to that opinion, but you can't seriously tell me that you would say in an interview for a public-facing role that this is how you would behave and expect to get a job!

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Do you have a list of these rules? Are you referring to actual rules or guidelines? Are you making an allegation of wrongdoing as if so this should not be unubstantiated.

Personally I think his attitude wasn’t a big deal… and as you say I’m entitled to my opinion.

Take your medicine, maybe it’s just a saying in my area… If he has broken rules then you just have to deal with the consequences.

Do I have a list of the rules? No, but someone earlier said that this part of the station is closed to public at this time and in the video he says you need a ticket to be there.

I like everyone else i am basing my opinion on this video and that’s how I feel about it.

Would I speak to someone like that? Likely not, but it also depends on the circumstances, sometimes it may call for a more forceful approach.

We have only seen the version of this cherry picked by Francis himself.

 

[Elybob]

Personally, if I did something I should not have done, I’d expect to be spoken to in that manner and I wouldn’t see and issue with it.

Yes, the egregious crime of filming a train without permission. I hope Mr Bourgeois has learnt a hard lesson, hopefully society will recover from such a dark day.

 

[AverageJoe]

Yes, the egregious crime of filming a train without permission. I hope Mr Bourgeois has learnt a hard lesson, hopefully society will recover from such a dark day.

it would seen more about where he is though and the fact he didn’t ask for permission.

What tends to happen on subjects like this is people only look at it from Francis point of view, but at the end of the day if there was indeed a rule he did break then if you break it for him then you have to break it for everyone.

platform train interface is one of the biggest risk on the railway and if I were in this station manager’s position I would take it seriously.