Power mad staff

[Gemz91]

How do you tell apart a well meaning enthusiast and an amateur auditor? They’re both people with cameras in an area staff may have to keep clear of members of the public for safety.

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.

 

[Andy Pacer]

How does that mean every railway staff member knows or should know who he is?

And at the risk of going round in circles it shouldn't matter who he is!

 

[66701GBRF]

And at the risk of going round in circles it shouldn't matter who he is!

Of course it shouldn’t, I already said in my first post I didn’t agree with the staff member. Just find it bizarre that just because someone works in the railway industry they should automatically know who he is or what he looks like.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Of course it shouldn’t, I already said in my first post I didn’t agree with the staff member. Just find it bizarre that just because someone works in the railway industry they should automatically know who he is or what he looks like.

Agreed.

 

[DesiroOperator]

Of course it shouldn’t, I already said in my first post I didn’t agree with the staff member. Just find it bizarre that just because someone works in the railway industry they should automatically know who he is or what he looks like.

Look perhaps I should be clearer. He isn’t just an enthusiast with a vlog. He has millions of followers across multiple platforms and has done modelling collabs with Gucci, worked with the Jonas brothers appeared an most of the morning TV shows and gets online collabs with everyone form Loraine to Taylor swift. He isn’t an enthusiast with a little channel. I’m not saying every railway member should know him but to have a following that large he is literally always making content, he is constantly at Wembley and a few other key stations around London. They would have to be under a rock to not notice the guy with the GoPro on his head that is there nearly every other day, has done collabs on the station with NWR and has met other staff on the station.

Should someone’s fame change how someone is treated? Of course not, but to know how prolific he is and still treat him that way seems a dud move from a grumpy station manager to me. A lack of foresight if you like.

You may not know who he is, I don’t follow him as such, but he’s actually more popular to people who aren’t enthusiasts, (if you think it’s an enthusiasts channel I can only assure you it is not anymore), and as such I get sent his videos by friends frequently.

If you’re on some far flung freight line I get you may not see him but if you work at Willesden or Wembley you’d be hard pressed to not have seen him.

 

[LAX54]

Vlogging isn’t commercial use.

Commercial use is a term landowners use in this context to stop other companies from filming adverts on their property and the like, and exists because they can extract a good fee to film there. That’s not the case with just anyone filming a vlog, whether it gets monetised or someone drops them a PayPal donation later because they like the video.

You don’t need permission to film yourself or trains at a station, usually, although Wembley Central has unique procedures which others have mentioned due to safety.

The Companies that advertise within a video, pay a hefty whack to Google, the vlogger will get a (very) small percentage of that, but it is income, and it is a job ! (the video must exceed 8 mins)

 

[43066]

Should someone’s fame change how someone is treated? Of course not, but to know how prolific he is and still treat him that way seems a dud move from a grumpy station manager to me. A lack of foresight if you like.

You don’t know for sure that the station manager did know who he was. Indeed it’s more likely that he didn’t. I think you’re massively overstating how famous he is in non enthusiast circles, and probably also underestimating how little interest many staff have in the railway.

I agree with the comments above that it shouldn’t make a difference anyway. Staff are not there to act as props for YouTube channels.

 

[AlterEgo]

The Companies that advertise within a video, pay a hefty whack to Google

Not a "hefty whack".

, the vlogger will get a (very) small percentage of that

Wrong. The creator gets 55%.

but it is income

It is.

, and it is a job !

Indeed it can be!

(the video must exceed 8 mins)

Wrong. A video of any length can be monetised. 8 minutes is the required length to insert a midroll.

 

[DesiroOperator]

You don’t know that the station manager did know who he was. Indeed it’s more likely that he didn’t. I think you’re massively stating how famous he is in non enthusiast circles, and probably also underestimating how little interest many staff have in the railway.

I agree with the comments above that it shouldn’t make a difference anyway. Staff are not there to act as props for YouTube channels.

I’d be really surprised if more than a quarter of his 5 million followers on tik tok are enthusiast to be frank. I think you’re underestimating how famous social media creators are with the under 30s compared to what you may perceive as famous people. His videos pick up a million views within a few days. As I said, the guy is at Wembley all the time. The staff member works there. Read my post properly and I might not have to explain it.

 

[43066]

I’d be really surprised if more than a quarter of his 5 million followers on tik tok are enthusiast to be frank. I think you’re underestimating how famous social media creators are with the under 30s compared to what you may perceive as famous people. His videos pick up a million views within a few days. As I said, the guy is at Wembley all the time. The staff member works there. Read my post properly and I might not have to explain it.

Not sure why you’re making patronising comments. I have read it, I just disagree with it. You’re making a completely unsupported assumption about the staff member in question, who also pretty obviously isn’t under 30.

 

[DesiroOperator]

Not sure why you’re making patronising comments. I have read it, I just disagree with it. You’re making a completely unsupported assumption about the staff member in question, who also pretty obviously isn’t under 30.

Again the guy is always at Wembley with a Go pro on his head and usually multiple people filming him and the staff member works there. That’s why I find it hard to accept he isn’t aware of him and his reach. Not because he might watch him regularly.

Station staff usually know their regular enthusiasts, if Luke was one of them I’d be flabbergasted they weren’t aware of his reach.


But this forum does often reflect the view of the wise old mess room table I suppose.

 

[dosxuk]

I think you’re underestimating how famous social media creators are with the under 30s compared to what you may perceive as famous people.

Similarly, many famous social media creators overestimate how well known they are outside their audiences, as well as overestimating how large a proportion of the general public their audience is.

Still, the DYKWIA (Don't You Know Who I Am) excuse has never been solely restricted to widely famous people...

 

[Flying Snail]

Again the guy is always at Wembley with a Go pro on his head and usually multiple people filming him and the staff member works there. That’s why I find it hard to accept he isn’t aware of him and his reach. Not because he might watch him regularly.

Station staff usually know their regular enthusiasts, if Luke was one of them I’d be flabbergasted they weren’t aware of his reach.


But this forum does often reflect the view of the wise old mess room table I suppose.

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.

 

[RJ]

Again the guy is always at Wembley with a Go pro on his head and usually multiple people filming him and the staff member works there. That’s why I find it hard to accept he isn’t aware of him and his reach. Not because he might watch him regularly.

Station staff usually know their regular enthusiasts, if Luke was one of them I’d be flabbergasted they weren’t aware of his reach.


But this forum does often reflect the view of the wise old mess room table I suppose.

If that's the case, then it's likely he's well aware of the platform access situation. Instead of prancing around near the yellow line when everyone who is there to catch a train is stood back, perhaps a better idea to stand well back at the far end of the platform and discreetly take his video when the train passes if he's not making staff aware of his presence first.

It would appear to be a case of an intentional lack of respect for the immediate surroundings for the purpose of rail enthusiasm, and protesting with a staff member when asked to move on. If that's the chosen type of behaviour, then perhaps publishing a video centred around being told off by that member of staff is a bit off. Also, question mark over how he accessed the platform - it's completely empty, except for one person who may have seen him enter and chosen to follow him in. When the staff do grant access to the public, it usually resembles the up platform in the video. Is it any surprise that the station manager would require permission to access the platform in these circumstances?

I'm not condoning the candid nature of that member of staff, but he is certainly not the only one in the wrong here.

 

[Wolfie]

That takes some guts to both look up the rules and come back to you and say I got it wrong and what you are doing is okay - and should be complemented for doing that.

Agreed. Bothering to check it out and then admitting to getting it wrong is all too rare but should be welcomed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2024 ==

On the few occasions that my photography at stations has attracted such unwanted and unwarranted attention, I ask them if they want to call the BTP and waste their time, or shall I, on their behalf? Hasn't failed yet.

Rather like property value that approach depends on "location, location, location". Do it at the wrong place (like the WMCL platforms at Wembley Central in question) and you have every chance of bring arrested and charged.

 

[AverageJoe]

Look perhaps I should be clearer. He isn’t just an enthusiast with a vlog. He has millions of followers across multiple platforms and has done modelling collabs with Gucci, worked with the Jonas brothers appeared an most of the morning TV shows and gets online collabs with everyone form Loraine to Taylor swift. He isn’t an enthusiast with a little channel. I’m not saying every railway member should know him but to have a following that large he is literally always making content, he is constantly at Wembley and a few other key stations around London. They would have to be under a rock to not notice the guy with the GoPro on his head that is there nearly every other day, has done collabs on the station with NWR and has met other staff on the station.

Should someone’s fame change how someone is treated? Of course not, but to know how prolific he is and still treat him that way seems a dud move from a grumpy station manager to me. A lack of foresight if you like.

You may not know who he is, I don’t follow him as such, but he’s actually more popular to people who aren’t enthusiasts, (if you think it’s an enthusiasts channel I can only assure you it is not anymore), and as such I get sent his videos by friends frequently.

If you’re on some far flung freight line I get you may not see him but if you work at Willesden or Wembley you’d be hard pressed to not have seen him.

I’m a driver and didn’t have a clue who he was until some of my colleagues mentioned him.
I don’t follow him and don’t watch his contract but every now and then it will pop up in a suggested feed.

If not for my colleagues mentioning him on that one day I’d be none the wiser.

I’ve not watched the above video that is being discussed either so I can’t give an opinion on who was in the right but it’s definitely possible he didn’t know who he was nor as you say should it change anything either if he did.

The problem is front line staff deal with awful people on a daily basis but when they themselves are maybe a little grumpy that’s when it ends up on social media and people jump on them.

Same with the police, they deal with the worst of the worst all day then they slip up it’s all over the socials and everyone is suddenly against the police and supporting the criminals.


Sorry bit of a tangent there.

 

[LAX54]

Not a "hefty whack".


Wrong. The creator gets 55%.


It is.


Indeed it can be!


Wrong. A video of any length can be monetised. 8 minutes is the required length to insert a midroll.

Sorry, I was only going by what I have seen on the YT videos where the 'creators' explain what they get from YT, but of course certain subject matter will garner a higher payment

 

[TheHovisKid]

....front line staff deal with awful people on a daily basis but when they themselves are maybe a little grumpy that’s when it ends up on social media and people jump on them.

They do, and some people are awful. But then, so are some staff so we're evens.

The difference is, staff are being paid to be there, while passengers are paying. Come tea time, I've done my full day, and I'm off home.

And if you're telling me someone is being paid to behave like that, on company time....

 

[yorkie]

I agree with the comments above that it shouldn’t make a difference anyway.

Quite; the staff member has been exposed to a large number of people as behaving inappropriately, however their behaviour was inappropriate regardless of who they were speaking to.

Staff are not there to act as props for YouTube channels.

And what's that supposed to mean, and what is the relevance to the matter at hand?

 

[43066]

Quite; the staff member has been exposed to a large number of people as behaving inappropriately, however their behaviour was inappropriate regardless of who they were speaking to.

I disagree that it was inappropriate. He was a bit brusque and grumpy but personally I don’t see the interaction as bad enough to be “inappropriate”. We also don’t know what happened immediately before the filming started to form a view.

And what's that supposed to mean, and what is the relevance to the matter at hand?

It means exactly what it says. There’s a tendency for some YouTubers to goad staff (doing a difficult and unpleasant job) and use it for YouTube views. Staff shouldn’t be made to feel they somehow have to treat a “famous” YouTuber any differently, as seemed to be suggested above.

They do, and some people are awful. But then, so are some staff so we're evens.

It absolutely isn’t “evens” given the appalling treatment many staff receive, that far outweighs the odd bad staff-passenger interaction caught on camera.

 

[yorkie]

I disagree that it was inappropriate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no way that is appropriate behaviour.

He was a bit brusque and grumpy but personally I don’t see the interaction as bad enough to be “inappropriate”. We also don’t know what happened immediately before the filming started to form a view.

Are you making some form of allegation or accusation?

What sort of prior reaction do you think would make such a reaction in any way acceptable?

It means exactly what it says. There’s a tendency for some YouTubers to goad staff (doing a difficult and unpleasant job) and use it for YouTube views. Staff shouldn’t be made to feel they somehow have to treat a “famous” YouTuber any differently, as seemed to be suggested above.

Who is suggesting that famous people should be treated differently? Can you quote the comment concerned, rather than make a vague cryptic reference.

It absolutely isn’t “evens” given the appalling treatment many staff receive, that far outweighs the odd bad interaction caught on camera.

I do not see how there is any realistic prospect that there was any behaviour that led to the reaction depicted in the video being justifiable. Do you?

 

[43066]

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no way that is appropriate behaviour.

You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate behaviour, and are also only stating an opinion.

Are you making some form of allegation or accusation?

What sort of prior reaction do you think would make such a reaction in any way acceptable?

What’s the point in speculating? I’ve said we don’t know what happened before so cannot form a full view. Again, other posters have made similar observations upthread, so I’m not sure why you’ve jumped on my comment in particular. It hardly seems unreasonable to point that out.

Who is suggesting that famous people should be treated differently? Can you quote the comment concerned, rather than make a vague cryptic reference.

The suggestion was made in post #95, and more than one person had commented on it.

I do not see how there is any realistic prospect that there was any behaviour that led to the reaction depicted in the video being justifiable. Do you?

I don’t think what was captured was beyond the realms of reasonable behaviour for someone who was perhaps having a bad day, or had simply dealt with one too many people filming on platforms. It’s hardly “inappropriate” to be a bit brusque and short with someone. It’s all too easy for others to criticise, not knowing exactly what the situation was, based on an edited video clip.

 

[AlterEgo]

Raised voices and pointy fingers when face to face with someone wouldn’t pass any role play scenario in training or at interview, so it’s pointless trying to defend it.

 

[yorkie]

You are not the arbiter of what is appropriate behaviour, and are also only stating an opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion that this is appropriate behaviour, however the balance of opinion does not appear to be on your side.

The opinion I state may "only" be an opinion, but my opinion is in line with that of many, many others.

What’s the point in speculating? I’ve said we don’t know what happened before so cannot form a full view. Again, other posters have made similar observations upthread, so I’m not sure why you’ve jumped on my comment in particular. It hardly seems unreasonable to point that out.

I can only reiterate what I said above; if you're not prepared to answer, then fair enough. People can form their views based on that.

I am unsure what you mean by "jumped on"; I have replied to your post and asked questions, which I am entitled to do, and equally you are entitled to not answer them if you don't want to.

The suggestion was made in post #95, and more than one person had commented on it.#

The onus is on you to quote it; indeed, the post actually says "Should someone’s fame change how someone is treated? Of course not" which is not consistent with your claim that "Staff shouldn’t be made to feel they somehow have to treat a “famous” YouTuber any differently, as seemed to be suggested above"

Perhaps you missed the "not" in that post, in which case fair enough, misunderstandings do happen, but it is important to quote the post concerned when you are making a claim about it, so that people can see what was actually stated.

I don’t think what was captured was beyond the realms of reasonable behaviour for someone who had had a bad day, and has perhaps simply dealt with one too many people filming on platforms. It’s hardly “inappropriate”. It’s all too easy for others to criticise, not knowing exactly what the situation was, based on an edited video clip.

That's fine; you are entitled to think such behaviour is appropriate, however a far more sensible view would be that....

Raised voices and pointy fingers when face to face with someone wouldn’t pass any role play scenario in training or at interview, so it’s pointless trying to defend it.

 

[snookertam]

I have been watching some of Francis (the trainspotter) videos. And he has a run in with this station staff member. Why do people love the power and the sound of their own voice and do this.

I cant see what he has done wrong to be honest.

Something worth remembering is that a lot of railway staff hate their jobs and even the industry itself (See also attitudes towards the public). Of course not everyone has to like their jobs, but on the railway there is an element who quite clearly don’t want to be there and hold a real disdain for the industry. So to see someone actually enjoying the railway, or trains in general, tends to be a red rag to a bull for these people. Enthusiasts therefore have a special level of ire directed towards them, there would be nothing they could do right when on the railway.

 

[yorkie]

Something worth remembering is that a lot of railway staff hate their jobs and even the industry itself (See also attitudes towards the public). Of course not everyone has to like their jobs, but on the railway there is an element who quite clearly don’t want to be there and hold a real disdain for the industry. So to see someone actually enjoying the railway, or trains in general, tends to be a red rag to a bull for these people. Enthusiasts therefore have a special level of ire directed towards them, there would be nothing they could do right when on the railway.

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.

 

[43066]

Raised voices and pointy fingers when face to face with someone wouldn’t pass any role play scenario in training or at interview, so it’s pointless trying to defend it.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion that this is appropriate behaviour, however the balance of opinion does not appear to be on your side.

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

The onus is on you to quote it; indeed, the post actually says "Should someone’s fame change how someone is treated? Of course not" which is not consistent with your claim that "Staff shouldn’t be made to feel they somehow have to treat a “famous” YouTuber any differently, as seemed to be suggested above"

Perhaps you missed the "not" in that post, in which case fair enough, misunderstandings do happen, but it is important to quote the post concerned when you are making a claim about it, so that people can see what was actually stated.

But after the “not” they also said “but to know how prolific he is and still treat him that way seems a dud move.”

That, at least on my reading, still clearly repeated the earlier implication that the treatment should have been different based on the identity of the YouTuber. I don’t agree with that position, along with several others. Especially as the member of staff may well not have known he was dealing with a high profile YouTuber. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to re litigate the point in such detail, but that hopefully clarifies my position.

That's fine; you are entitled to think such behaviour is appropriate,

Indeed. And having watched it again I still stand by that view.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

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.

 

[TheHovisKid]

It absolutely isn’t “evens” given the appalling treatment many staff receive, that far outweighs the odd bad staff-passenger interaction caught on camera.

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.

 

[yorkie]

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.

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

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

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

But after the “not” they also said “but to know how prolific he is and still treat him that way seems a dud move.”

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.

That, at least on my reading, still clearly repeated the earlier implication that the treatment should have been different based on the identity of the YouTuber.

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.

I don’t agree with that position, along with several others. Especially as the member of staff may well not have known he was dealing with a high profile YouTuber. I’m not sure why it’s necessary to re litigate the point in such detail, but that hopefully clarifies my position.

See above.

Indeed. And having watched it again I still stand by that view.

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