Train driver 'pulled from train and attacked'

[Bromley boy]

Oh for goodness' sake, calm down.

I have been attacked at work, when I was 16, by a Traveller wanting more than what he'd paid for in McDonald's. It wasn't what I'd call "appallingly savage", he was just a w***er. Yes, poor me, just a callow youth on minimum wage, in a crappy uniform, telling someone they didn't want to hear, and getting assaulted. Boo hoo.

Describing someone being pulled from a train and [insert unspecified assault here which police confirm resulted in no serious injuries] is not "appallingly savage". It is, nonetheless, entirely unacceptable.

Wind down the rhetoric, it's starting to get warm in here again and it does not help.

Well if you were attacked, you should know better! I'm aware of a driver who was whacked over the head in an unprovoked attack and never able to work again due to his injuries. I wonder if he would agree with you that this was "entirely unacceptable" rather than "appallingly savage".

Only on this forum could a thread about a physical attack on a member of staff degernetate into an irrelevant argument about the language used to describe it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder what the set up for doo drivers at Epsom at that time of night is when the train has to be walked through to be checked and cleared before going empties? Are there still station staff at Epsom at midnight and are they required to check train?

Every time I have seen a terminating train in platform 1 at Epsom that is running into the sidings, the driver stays in the cab and two platform staff check the train is clear - one starting from the front and one starting from the back. As they check each carriage, they operate the manual locking buttons on the carriage ends.

Obviously if the train is booked to reverse in the platform, the driver has to change ends in the platform.

 

[Ambient Sheep]

Just because an area is affluent does not mean that everyone there is well behaved.

People seem to think this of St Albans too

I actually find the more affluent places have more problems with drinkers than non-affluent places...

See also Bishop's Stortford back in the late 1980s (in my younger, drinking, days, I don't know what it's like now). Most of the people I worked with came from Stortford or thereabouts, and were terribly snooty about neighbouring-ish Harlow New Town down the road, saying how awfully common it was, etc. etc.

And yet I had hundreds of nights out in Harlow (which was nearer to my home than Stortford was), and I never once came to grief. But Stortford... my goodness... I mean to be honest I never came to grief there either, but I knew plenty who did. One of my work colleagues had her neckchain ripped from around her neck on a night out, and another's boyfriend was a victim of the infamous baseball-bat gang that were doing the rounds at the time. I'd constantly hear tales of people with wrecked nights out. And on the very few times I did go for a night out there myself, the whole place reeked of hostility and menace. Rarely have I ever felt so unsafe - I felt safer walking down Seven Sisters Road in London than I did on a night out in Stortford! Brrrrrrr...

Didn't stop them being snooty about Harlow though. I did laugh though a few years later when a government report came out (and made the national news) about how there was a ring of surburban towns surrounding London that had unacceptable levels of weekend night out violence way beyond the national norms. You guessed it, Stortford was on that list... sadly can't remember if St. Albans was, the only other one I can recall right now is Guildford.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Well let's hope you and "alter ego" are never in a position where you're attacked at work. If you are you may be less quick to split hairs and argue about subtle shades of meaning.

It's worth remembering, although there were thankfully no major injuries on this occasion, these attacks sometimes lead to staff being left permanently disabled and unable to work again. Therefore ruining their families' quality of life and losing them their livelihoods.

Yes, but this isn't about "shades of meaning" or "splitting hairs". "Staff being left permanently disabled and unable to work again" is a long way from "no major injuries", in spite of the fact that neither is remotely acceptable. You are completely wrong to imply that an observation about exaggerated language means that someone doesn't take an incident like this seriously. To turn it around, if no serious injuries results from appalling savagery, how on earth do you have any suitable language left to describe an attack resulting in permanent disability? It's all too easy too dismiss someone with a few moralistic throw-away lines when all they are trying to do is reflect on whether the terms used are proportionate to the event.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, but this isn't about "shades of meaning" or "splitting hairs". "Staff being left permanently disabled and unable to work again" is a long way from "no major injuries", in spite of the fact that neither is remotely acceptable. You are completely wrong to imply that an observation about exaggerated language means that someone doesn't take an incident like this seriously. To turn it around, if no serious injuries results from appalling savagery, how on earth do you have any suitable language left to describe an attack resulting in permanent disability? It's all too easy too dismiss someone with a few moralistic throw-away lines when all they are trying to do is reflect on whether the terms used are proportionate to the event.

As with the previous poster, you're making the fundamental mistake of confusing intentions with consequences. Fortunately THIS attack left no casualties. The prior attacks that led to disabilities were no different. They just had worse results.

My original point was that such attacks should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I question why anyone would quibble with the exact descriptive terms used, as the post I originally replied to was doing.

Off topic, but you're also fundamentally wrong about the importance of descriptive language. Try reading the same news story in the Telegraph and the Guardian. They're probably both succinct, factually accurate but use very different language to same the same thing. It's all about shades of meaning.

Remember how one man's "final solution" eventually equalled another's "genocide". Describing the same thing.

 

[AM9]

... Remember how one man's "final solution" eventually equalled another's "genocide". ...

In your post #31:

"I'm aware of a driver who was whacked over the head in an unprovoked attack and never able to work again due to his injuries." Off-topic strawman argument.

And then:
Now in post #35, you have finally invoked Godwin's law.
Everbody here thinks that this incident was unnacceptable as are all unjustified attacks on anybody. If it had resulted in actual injury (even temporarily) then more descriptive language may be appropriate but this incident didn't so all the hyperbole is irrelevant. If he'd been scratched would you have called it carnage?
If you want to discuss the issues surrounding assault on rail staff in general then why not start your own thread?

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes, but this isn't about "shades of meaning" or "splitting hairs". "Staff being left permanently disabled and unable to work again" is a long way from "no major injuries", in spite of the fact that neither is remotely acceptable. You are completely wrong to imply that an observation about exaggerated language means that someone doesn't take an incident like this seriously. To turn it around, if no serious injuries results from appalling savagery, how on earth do you have any suitable language left to describe an attack resulting in permanent disability? It's all too easy too dismiss someone with a few moralistic throw-away lines when all they are trying to do is reflect on whether the terms used are proportionate to the event.

You seem to presume that only physical injuries matter, but you have quite obviously not thought of the non-physical and often unseen effects these sorts of incidents can have.
Please think a bit more carefully in future.

 

[MichaelAMW]

You seem to presume that only physical injuries matter, but you have quite obviously not thought of the non-physical and often unseen effects these sorts of incidents can have.
Please think a bit more carefully in future.

How exactly do you know what I was presuming or how exactly do you know that I have not considered unseen effects? You don't, so pack it in please with the patronising suggestions as to what I might do in the future.

 

[MichaelAMW]

As with the previous poster, you're making the fundamental mistake of confusing intentions with consequences. Fortunately THIS attack left no casualties. The prior attacks that led to disabilities were no different. They just had worse results.

My original point was that such attacks should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I question why anyone would quibble with the exact descriptive terms used, as the post I originally replied to was doing.

Off topic, but you're also fundamentally wrong about the importance of descriptive language. Try reading the same news story in the Telegraph and the Guardian. They're probably both succinct, factually accurate but use very different language to same the same thing. It's all about shades of meaning.

Remember how one man's "final solution" eventually equalled another's "genocide". Describing the same thing.

Well, none of us know the intentions of the attacker so you can't say whether this and the other attacks to which you refer are equivalent. Yes, all attacks should be condemned but, and I note a dismissive attitude with your use of "quibble", that doesn't mean people on a forum might not discuss whether the language used could be tailored better to the particular situation. You clearly think that wishing to tone down a description implies I somehow don't care; you could not be further from the truth.

Your comments about the papers and Mr Hitler are irrelevant: I am trying to describe something as it factually is, not use the language to further my own agenda by exaggerating or diminishing different elements as may suit me.

 

[Bromley boy]

In your post #31:

And then:
Now in post #35, you have finally invoked Godwin's law.
Everbody here thinks that this incident was unnacceptable as are all unjustified attacks on anybody. If it had resulted in actual injury (even temporarily) then more descriptive language may be appropriate but this incident didn't so all the hyperbole is irrelevant. If he'd been scratched would you have called it carnage?
If you want to discuss the issues surrounding assault on rail staff in general then why not start your own thread?

This is starting to go down the road of the "DOO and related issues thread".

The original article described a driver being dragged out of his cab and assaulted, thankfully with no serious physical injuries arising. It is the intention behind the attack that can accurately be described as savage.

I'm not sure what being dragged out of a cab feels like. I hope never to find out (if anyone tries to drag me out of my cab they'll be the victim of an extremely savage attack ending with my T key in their eye socket ).

 

[MichaelAMW]

This is starting to go down the road of the "DOO and related issues thread".

The original article described a driver being dragged out of his cab and assaulted, thankfully with no serious physical injuries arising. It is the intention behind the attack that can accurately be described as savage.

I'm not sure what being dragged out of a cab feels like. I hope never to find out (if anyone tries to drag me out of my cab they'll be the victim of an extremely savage attack ending with my T key in their eye socket ).

Yes, yes, yes - BUT - we don't actually know whether the attacker just wanted to push him to the ground to be a bit of a bully or see him lying there in a pool of blood. It's not "savage" to give someone a bit of a shove. Certainly, before that became clear the fact of being attacked without knowing how it might finish could easily have been rather terrifying. Whilst I reject the way that Llanigraham (see above) sought to assert that I was being unthoughtful, he (and you) are certainly right that the emotional effect of these incidents can be severe.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, yes, yes - BUT - we don't actually know whether the attacker just wanted to push him to the ground to be a bit of a bully or see him lying there in a pool of blood. It's not "savage" to give someone a bit of a shove. Certainly, before that became clear the fact of being attacked without knowing how it might finish could easily have been rather terrifying. Whilst I reject the way that Llanigraham (see above) sought to assert that I was being unthoughtful, he (and you) are certainly right that the emotional effect of these incidents can be severe.

Being dragged out of a cab sounds horrendous and I'm glad you acknowledge the emotional trauma that could be suffered. We shall have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of the word "savage".

I think as a general point attacks on people engaged in the course of their job are treated more seriously than the typical drunken punch up. I'm believe I'm correct in saying this is an aggravating factor at sentencing (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[MichaelAMW]

Being dragged out of a cab sounds horrendous and I'm glad you acknowledge the emotional trauma that could be suffered. We shall have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of the word "savage".

Well, that seems like a convivial suggestion! Based on various of my own experiences - we've all that them - the traumatic element is generally the uncertainty of what is going to happen next.

I think as a general point attacks on people engaged in the course of their job are treated more seriously than the typical drunken punch up. I'm believe I'm correct in saying this is an aggravating factor at sentencing (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

And rightly so.