The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
A RAIL guard has been sacked for protecting passengers from a violent thug.
Paul Yarwood, 44, reacted after a drunken fare-dodger jumped on to a train and hurled abuse at station staff.
The two men became involved in a struggle during which Mr Yarwood, a soldier for 14 years, was knocked over. As he got up, the dad of three clashed heads with the yob.
But after viewing footage of the incident in June, rail firm One dismissed Mr Yarwood, who must also appear in court this week charged with threatening behaviour.
The thug escaped with an £80 fixed penalty fine for smoking on a train. Fellow rail workers are so angry at the company’s actions that more than 100 picketed the Colchester station in Essex yesterday — and they plan further industrial action.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union, said: “Rail workers face a daily threat of verbal and physical violence — yet One have failed to provide adequate support.”
Mr Yarwood has also won the support of passengers. One regular traveller said yesterday: “It is a shabby way to treat a guard who seems to have been doing his duty in difficult circumstances.”
It could have been that the union guy attacked a passenger for telling him to f*** off.
Why does everyone take 1 side when it isn't even clear what happened?
Eagh, things are this way for a reason. Even the smallest amount of authority can lead to zimbardo-style behaviour, so the rail companies have to protect both the rail operators and the passengers from eachother.
Saying this, the power always tips one way and passengers do have the upper hand due to rail companies wanting...no...needing to avoid liability like the plague. You can't just have rail guards beating your face to custard because you didnt pay your fare but it can happen the other way because of where the money is coming from in the ensueing law suits.
Plus you see all these posters in train stations saying how many operators are being assaulted each week. We note 'assaulted' because its the legal term for "nothing really happened..." under UK law so its hard to say whos victim of who at the moment. Plus you'll never see a poster in a train cabin proudly exclaiming that rail guards managed to punch 30 passengers just last week.
Eagh, my point is not a well expressed one. You cant really go off whats being about this matter because it could have gone either way. The attention should however be focussed on how to prevent either party being put in such positions...
Although, even that seems to be a lopsided article.
I mean you could look at it this way:
You are a Rail Guard. You are on duty and you see a drunken passenger abuse travellers and threaten staff with a broom at your train station. You see the man jump over a ticket barrier, abuse station staff and illegally light up a cigarette on a waiting train. When one your supervisors tries to persuade this man to leave, he grabs him, threatens to hit another member of staff with a broom and tells a fellow traveller he would punch him. What do you do? More so than that though, what would you do now that that guy was sacked for taking action? Would you be willing to risk your job? Would you be willing to put your own life at risk to save a mere passanger in the first place?
Despite Paul's bravery, bigwigs at train firm One axed him after claiming CCTV showed he headbutted the man. Police quizzed and charged him - while the hooligan merely got an £80 smoking fine.
Rail guard sacked for defending passengers
Linear Mode
