world's worst tourists

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Horne writes:

You can feel threatened, quite legitimately,
without _being_ directly threatened.

That's assault.

In UK law, that would be very hard to prove, unless there had been any
physical contact.

Being called "a ****ing *******" in context can seem
perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other
contexts it can seem very threatening.

When it seems very threatening, it's assault, provided that the person
doing the insult intends it that way. This usually has to be decided on
a case-by-case basis.

And what a stupid idea that would be. There is no _need_ for people to
swear, or otherwise verbally abuse people while they are at work. A
blanket policy covers all of that, and lets people know where they
stand.

There are lots of manners, tones of voice and so on,
in which someone can convey that.

When they do, it's assault.

You say that as if, by magic, some rock will fall on the perpetrators
head when they verbally abuse someone in such a way. Things don't work
like that- intent is very hard to prove- proving such cases wastes
_lots_ of money. Far better is a policy which instructs the customer
(client, or whoever) not to verbally abuse workers.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne wrote:

Miguel Cruz wrote:

David Horne wrote:

Miguel Cruz wrote:

Personally, I'd say it should be the opposite: Anyone who is so immature
as to respond in any way but laughter to being called 'un pauvre con' or
anything else should be hauled off to re-education camp.

Not always. It depends on the context- soome insults are off-the-cuff,
others are much more personal and threatening.

Threats are another matter entirely.

You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because it's
hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately,
without _being_ directly threatened. Being called "a ****ing *******" in
context can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other
contexts it can seem very threatening. There are lots of manners, tones
of voice and so on, in which someone can convey that. And, believe me,
there are contexts in which simply being called "a ****ing *******" are
more serious than something the individual can just laugh off. In the
UK, a lot of businesses, public and private, from railways to
immigration workers, have taken a much tougher line recently wrt
personal abuse against their staff. It's quite easy for people who
aren't on the front line with angry customers to suggest the workers
should just laugh it off- in practise, I think it can often be more
serious than that.

It makes sense for some companies to adopt a 'zero tolerance' to _any_
form of abuse. If you swear at a train guard, you can be thrown off the
train. Quite right- in my opinion. It makes it clearer to customers,
etc., what the boundaries are, in terms of how they are permitted to
treat other people in a public environment.

David

It also makes sense to me, given the extreme force available to
governments, that they and their minions must endure far more before the
boundaries are reached. FFM

Miguel Cruz wrote:

Desmond Coughlan wrote:

There's a difference between expressing an opinion, and insulting, IMHO.
Most people who get their collars felt for the above, are of the kind who
get stopped for speeding, and call the cop 'un pauvre con' [1], or who go
to the local social security office, get told that they're not getting any
money that day, and start screaming that the lady behind the counter is
'une sale pute' [2].

The view in French law is that people who serve the state, don't deserve to
be on the receiving end of such abuse.


What's the difference between the person at the social security office, and
the person at the bank or the phone company office?

If they've decided they're going to legislate politeness, it ought to at
least be equal-opportunity.

I disagree there. Any agent of the government has available significant
implied force in their interactions with their bosses. The limits of
what they must put up with should be broader than those for ordinary
citizens. FFM

Personally, I'd say it should be the opposite: Anyone who is so immature as
to respond in any way but laughter to being called 'un pauvre con' or
anything else should be hauled off to re-education camp. All the power in
words like that comes from the recipient.

miguel

Desmond Coughlan wrote:

le Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:34:49 GMT, dans l'article , Miguel Cruz a dit ...

There's a difference between expressing an opinion, and insulting, IMHO.
Most people who get their collars felt for the above, are of the kind who
get stopped for speeding, and call the cop 'un pauvre con' [1], or who go
to the local social security office, get told that they're not getting any
money that day, and start screaming that the lady behind the counter is
'une sale pute' [2].

The view in French law is that people who serve the state, don't deserve to
be on the receiving end of such abuse.


What's the difference between the person at the social security office, and
the person at the bank or the phone company office?


One is a private citizen; the other is a civil servant. Verbal attacks on
them are an attack on the very foundations of the Republic.

The statement that there is a difference is correct. The implication of
which needs more protection is reversed. The Republic can protect
itself. It's agents must serve the citizens and not threaten them
unless more severely threatened than the average citizen. FFM

If they've decided they're going to legislate politeness, it ought to at
least be equal-opportunity.

Personally, I'd say it should be the opposite: Anyone who is so immature as
to respond in any way but laughter to being called 'un pauvre con' or
anything else should be hauled off to re-education camp. All the power in
words like that comes from the recipient.


I agree, but having been called it once (by a rather inconsiderate driver
who was fortunate that I was in a hurry that morning, otherwise his
forehead would have got to know the steering wheel of his car, with my
fingers laced in the hair at the back of the little scrote's neck), I can
confirm that it is unpleasant.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

It also makes sense to me, given the extreme force available to
governments, that they and their minions must endure far more before the
boundaries are reached.

Well, this isn't just about 'government workers.' In any case, there is
government and _government_. The kind of force someone working in a
welfare benefits office can use compared to, say, a ministry of defense,
is quite different. People who work for the government are "people"
anyway, though your dehumanisation of them is duly noted.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"Reid©" wrote:

Following up to Mxsmanic

The way to become rich is to start a business, you can also
become relatively rich by working in the financial sector as an
employee.

True in the U.S., but not in Europe.

I'm just now looking a cookbook by a man named Gulab Noon, he has
made himself rich by making supermarket curry ready meals in UK.
They have given him an MBE BTW. In the last boom top employees in
the City of London received £1m annual bonuses. Which Europe do
you live in?


That's not his point. Of course there are rich people in Europe.
His point is that most inherited money, and either inherited
enough to be rich, or made it grow. I have no idea
if he is correct.

For his thesis to be false, the rich people in the City should contain a
substantial proportion of people who inherited or obtained
from their parents essentially nothing.

Doug McDonald

David Horne wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Threats are another matter entirely.

You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because it's
hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately, without
_being_ directly threatened. Being called "a ****ing *******" in context
can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other contexts it can
seem very threatening.

I don't know that I'm really missing the point so much as making a different
one.

Sure, any number of things can seem threatening to someone who's prepared to
take them that way.

I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing
people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal
with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have
worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any
number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little
patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:26:45 GMT, dans l'article , Miguel Cruz a dit ...

{ snip }

I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing
people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal
with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have
worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any
number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a
little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down.

Personally, one of the things I find most annoying when I'm angry ... is
someone in front of me, being calm..

--
Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
http://www.zeouane.org/

Desmond Coughlan wrote:
Miguel Cruz a dit ...
I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing
people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal
with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have
worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any
number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a
little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down.

Personally, one of the things I find most annoying when I'm angry ... is
someone in front of me, being calm..

The trick isn't to be super-calm, but to steer the person toward discussion
of the things that are actually frustrating them rather than the (often
irrational) targets of their anger. Once people feel that they're actually
able to get it out and have someone listen, things usually calm down
quickly.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Miguel Cruz wrote:

David Horne wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Threats are another matter entirely.

You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because it's
hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately, without
_being_ directly threatened. Being called "a ****ing *******" in context
can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other contexts it can
seem very threatening.

I don't know that I'm really missing the point so much as making a different
one.

Sure, any number of things can seem threatening to someone who's prepared to
take them that way.

Well, I think you _are_ missing the point then, because your "seem"
suggests that the threat is purely in the imagination of the person
being abused, and I take issue with that. It all depends on the context
IMO.

I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing
people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal
with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff.

You're assuming, incorrectly, that staff are not trained to deal with
people who swear at them. They often are. Some better than others, no
doubt, but this still doesn't mean that you can't have some kind of
standard whereby staff can have a reasonable expection that they won't
be abused verbally. It's just a generally _good_ thing for the work
environment. I certainly don't swear at people or call them names when I
get frustrated, and lord knows, I'm stuck enough on trains and
frustrated by other things to give sufficient cause. I think it's
incredibly boorish behaviour, and I don't think you infringe someone's
freedom by saying they don't have an automatic right to verbally abuse
anyone they want.

And, if there was a clear understanding on the part of the customer that
they would get nowhere by abusing the staff, then a lot of them might
think twice before shooting off. It doesn't necessarily require
criminalisation.

Just having a sign in a place stating that verbal abuse won't be
tolerated can have an effect on everyone- in a positive way.

I have
worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any
number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little
patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down.

Just because it worked for you, in whatever kind of jobs they were,
doesn't mean it would work for everyone, and for other jobs. There's
certainly a place for patience in trying to resolve someone's problems,
and assuage their irritation, but by the same token some people are just
malevolent arseholes, and I've got zero problems with protecting the
workplace against their threatening, abusive language.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk