world's worst tourists

le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:43:49 GMT, dans l'article , 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.

That's what annoys me ... :-)

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

Keith Willshaw writes:

Since use of reasonable force in self defense is allowed saying
"If you hit me I'll punch your head in" is not assault even though
you intend to cause the other party apprehension of danger.

Your intent is conditional on their own action. However, if you don't
give that condition, it's assault.

Additionally, if you say what you plan to do, it's premeditation. If
something happens and you're use of force is found to be excessive, that
premeditation will count dearly against you.

"If that guy bothers me again, I'll kill him" is an extremely dangerous
thing to say in front of witnesses. If you get in a fight and he dies,
you're a murderer.

Unless acompanied by overt physical acts or a recording of the
events its seems highly unlikely that a prosecution would
succeed in such a case.

Neither of these is necessary to obtain a conviction.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

David Horne writes:

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.

Swearing and verbal abuse are not assault, unless they include a threat
of violence or other harm.

You say that as if, by magic, some rock will fall on the perpetrators
head when they verbally abuse someone in such a way.

No, but they often will end up in jail, just the same.

Things don't work like that- intent is very hard to prove-
proving such cases wastes _lots_ of money.

How many times have you been acquitted of assault charges?

Far better is a policy which instructs the customer
(client, or whoever) not to verbally abuse workers.

Verbal abuse is not assault.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Keith Willshaw writes:

Unless acompanied by overt physical acts or a recording of the
events its seems highly unlikely that a prosecution would
succeed in such a case.

Neither of these is necessary to obtain a conviction.

What part of "highly unlikely" didn't you get? I'm sure you've got the
case studies just rolling of your tongue...

David

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

Desmond Coughlan writes:

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

Then you are extremely vulnerable to manipulation.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw writes:

Since use of reasonable force in self defense is allowed saying
"If you hit me I'll punch your head in" is not assault even though
you intend to cause the other party apprehension of danger.

Your intent is conditional on their own action. However, if you don't
give that condition, it's assault.

Additionally, if you say what you plan to do, it's premeditation. If
something happens and you're use of force is found to be excessive, that
premeditation will count dearly against you.

"If that guy bothers me again, I'll kill him" is an extremely dangerous
thing to say in front of witnesses. If you get in a fight and he dies,
you're a murderer.


This is simplistic at best, any defense lawyer can and will point
out that this is a common figure of speech and rarely carries
the literal meaning implied.

To prove murder under English law you have to establish that
the accused could have reasonably expected death would
result of his actions AND he was not using reasonable force
in self defense AND he had a real intent to kill.

Unless acompanied by overt physical acts or a recording of the
events its seems highly unlikely that a prosecution would
succeed in such a case.

Neither of these is necessary to obtain a conviction.


Absence of either of these is lack of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt and the prosecution would fail , indeed in England the
CPS wouldnt even bring such a case.

Prison cells are full of drunks on weekend nights who have
done just this, usually they are released next morning
without charge, at worst they get done for drunk and disorderly
or affray.

Keith

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
David Horne writes:

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.

Swearing and verbal abuse are not assault, unless they include a threat
of violence or other harm.

You say that as if, by magic, some rock will fall on the perpetrators
head when they verbally abuse someone in such a way.

No, but they often will end up in jail, just the same.

Things don't work like that- intent is very hard to prove-
proving such cases wastes _lots_ of money.

How many times have you been acquitted of assault charges?

Far better is a policy which instructs the customer
(client, or whoever) not to verbally abuse workers.

Verbal abuse is not assault.


In England and Wales it may however be classed as behaviour
likely to cause a breach of the peace which is an offence.

The definition of this offence is broad enough to encompass
verbal abuse

"any act of molesting or interrupting or hindering or disquieting or
agitating or arousing from a state of repose or otherwise depriving
inhabitants of the peace and quiet to which they are entitled "

Keith

David Horne wrote:

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.


Yep...


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.



The worst thing about being an employee on the receiving end of verbal use.
is when your company will *not* do anything about verbally abusive
customers. That's why I am not in "customer service" (the hotel bizness)
anymore :-)



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.


Well said. Some people are just natural bullies.


--
Best
Greg

Keith Willshaw writes:

This is simplistic at best, any defense lawyer can and will point
out that this is a common figure of speech and rarely carries
the literal meaning implied.

Any prosecutor will point out that he said it, and ten minutes later, he
did it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw writes:

This is simplistic at best, any defense lawyer can and will point
out that this is a common figure of speech and rarely carries
the literal meaning implied.

Any prosecutor will point out that he said it, and ten minutes later, he
did it.


So what, the use of the words mean nothing in it self, historically
succesful prosecutions for murder in brawls are rare and words
uttered in the heat of anger are a poor basis for an argument
of premeditation. Of course the law on this varies, in many US
states pre-meditation is not required, under English law it is.

Keith