If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
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. |
#452
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
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 |
#453
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
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. |
#454
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
"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 |
#455
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
"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 |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
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 |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
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. |
#458
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
"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 |
#459
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Mxsmanic wrote:
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. And threats of violence can be implied, without being explicit. End. Of. Story. David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#460
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Gregory Morrow wrote:
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. I've never understood the "customer is always right" thing, as a matter of company policy. I have no problem with "the customer is sometimes wrong, but still deserving of respect" attitude though- and that courtesy ought to be extended to the employee as well IMO! David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USA Continues to Abuse Innocent UK Tourists | S.Byers | Air travel | 77 | July 10th, 2004 10:48 PM |
Tourists who end up dead in Thailand | scuffler | Asia | 3 | March 20th, 2004 08:02 AM |
BHARAT HAS THE WORLD'S MOST LUXURIOUS TRAIN | Dr. Jai Maharaj | Asia | 3 | January 19th, 2004 10:47 PM |
Thai Navy rescues tourists | Alfred Molon | Asia | 8 | October 26th, 2003 06:39 PM |
world's worst tourists | Blackden | Asia | 480 | October 20th, 2003 11:03 AM |