Luas security. Who vets these guys?

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 12:30am #1

I would be particularly interested in hearing Makikomi's and other doorstaff/bouncers' opinions on this.

I was coming home on the Luas tonight and I got talking to a bunch of lads who were on their way in to CFJ's. They couldn't have been a nicer bunch of lads. Two from Tipperary, two from Kildare.

They were drinking a can but not bothering anyone. Next thing, these two black-clad thugs started treating them in the way that some knackers should be treated.

They grabbed their cans and threw them off the Luas. I said to them "There's no need for that". They looked at me, and I swear, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a middle-aged man, they'd have thrown me off too.

The standard of security in this state, and the quality of security guards is slipping badly. Whatever happened to the bouncers who had nothing to prove, didn't have a chip on their shoulder about being turned downed by the guards/army, and used to be capable of cuddling lads out of a pub before trying to start a fight?

Choco

emo72 · 27-09-2011 12:32am

i dont think drinking on public transport is good

mikemac · 27-09-2011 12:38am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Whatever happened to the bouncers who had nothing to prove, didn't have a chip on their shoulder about being turned downed by the guards/army, and used to be capable of cuddling lads out of a pub before trying to start a fight?

A very good chance those STT guys were ex-army from their own country

So they weren't turned down by anyone

Mammanabammana · 27-09-2011 12:40am

Translation; despite signs at every LUAS stop saying that drinking alcohol on the LUAS is not allowed, a few lads got on the LUAS, one drinking alcohol. The LUAS security did what they're paid to do by removing the lads from the tram. They didn't go "Ah sure you're alright lads, it's only the one, keep it down there now", they did the job in hand in a brisk and efficient manner. They're not paid to make judgement calls, they're paid to do their job.

Would that be a fair account of what happened, OP? Or were they unnecessarily violent, abusive, aggressive (physically or verbally) or anything else that merits calling them "black clad thugs"?

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 12:43am

emo72 wrote: »

i dont think drinking on public transport is good

Nobody does, but part of your job, if you're a professional, is knowing the difference between a family having a picnic with a bottle of wine, and a bunch of troublemakers with six cans of Dutch Gold each.

The professionalism comes into play when you can spot the difference between a couple of lads having some Dutch Gold and a couple of troublemakers drinking bottled Heineken.

Orion · 27-09-2011 12:48am

So by your own posts:

knackers = troublemakers
local lads with a can of beer are exempt from the rules as long as a) they're not knackers and b) are a nice bunch of lads
professionals enforcing the rules and basically doing what they're paid to do are thugs

Did I miss anything?

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 12:48am

mikemac wrote: »

A very good chance those STT guys were ex-army from their own country

So they weren't turned down by anyone

Agreed. A very good chance. But they're not in a totalitarian regime now, and they should learn not to treat everyone as either their inferiors or superiors IMHO.

Irishstabber · 27-09-2011 12:49am

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Translation; despite signs at every LUAS stop saying that drinking alcohol on the LUAS is not allowed, a few lads got on the LUAS, one drinking alcohol. The LUAS security did what they're paid to do by removing the lads from the tram. They didn't go "Ah sure you're alright lads, it's only the one, keep it down there now", they did the job in hand in a brisk and efficient manner. They're not paid to make judgement calls, they're paid to do their job.

Would that be a fair account of what happened, OP? Or were they unnecessarily violent, abusive, aggressive (physically or verbally) or anything else that merits calling them "black clad thugs"?

Good lord get a grip please.

starviewadams · 27-09-2011 12:52am

Vetted by the Gardai I'd imagine.

Lads were openly drinking alcohol on public transport,doesn't matter if they were nice lads,they had no excuse,craploads of signs all over the place warning against it.They won't do it again.

Orion · 27-09-2011 12:52am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

But they're not in a totalitarian regime now, and they should learn not to treat everyone as either their inferiors or superiors IMHO.

Absolutely. Why can't they be like our own local union transport workers and treat everyone as their inferiors and then refuse to do anything cos it's not my job sir. Sheer cheek of them to enforce the rules. Who do they think they are?

Mammanabammana · 27-09-2011 12:54am

Irishstabber wrote: »

Good lord get a grip please.

Could you expand your point?

Irishstabber · 27-09-2011 12:57am

Some people on here seem to have a nice silver spoon up their arse...The OP said they were decent lads who were treated like crap by two power tripping static guards.

You swear you never drank in public.

One of the main points you are told when you attend the training course for a security license is to avoid confrontation when possible. Now the way the OP decribes the lads they seem to be decent. The way he described the security was abrasive and aggressive without cause. No drinking a can on public transport does not constitute aggressive behavior from staff.

Grow up lads they security were heavy handed thats what the OP is saying its not about the legality of actually drinking on public transport.

minidazzler · 27-09-2011 12:57am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Agreed. A very good chance. But they're not in a totalitarian regime now, and they should learn not to treat everyone as either their inferiors or superiors IMHO.

Their job is to protect both the customer and the company. If they allow the "nice lads" to have a can on the Luas then you will find some scumbag who is drinking who will sue them for discrimination on some ****e basis when they kick him off.

It really is a situation where it has to be one rule for everyone. The lads should have drank away wherever they were staying and not taken any on the Luas, it's not that far to CFJ's unless you are coming from Tallaght or something.

They may have been and probably were dicks about it. It's not hard to be nice about it and most security I know will be very nice until someone is agressive with them.

gavmcg92 · 27-09-2011 12:57am

mikemac wrote: »

A very good chance those STT guys were ex-army from their own country

So they weren't turned down by anyone

I've heard something similar, two stories in fact. One is that they are ex-Russian military and the other was that they are ex-Russian Mafia.

I would be more inclined to believe the military idea.

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 12:58am

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Translation; despite signs at every LUAS stop saying that drinking alcohol on the LUAS is not allowed, a few lads got on the LUAS, one drinking alcohol. The LUAS security did what they're paid to do by removing the lads from the tram. They didn't go "Ah sure you're alright lads, it's only the one, keep it down there now", they did the job in hand in a brisk and efficient manner. They're not paid to make judgement calls, they're paid to do their job.

Would that be a fair account of what happened, OP? Or were they unnecessarily violent, abusive, aggressive (physically or verbally) or anything else that merits calling them "black clad thugs"?

Lost in translation, could have a bit to do with it. Btw, as a barman, I would always be on the side of the bouncers/security staff, it's just, that, all they had to do ,was to say "Keep them hidden lads, or put them back in your bags" and they didn't say it.

The point of the thread was that it would never have happened, never mind escalated, if it wasn't for the Luas staff.

The lads were bothering no-one and would have been off in two minutes with no-one worrying or in a lot of cases being any the wiser that they wre having a drink.

As me Dad used to say, "Get over heavy ground as light as you can"

Just my opinion

Choco

Irishstabber · 27-09-2011 1:00am

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Could you expand your point?

Expanded enough?

OPENROAD · 27-09-2011 1:01am

emo72 wrote: »

i dont think drinking on public transport is good

Banned by Boris in London..good decision imo

Chuck Stone · 27-09-2011 1:01am

I did a stint in security in a shopping centre.

I'm not a good actor so pretending I gave a shit when 12 year olds were stealing pens was quite difficult for me.

MyKeyG · 27-09-2011 1:01am

Saying that security are only doing their job is all well and good. My problem is that they appear selective on who exactly they challenge. Four young lads in smart club attire that they can handle they throw them off the tram. Four apparent trouble makers in hoodies on their way home from town guzzling cans and being boisterous then security decide to turn a blind eye and hop off at the next stop.

Degag · 27-09-2011 1:07am

I think both parties were probably wrong ( if things went exactly as stated) The youths shouldn't have been drinking on the luas. End of. But the security should have gone up to them and spoken to them. If they were getting out in a few minutes, there was no need to kick them off, just tell 'em to hide the cans and give them a firm warning not to do it again. In the case of a longer ride, fine, confiscate the cans but leave them ride to their stop if they're genuine lads. If they cause trouble, kick them off.

A bit of common sense goes a long way.

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 1:07am

Orion wrote: »

So by your own posts:
knackers = troublemakers

local lads with a can of beer are exempt from the rules as long as a) they're not knackers and b) are a nice bunch of lads

professionals enforcing the rules and basically doing what they're paid to do are thugs

Did I miss anything?

Y'missed loads chief. Btw, since when were Tipperary and Kildare lads local to the Luas? Go Metro North.:pac:

Mammanabammana · 27-09-2011 1:09am

Irishstabber wrote: »

Expanded enough?

I had actually started to reply properly to your earlier post but then when I saw this I decided I have no interest in dealing with that kind of arrogance. The OP took my points on board (as did others) and thanked my post; he then replied in a civil manner and I thanked his post. When you learn to address me in a civil manner, instead of using phrases like the above and telling people to "grow up", I'll reply properly to you too.

Logical Fallacy · 27-09-2011 1:25am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

The point of the thread was that it would never have happened, never mind escalated, if it wasn't for the Luas staff.

This is incorrect...it never would have happened if the lads had not been drinking on the Luas.

I was actually having this conversation earlier. I did door work and security (retail and industrial and some private and personal) for about a decade and the number one rule is...don't be a ****ing moron. As a bouncer i like a quite life...so don't put me in a position where you are openly flouting the laws i have to enforce.

To do so just lets me know you think you are different to everyone else and also lets me know you think i am a mug. Do whatever the **** you like when i can't see you as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

The lads were obviously drinking the cans in plain view...the Luas has camera's and if the tapes are reviewed for any reason and the security guards are seen not doing what they should be doing then it's them in trouble.

It's pretty simple really...I have no time for this "sure they weren't bothering anyone" angle. They were in direct contravention of posted rules.

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 1:30am

minidazzler wrote: »

Their job is to protect both the customer and the company. If they allow the "nice lads" to have a can on the Luas then you will find some scumbag who is drinking who will sue them for discrimination on some ****e basis when they kick him off.

It really is a situation where it has to be one rule for everyone. The lads should have drank away wherever they were staying and not taken any on the Luas, it's not that far to CFJ's unless you are coming from Tallaght or something.

They may have been and probably were dicks about it. It's not hard to be nice about it and most security I know will be very nice until someone is agressive with them.

This is the point. The lads were self-enclosed in a four man seat on the Luas, not bothering anyone, and the staff decided to "enforce the rules".

Utterly pointless IMO. Nobody was complaining, and they were getting off two stops later. I was chatting to them. Utterly harmless. I was getting off in Ranelagh and I was saying to them that Harcourt St. would prob be better than Stephen's Green for them when all this **** startred happening.

Three muscle-bound blokes to diffuse what a 9 stone barman wouldn't have let escalate in the first place IMO.

As I said, lack of professionalism IMO.

Jesus Wept · 27-09-2011 1:30am

If it makes you feel better, there was a guy at the back of the bus drinking a bottle of beer at 11pm on Saturday night. Driver obviously didn't tell him to stop.
Beer had been spilled all down the floor of the bus in a little river too.

Lovely.

Victor · 27-09-2011 1:32am

I can't comment on that particular incident.

I was using Luas the other day and a woman was hit on the head by a (nearly empty) Heineken can.

However, the general environment on Luas has improved a lot over the last year. I'm not saying things are perfect, but drinking, smoking, loutish behaviour and generaly carry on isn't acceptable and is an imposition that other passengers could do without.

Degag · 27-09-2011 1:34am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

This is the point. The lads were self-enclosed in a four man seat on the Luas, not bothering anyone, and the staff decided to "enforce the rules".

Utterly pointless IMO. Nobody was complaining, and they were getting off two stops later. I was chatting to them. Utterly harmless. I was getting off in Ranelagh and I was saying to them that Harcourt St. would prob be better than Stephen's Green for them when all this **** startred happening.

Three muscle-bound blokes to diffuse what a 9 stone barman wouldn't have let escalate in the first place IMO.

As I said, lack of professionalism IMO.

If there are cameras on the luas like Logical Fallacy said, i fully support the security staff. They were doing their job.

matrim · 27-09-2011 1:40am

Personally I'd say that the security may have been better to just take any open cans and warn them not to open another, however without the full details I can't say if they were right to kick them off.

Maybe these same 4 guys had been warned the week before not to drink and did it again, so the security decided to kick them off this time?

Logical Fallacy · 27-09-2011 1:41am

matrim wrote: »

Personally I'd say that the security may have been better to just take any open cans and warn them not to open another, however without the full details I can't say if they were right to kick them off.

Nah, the second you turn around at least one of them has another can open. That is pretty much a certainty.

This way the lads spend a few minutes at the Luas stop feeling like ****ing spanners and on the next one they behave.

Like smacking a bold dog on the nose, lesson learned.

MyKeyG · 27-09-2011 1:45am

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

This is incorrect...it never would have happened if the lads had not been drinking on the Luas...The lads were obviously drinking the cans in plain view...the Luas has camera's and if the tapes are reviewed for any reason and the security guards are seen not doing what they should be doing then it's them in trouble.

Nobody is saying the security guys shouldn't have acted so your point is moot. It's the manner in which they acted is the issue here. Minor transgression is no call to violence. Should they have been drinking? No. Do they deserve illegal assault? Absolutely not!

I once had a Luas inspector grab me by the arm and pull me back because he thought I was trying to do a bunk by getting off while he was getting on. It just happened to be my stop and I did have a ticket. Some if not most of these guys are nothing more than ignorant poorly trained gorillas on a power trip.

minidazzler · 27-09-2011 1:46am

matrim wrote: »

Personally I'd say that the security may have been better to just take any open cans and warn them not to open another, however without the full details I can't say if they were right to kick them off.

Maybe these same 4 guys had been warned the week before not to drink and did it again, so the security decided to kick them off this time?

Chances of them being remembered are nil. If the company has a zero tolerance policy on drinking then the security were right, and I would imagine the company do, though still the security should have been more polite about it.

Logical Fallacy · 27-09-2011 1:47am

MyKeyG wrote: »

Nobody is saying the security guys shouldn't have acted so your point is moot. It's the manner in which they acted is the issue here. Minor transgression is no call to violence. Should they have been drinking? No. Do they deserve illegal assault? Absolutely not!

I once had a Luas inspector grab me by the arm and pull me back because he thought I was trying to do a bunk by getting off while he was getting on. It just happened to be my stop and I did have a ticket. Some if not most of these guys are nothing more than ignorant poorly trained gorillas on a power trip.

lol, where the hell does the OP say anything about "illegal assault"?

MyKeyG · 27-09-2011 1:54am

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, where the hell does the OP say anything about "illegal assault"?

Ok that was incorrect since I don't know the manner in which the lads were kicked off but we're still talking about aggressive intimidating behaviour so my point still stands as to the manner in which they dealt with the incident rather than that they dealt with it at all. And they are still a bunch of aggressive gorillas.

Sinfonia · 27-09-2011 1:58am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

They grabbed their cans and threw them off the Luas.

Before this all goes any further, could AMC please describe what literally happened, because to say that they were 'thrown' off the Luas is obviously using the term figuratively (I hope!), and as a result many posters are inventing the circumstances to suit their own arguments.

Logical Fallacy · 27-09-2011 2:01am

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ok that was incorrect but we're still talking about aggressive intimidating behaviour so my point still stands as to the manner in which they dealt with the incident rather than that they dealt with it at all. And they are still a bunch of aggressive gorillas.

Once again, where is the aggressive and intimidating behaviour described?

OP says they took the cans and threw them off the Luas. He says they gave him "a look".

When i was a bouncer i reckon 99% of people who walked past me on any given night were feeling somewhat intimidated, i reckon if i looked at them with anything other than a smile they felt directly intimidated. Its a body language thing.

No disrespect to the OP...but if i have been working all day and i have to deal with this kind of trivial **** because some lads lack the brains to do what a simple sign says and i have to chuck them off and I'm probably sick of the situation the second it's over, i don't need some random dude deciding that what he saw was not game ball...so i'm gonna give a tired and exasperated look that basically says "ah pal, sit down and shut up"...mainly because i'm human.

Here is the thing about security and the doing thereof, in any circumstances anywhere on the planet...the second you have to actually do your job, especially for the small stuff like this that still needs doing...you cannot win in the eyes of the public. The second you get involved you are a power tripping monkey with no intelligence...as opposed to being exactly what the person who is judging you is...just a guy who has to do his job.

If OP wants to give more details then i'll revise my opinion of the situation...but for now i am going with what i know to be true most of the time and that is that he felt intimidated rather than he actually was intimidated.

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 2:02am

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

This is incorrect...it never would have happened if the lads had not been drinking on the Luas.

I was actually having this conversation earlier. I did door work and security (retail and industrial and some private and personal) for about a decade and the number one rule is...don't be a ****ing moron. As a bouncer i like a quite life...so don't put me in a position where you are openly flouting the laws i have to enforce.

To do so just lets me know you think you are different to everyone else and also lets me know you think i am a mug. Do whatever the **** you like when i can't see you as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

The lads were obviously drinking the cans in plain view...the Luas has camera's and if the tapes are reviewed for any reason and the security guards are seen not doing what they should be doing then it's them in trouble.

It's pretty simple really...I have no time for this "sure they weren't bothering anyone" angle. They were in direct contravention of posted rules.

Excellent post there chief, and the sort of post I was hoping to get in response when I posted my OP.

There was an excellent reply earlier, about how things can get lost in translation. The line, officially is the line, and I understand that. As a barman, though, the drinking-up time is very different in Brixton, than it is in Dublin, than it is in Thurles.

This is the job of a professional IMO. He guages the line. The licensing hours are the same, but it is up to the professional to know who's taking the piss and who isn't,given where he is working, IMO.

11 O'clock may be closing time. But, asking for a drink, at 11.15 in Brixton is taking the piss, whereas asking for a drink at 11.15 in Thurles, is getting one in, before they "really" stop serving.

You know this.

Choco

Logical Fallacy · 27-09-2011 2:08am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Excellent post there chief, and the sort of post I was hoping to get in response when I posted my OP.

There was an excellent reply earlier, about how things can get lost in translation. The line, officially is the line, and I understand that. As a barman, though, the drinking-up time is very different in Brixton, than it is in Dublin, than it is in Thurles.

This is the job of a professional IMO. He guages the line. The licensing hours are the same, but it is up to the professional to know who's taking the piss and who isn't,given where he is working, IMO.

11 O'clock may be closing time. But, asking for a drink, at 11.15 in Brixton is taking the piss, whereas asking for a drink at 11.15 in Thurles, is getting one in, before they "really" stop serving.

You know this.

Choco

Agreed, but also each pub (as an example) will have rules that all the staff know if they witness them being broken they should instantly act upon them. In some places, depending on the owners own personal preference they can seem small or innocuous but they feel they are important.

It's really all down to what line Veolia themselves take. If it's zero tolerance for breach of that rule then the lads hands are tied...they can't really show discretion because they second they do it's balls on the chopping block.

CoolHat · 27-09-2011 2:26am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I would be particularly interested in hearing Makikomi's and other doorstaff/bouncers' opinions on this.

I was coming home on the Luas tonight and I got talking to a bunch of lads who were on their way in to CFJ's. They couldn't have been a nicer bunch of lads. Two from Tipperary, two from Kildare.

They were drinking a can but not bothering anyone. Next thing, these two black-clad thugs started treating them in the way that some knackers should be treated.

They grabbed their cans and threw them off the Luas. I said to them "There's no need for that". They looked at me, and I swear, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a middle-aged man, they'd have thrown me off too.

You said yourself. The lads were alright. It would be a different story if they were skangers that are likely to pose a 'problem' to them :rolleyes:. Said luas security would handle things differently in that case.

Thats the way security works. From Shops to the Luas. If you look or act in anyway 'soft' , they will come down on you with authority. ... BUT If you look, or act anyway hard its a different story. Suddenly said security had the diplomatic approach at first.

Sinfonia · 27-09-2011 2:29am

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's really all down to what line Veolia themselves take. If it's zero tolerance for breach of that rule then the lads hands are tied...they can't really show discretion because they second they do it's balls on the chopping block.

Also, despite the fact that the OP considered the guys to be nice, another passenger may feel intimidated by the fact that someone is drinking alcohol on the Luas. It happens, and it's pretty unfair to that hypothetical person given the rules are clearly against drinking on the tram.

minidazzler · 27-09-2011 2:29am

CoolHat wrote: »

You said yourself. The lads were alright. It would be a different story if they were skangers that are likely to pose a 'problem' to them :rolleyes:. Said luas security would handle things differently in that case :rolleyes:

Thats the way security works. From Shops to the Luas. If you look or act in anyway 'soft' , they will come down on you with authority. ... BUT If you look, or act anyway hard its a different story. Suddenly said security is diplomatic.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

MOST security people will be very amiable and nice if you are nice. Some will be pricks regardless. But MOST, as in the vast majority, are really nice guys.

RichieC · 27-09-2011 2:30am

I think it is bad policy to allow bouncers to wear all black. It gives them a psychological power trip that I think is detrimental to the service they are providing.

Large reflective yellow jackets should be the order of the day. Also hand held walkie talkies.

Sinfonia · 27-09-2011 2:31am

RichieC wrote: »

I think it is bad policy to allow bouncers to wear all black. It gives them a psychological power trip that I think is detrimental to the service they are providing.

Large reflective yellow jackets should be the order of the day. Also hand held walkie talkies.

A nice sky blue may provide a calming effect

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 2:32am

MyKeyG wrote: »

Saying that security are only doing their job is all well and good. My problem is that they appear selective on who exactly they challenge. Four young lads in smart club attire that they can handle they throw them off the tram. Four apparent trouble makers in hoodies on their way home from town guzzling cans and being boisterous then security decide to turn a blind eye and hop off at the next stop.

If it wasn't for your socio-economic stereotyping I would agree with your post. I've seen them back off against an ugly smartly clad bunch aswell.

RichieC · 27-09-2011 2:36am

Sinfonia wrote: »

A nice sky blue may provide a calming effect

Aye, they use the same debuffs on the trainee garda... it works too

CoolHat · 27-09-2011 2:37am

minidazzler wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

MOST security people will be very amiable and nice if you are nice. Some will be pricks regardless. But MOST, as in the vast majority, are really nice guys.

wrong?
no. you're wrong.
People pick and choose their battles right? in every day life. People are more confrontational with a person who they deem as soft touch than someone who can handle himself right? (proven time and time again) ... you surely agree to this right?

Try doing that for a living. When its your job to confront people. All different sorts of people. You quickly learn to read who has nothing behind them and someone who does (the art of reading) .... And if its your job you will come on stronger with people who you deem "soft" than people who appear to "back themselves up"

Chucky the tree · 27-09-2011 2:37am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Excellent post there chief, and the sort of post I was hoping to get in response when I posted my OP.

There was an excellent reply earlier, about how things can get lost in translation. The line, officially is the line, and I understand that. As a barman, though, the drinking-up time is very different in Brixton, than it is in Dublin, than it is in Thurles.

This is the job of a professional IMO. He guages the line. The licensing hours are the same, but it is up to the professional to know who's taking the piss and who isn't,given where he is working, IMO.

11 O'clock may be closing time. But, asking for a drink, at 11.15 in Brixton is taking the piss, whereas asking for a drink at 11.15 in Thurles, is getting one in, before they "really" stop serving.

You know this.

Choco

So if your manager in the bar in Thurles tells you not to sereve anyone after 11 O'Clock no matter what, you ignore his wishes and sereve them?

RichieC · 27-09-2011 2:41am

CoolHat wrote: »

Try doing that for a living. When its your job to confront people. All different sorts of people. You quickly learn to read who has nothing behind them and someone who does (the art of reading) .... And if its your job you will come on stronger with people who you deem "soft" than people who appear to "back themselves up"

That's honestly not been my experience, the instant bouncers sense a real threat they're on it like a swarm of black stocky wasps. Weaker types who couldn't kick snow off a rope usually just get laughed away if it gets beyond "Sorry, no entry."

AskMyChocolate · 27-09-2011 2:42am

Degag wrote: »

I think both parties were probably wrong ( if things went exactly as stated) The youths shouldn't have been drinking on the luas. End of. But the security should have gone up to them and spoken to them. If they were getting out in a few minutes, there was no need to kick them off, just tell 'em to hide the cans and give them a firm warning not to do it again. In the case of a longer ride, fine, confiscate the cans but leave them ride to their stop if they're genuine lads. If they cause trouble, kick them off.

A bit of common sense goes a long way.

I think this goes to the heart of the matter, and I think a zero tolerance (well nearly, zero tolerance) attitude is what's needed.

"If I find ye bothering people lads, out ye go."

But, of course, that would stop the sing-songs too.:pac:

It's never black and white....

......except for Mrs.Hicks' pudding.

See y'all for breakfast for the Italy game.

Go on lads.:)

Choco

leggo · 27-09-2011 4:22am

CoolHat wrote: »

Try doing that for a living. When its your job to confront people. All different sorts of people. You quickly learn to read who has nothing behind them and someone who does (the art of reading) .... And if its your job you will come on stronger with people who you deem "soft" than people who appear to "back themselves up"

I'm guessing that you haven't done it for a living, then.

The opposite is actually true. If someone is acting in an intimidating manner, you have to come down on them harder or else...guess what...they'll know they are intimidating you and will walk all over you.

If you tried doing it for a living, yourself, then you'd know you welcome soft touches that you don't have to use a firm hand with. Because you've spent all day dealing with the former and just want a bit of peace.

You also have to weigh up your options and take your personal safety into account, of course, so softly-softly is always Plan A for a good security guard.

But the description you've outlined with your previous two posts shows exactly that you don't have a clue what mentality security have on a day-to-day basis.

MrMatisse · 27-09-2011 6:24am

MyKeyG wrote: »

Saying that security are only doing their job is all well and good. My problem is that they appear selective on who exactly they challenge. Four young lads in smart club attire that they can handle they throw them off the tram. Four apparent trouble makers in hoodies on their way home from town guzzling cans and being boisterous then security decide to turn a blind eye and hop off at the next stop.

They were boggers going to coppers, wouldnt say they were dressed all that well:p

up for anything · 27-09-2011 6:55am

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

used to be capable of cuddling lads out of a pub before trying to start a fight?

Maybe if lads kept a grip on themselves and didn't drink themselves insensible and uncapable they would need to be asked to leave let alone cuddled out of a pub. I'm fed up of the excuses we seem to continually make in this country for assholes, of both sexes, who can't exert a bit of self-control over their consumption of alcohol. "Ah sure it's Christmas/Easter/wedding/21st/funeral/Friday/Saturday/Monday." The list is endless. :rolleyes:

Luas security. Who vets these guys?

Comments