Luas security. Who vets these guys?

AskMyChocolate

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

i dont think drinking on public transport is good

mikemac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irishstabber wrote: »

Good lord get a grip please.

Could you expand your point?

Irishstabber

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

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

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

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

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Could you expand your point?

Expanded enough?

OPENROAD

emo72 wrote: »

i dont think drinking on public transport is good

Banned by Boris in London..good decision imo

Chuck Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.