On Saturday on my way back from Edinburgh something happened. It has been reported in the press, and I don’t wish to go into my own experiences of it here, largely because I think they would be unhelpful, such is the way when a large body of people witness something.
This morning I received a letter from Virgin trains. During the event I felt that the company and the members of the staff performed brilliantly. Just before the incident happened, whilst dealing with a passenger without a ticket, I had heard a guard say how hard his day had been so far, and I was thinking how well he was representing the company in dealing with her.
However the letter today has increasingly concerned me. To start with, I was a little surprised that the company felt it should offer me compensation at all. Had the two hour delay been caused by some error on their part, I naturally would have taken them up on their absurdly generous offer of refunding my outward and return journeys, but this obviously was outside of their hands. What really troubles me, however, is the following paragraph in the letter:
I would like to reassure you that this type of serious crime is extremely rare on our trains. However, in an increasingly violent society the potential for this type of incident is, unfortunately, always present.
They have moved me from wanting to write a letter of thanks for their handling of the situation, to one of complaint. Increasingly violent, indeed. Perhaps then I should take to living on their trains where such things are 'extremely rare’.
Sorry, I don't understand your objection to "increasingly violent".
Posted by: dearieme | May 31, 2006 at 05:42 PM
My objection firstly is that a letter of customer service is hardly the place for a political comment. Secondly, I don't believe there's any real proof that 'society' is becoming 'increasingly violent', if such things could even be proved.
Posted by: JRWB | May 31, 2006 at 06:00 PM
I agree that it's an alarming, stupid thing for them to say. My guess is that it's been written by a legal person. Hence the bizarre shift from reassurance to apportioning blame to something large/external/un-sue-able. This also fits with offering compensation.
Posted by: TIS | May 31, 2006 at 07:46 PM
i think this refund policy is a dangerous one. It will only encourage more people to incite violent crime in order to get their money back.
Posted by: tc | June 01, 2006 at 09:17 AM
"Secondly, I don't believe there's any real proof that 'society' is becoming 'increasingly violent'." Quite right. It's the members of society who are becoming increasingly violent.
Posted by: dearieme | June 01, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Are they?
Posted by: JRWB | June 01, 2006 at 12:12 PM
I agree with James - I don't see any evidence that "society is becoming more violent", and believe it's a classic information cascade.
Here's John Stossel for a related example
Posted by: AJE | June 01, 2006 at 01:27 PM
It's always pleasantly surprised me that, in nearly five years of living in Liverpool and Manchester, I have never been party to, witnessed, or been the victim of any violent act or crime. However I do feel that society is becoming increasingly VIOLET; which is a symptom of poor diet, too little excercise and the combined stresses of work and family life.
Posted by: tc | June 01, 2006 at 03:17 PM
cheers Thomas, you get mugged every time you walk into H&M
(mwah ha ha...)
Posted by: AJE | June 01, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Thomas, are you bored?
Posted by: JRWB | June 01, 2006 at 03:53 PM
Pretty. It's half term you see. I've no one to entertain me. I'm so bored I even read Tim Worstall's blog. Pendant.
Posted by: tc | June 01, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Pendant?
Posted by: JRWB | June 01, 2006 at 05:00 PM
Yeah, pendant. That's what he meant, okay? You pedant. What a trying shame.
Posted by: Matthew Whitfield | June 01, 2006 at 05:05 PM
Polly Toynbee called him a 'Pendant', which of course he loved. She claims it was a typo, but I wondered about a freudian slip of the finger? Perhaps she was thinking about hanging him, or piercing? Could the pendant be a phallic symbol - a hanging jewell? Perhaps she was trying to say that he's a cock.
Posted by: TC | June 01, 2006 at 05:06 PM
I was going to text you, but this is quicker - I think it's my favourite episode of the Simpsons ever on tonight at 6pm. Oh, and Julian Clarey's on Paul O'Grady (no pun intended) which Matthew's excited about.
Posted by: JRWB | June 01, 2006 at 05:09 PM
This has basically become one of the message boards that 'young people' use to chat to their friends hasn't it. Sorry Anthony. And sorry Tim Worstall for suggesting your blog is boring; it's not, I was being characteristically facetious. Is the Simpsons on BBC2? I'll try and watch it. Does anyone else really really want Sezer to get voted off Big Brother?
I know I do.
Posted by: TC | June 01, 2006 at 05:19 PM
YEAH M8 SEZA 2 GO! MAKOSI 2 WIN!!!1 LOL ROFL!!!!!1
It's on Channel 4, at 6.
Posted by: JRWB | June 01, 2006 at 05:21 PM
Thank you. It was excellent and I'm not sure that I'd seen it before. I particularly enjoyed the tall man in the small car at the end - "Do you find something amusing about my appearence?...that's the largest automobile that I could afford to buy" I found his formality of speech most amusing.
Posted by: TC | June 01, 2006 at 08:48 PM
That'll be the "22 short films about Springfield" episode then? My favourite part is the "Skinner and the Superintendent" bit...
"Seymour, the kitchen's on fire"
"No Mother, it's just the Northern Lights".
Tim Worstall's blog certainly isn't boring, but I admit I require a degree of boredom before I bother to read it, mainly because he is so unnecessarily prolific.
Posted by: Quinn | June 02, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Oxenholme.. Huh, really? :)
Posted by: thefilter.blogs.com | May 13, 2011 at 03:48 AM