Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

First : << [11 12 13 14]

< Previous Page  

Page 12 of 14

Next Page >  

(533409)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Dec 14 12:02:35 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:50:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Nicely put.

Post a New Response

(533415)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:06:05 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:49:01 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
None of what you said justifies/excuses enforcing a "rule" via direct confrontation that you have not been told in training is either an actual rule or is something you should enforce via direct confrontation. The fact that the training didn't say NOT to do it is NOT an invitation/justification TO do it. That's the bottom line.

But that said, I do agree that the training probably could be improved. But I get the idea that DHS and the MTA know very well what they are doing, and are purposely conducting the training as such in order to get the employees respond to what they call "suspicious activity" more often than not, thus being overly diligent instead of overly complacent. Same with the public. This of course leads to all the problems that have been noted over the last few years. It could be argued at least semi-well by both sides that are for or against this over-saturation of "see something, say something" stuff (in terms of both employees and the public). But one can say for sure that the public is being deceived over what is being done - that some of this anti-terrorism stuff is just for show and is not actually effective.

Post a New Response

(533418)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:09:33 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:50:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
But who talks like THAT?!

Anyone who wants to be honest about this situation.

"The events, as only presented by Eichmann, show that the Hebrews were in the wrong. If any new evidence is brought, especially by the allegedly deceased, that could possibly change."

Not applicable. In Nilet's case he is the only one who has presented evidence, though we are open to hearing all other evidence.

Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(533419)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 12:11:55 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:09:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You're entitled to speak in a way I deem curious, so OK.

We'll all stay tuned to see what, if anything, ever happens.

Post a New Response

(533422)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:12:27 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:50:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
But you do remind me that I should add more:

Which is why all we can do at this time is say that "The events, as only presented by one side, show that the T/O was in the wrong, and that the customer wasn't. If any new evidence is brought, that could possibly change. And of course this finding is not fact, and nothing can or should be done about it, unless all parties involved are heard and considered."


Post a New Response

(533423)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:13:53 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:53:48 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Obviously. But as my previous post stated, all we have is his word, and by his word he was complying. That doesn't mean he actually was, but we also can't say that he wasn't.

Post a New Response

(533425)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 12:17:56 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:06:05 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You still don't understand civil service. If you get a bulletin and it says "report suspicious activities" AND they illustrate some examples of what they mean, then you put your head down, wear your jockstrap and EXPECT to be "efficiency tested" by a beakie on what you were just instructed to do. You don't argue, you DON'T interpret, and you DO NOT assess ... you *DO* what you were TOLD to, nothing else. If something presents itself which was NOT in the tape, you CALL IT IN.

If you were taught that something is TERRORISM, then you are govened accordingly as to your instructions. Hourlies are not PERMITTED to "think" ... they're REQUIRED under LAW to DO WHAT THEY'RE TOLD! What part of this don't you get?

If there's argument about it, that's what SUPERVISION is there for.

The behavior in question isn't about logic, isn't about authority, isn't about policy, isn't about ANYTHING other than "Simon says" and if in DOUBT, ask Simon if they SAID. This is the absolutely LAST time I'm going to say this ... in CIVIL SERVICE, brains are ISSUED. If you were NOT issued one by your agency, brain is someone ELSE'S job and WOE be to ye if you act "out of title." :(

If this occurred, and all we've heard is TRUE, then there's a problem in the TRAINING. That's all I've ever said and I still maintain that. No personal offense, but all this yammering isn't on the head of the motorperson - they did what they were TOLD to do ... someone needs to confront MANAGEMENT about it if anyone came away from S.H.I.T. with a misimpression of the directives ...

T/O's job is to run the train unless governed otherwise. Obviously, TRAINING altered that course. :(

Post a New Response

(533429)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:23:07 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:56:53 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
My understanding is that the photography rules were changed on or about June 2005

What is your understanding about the current rule on photography? Do you know how 1050.9c was written before June 2005? Can you compare to how it is written today?

I can help you - there were NO CHANGES - photography was allowed before June 2005 and it is STILL ALLOWED today as per the official rules. The rule did not change in any way - not even one word of it!

Post a New Response

(533431)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:24:06 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:54:38 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I'm privy to details you may not be, but based on what I've been told by seven friends of mine who have seen this thread, 1059c is *NOT* mentioned.

Um ... I never said it WAS mentioned. And in other posts I have said that it wasn't mentioned.

I won't go into the other details of what IS in the training video, but photography *IS* a part of it, I'll just say that it relates to "photographing INFRASTRUCTURE and PROCEDURES (such as operating)"

Yes, as I have said. I have not said anything contrary to this...

and as far as I'm concerned, based upon rather VAGUE directions in the video, this particular T/O might have misinterpreted the training

That's where we differ. I have not heard the video could be misinterpreted to mean that you should directly confront the suspicious person and tell them about a rule that doesn't exist. Sorry. You'll need to explain more what you mean in order for me to believe this. Feel free to email me.

but the AUTHORITY will stand behind her decision to do what she did.

I HIGHLY doubt that anyone in an official capacity to make such a statement to the public would claim that it is ok to directly confront a passenger about a non-existent rule and also essentially call him a terrorist within earshot.

And I can *confirm* that she's STILL pounding the rails after all that's been seen here (and NOTED by her supervisors) ...

First of all I don't see how anyone could possibly know which T/O this was (unless she has a history of this improper behavior), since I don't think he posted any identifiable info (though if he did and I missed it, I apologize). And even if they do know which T/O it is, OF COURSE SHE IS STILL WORKING!!!! Why wouldn't she be? No one has filed a complaint! And AFAIK, no supervisor witnessed what she did! And AFAIK, no one has officially brought any evidence against her!

Post a New Response

(533434)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:27:33 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 11:56:53 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Your understanding seems to be wrong, as AFAIK, 1050.9(c) could not have changed if no change was made.

Post a New Response

(533435)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:28:22 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:56:20 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Incorrect, the discussion in this subthread IS about 1050.9(c).

Post a New Response

(533436)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:29:33 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:56:48 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thanks. That's nice. But if you have a position and you can't defend it...

Post a New Response

(533441)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:33:05 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 12:11:55 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
"Curious" (that's your opinion, fine), but not untruthful, correct?

Post a New Response

(533442)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:33:22 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 11:54:38 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
but the AUTHORITY will stand behind her decision to do what she did. And I can *confirm* that she's STILL pounding the rails after all that's been seen here (and NOTED by her supervisors) ...

Of course she is still working and her superiors probably gave her a "pat on the back". The MTA is fully aware of how its employees are treating photographers and while adopting an "official" line that photography is legal it has given tacit approval to its employees to enforce an "unofficial" ban. If it was serious about allowing photography then a clear memo would be sent to all employees considering the controversy this is causing amongst a large number of photographers. I am talking about photojournalists and other photographers as well - not just railfans - the photo sites like Flickr are full of rants by photographers who are pissed at being stopped on the subway. Some are starting to organize and this issue will not go away as long as the MTA refuses to take a clear stand.

Post a New Response

(533446)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 12:40:31 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:23:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Just as devil's advocate since I appreciate you and your work ... it would SEEM as though the wrench in the wrong socket here is REinstruction on this by DHS or other authority. As I've indicated, haven't SEEN the "army training film" myself, but have gotten play by play as to what's in it in email from friends. And yeah, DHS has a SUPREME hardon for "photogs" and in fact, requires that THEY be photographed and submit to a "government sniff" either willingly, or quietly. There's a REASON why cops MUST see (and WRITE DOWN) "ID" ... and YES, it DOES result in a file in DC. :(

Arguing one's rights does nothing as far as "procedures" go. It is FEDERAL policy that photography of "infrastructure" *MAKES* you a "person of interest" until PROVEN otherwise. :(

Post a New Response

(533447)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:41:21 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 12:17:56 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You still don't understand civil service. If you get a bulletin and it says "report suspicious activities" AND they illustrate some examples of what they mean, then you put your head down, wear your jockstrap and EXPECT to be "efficiency tested" by a beakie on what you were just instructed to do. You don't argue, you DON'T interpret, and you DO NOT assess ... you *DO* what you were TOLD to, nothing else. If something presents itself which was NOT in the tape, you CALL IT IN.

If you were taught that something is TERRORISM, then you are govened accordingly as to your instructions. Hourlies are not PERMITTED to "think" ... they're REQUIRED under LAW to DO WHAT THEY'RE TOLD! What part of this don't you get?


I have never said anything to the contrary, so I don't know why you keep repeating this idea.

If this occurred, and all we've heard is TRUE, then there's a problem in the TRAINING.

Sorry, I just don't believe the T/O could have been told, as part of the training, to directly confront a 'suspicious' person in order to enforce a non-existent rule about photography. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I will consider it, as always.

isn't about ANYTHING other than "Simon says" and if in DOUBT, ask Simon if they SAID.

And like you said, if she misinterpreted/doubted the training and didn't ask for clarification, then it is still her fault!

Post a New Response

(533452)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:55:19 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 12:40:31 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d


There's a REASON why cops MUST see (and WRITE DOWN) "ID"...It is FEDERAL policy that photography of "infrastructure" *MAKES* you a "person of interest" until PROVEN otherwise.

You of course can not prove this to us, so I will likewise refuse to believe it. Everything I have heard states that while DHS has issued guidelines about suspicious activity, there is no RULE as you have stated. If there was, then I don't see how NYCT could legally have a rule on the books [1050.9(c)] that SPECIFICALLY PERMITS PHOTOGRAPHY without the listing of any conditions such as "you must show ID to the police when requested."

This is further backed up by the point that if you are stopped for questioning by a police officer, all you have to provide is your name. And without proff of any wrongdoing or the imminent doing of any wrongdoing, you the police officer can not continue to hold you or arrest you just because you won't show ID. (Of course that doesn't mean the police won't do it anyway. But then you have a case of misconduct.) But getting back on topic, that's why I don't believe you when you say police HAVE TO SEE AND WRITE DOWN ID, as per some DHS regulation. Maybe you have a misunderstanding. And if any police officers here think my understandably oversimplified narrative is incorrect, by all means chime in. I am very interested in this issue and only want to learn more.

Post a New Response

(533454)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:56:48 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 12:40:31 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Thank You!!

I agree with you more than you think - DHS started the problem - reminds me of the instigator that stirs up trouble and then disappears to the sidelines when the crap hits the fan....

They have riled up all of the law enforcement and transit agencies against photographers but they are nowhere in sight when individual agencies are sued by the various ACLU chapters...

IMO the way to fight this is one agency at a time - make it more expensive to enforce the DHS directives than any benefit gained. Photographers should file complaints over every encounter no matter how minor then sue them into submission - The ducks will fall one at a time...



Post a New Response

(533456)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:02:12 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:24:06 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No need to email you - MY "guess" is that the T/O didn't want to piss of the geese by doing what they were told to do in the event a photog failed to "cease and desist" ... namely taking the train out of service, inconveniencing the customers and having to spend hellweek amongst the beakies. She apparently contacted command, didn't GET a response, felt endangered based upon her training, got NO support as expected and was left alone to deal with something that she never expected to be left to deal with alone. You're married, right?

My wife is a stronger old bird than I am and often takes charge herself without MY need to get involved in it. In fact, it's FUN to let her rip someone a new sphincter. Heh. She ENJOYS doing that so I stand aside. Some wimmen aren't so bold. I won't go into the personalities, don't KNOW the person. But if she had the "history" you claim, then she would have been taken down long ago for something else. No, the way *I* take it, given civil service and the antigravity rules of conduct as an employee, she obviously didn't know about 1059c, and it's not her job to care in all sincerity. HER job as she reacted was "suspicious activity" even if poorly defined. She GOT on the radio, requested assistance, was left to twist in the wind doing what she was TOLD to do, knew what she was TOLD to do in such an event and flipped out PERHAPS.

We can discuss this at greater length once you've BEEN a government employee, subject to the silliness of "silly service" ... had ANYTHING gone wrong, SHE would have been hung out to dry. I once again INSIST that the training was defective or she would have KNOWN better, and the fact that her supervision FAILED to back her up points to the ACTUAL problem here ... no other answer (as far as hourlies are concerned) is valid.

HOPEFULLY, anyone who is with the show can explain this to you otherwise since I'm "a liar" in your eyes. But what happened here is MIGHTY plain and VERY clear cut to ME as someone who actually DID the job, and KNOWS how paranoid the republican world is. :(

Post a New Response

(533457)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:05:40 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:29:33 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I don't HAVE to have a defense. Photography of "infrastructure" is ALREADY defined as terrorist activity by YOUR government. MTA rules notwithstanding. :(

Post a New Response

(533459)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:07:37 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:56:48 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
BTW, I just sent you an email to the address I found on your website...

IMO the way to fight this is one agency at a time - make it more expensive to enforce the DHS directives than any benefit gained.

I don't agree that this is a DHS "directive" we are talking about. I think it is a DHS "guideline" that police departments and others are enforcing as if it were an actual rule.

Example (and this is not real, it is only what I imagine it could say):

DHS Guideline = "Photography of transit may be an indication of suspicious activity...when investigating what could be suspicious activity, obtaining the suspects ID information is beneficial and suggested."

How the above is being enforced = "Photography of transit is suspicious and/or not permitted. You must hand over your ID card."

Post a New Response

(533461)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:09:13 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:33:22 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Actually, it's DHS and NYPD behind the "interpretation" as I just said in a message very near this one in time/date stamp. It's unfortunate, but "in these times" you can get hassled for taking a photo of a freaking sidewalk. Matters not that any such photos "of interest to terrorists" were downloaded by them in the 90's and nothing's changed since ... but only reason I popped off at all is that I think it rather unfair to gang bang a motorperson for doing what they were ORDERED to do. And then NOT backed up by those authorities that ORDERED them to do what they did.

My ONLY interest here is in trying to assert the poor bastard's side in this in that they had NO choice but to do what they did. :(

But like I said, Al Qaeda ALREADY HAS the pictures ... no point in closing the barn door now. :(

Post a New Response

(533462)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:12:07 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:02:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
She apparently contacted command, didn't GET a response, felt endangered based upon her training, got NO support as expected and was left alone to deal with something that she never expected to be left to deal with alone.

she obviously didn't know about 1059c, and it's not her job to care in all sincerity. HER job as she reacted was "suspicious activity" even if poorly defined. She GOT on the radio, requested assistance, was left to twist in the wind doing what she was TOLD to do, knew what she was TOLD to do in such an event and flipped out PERHAPS.


IIRC, Nilet said he was videotaping the train as he walked towards it and as soon as he got on, the T/O said that photography is not allowed. So I don't see how your explanation/version of events is possible.

Post a New Response

(533463)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:14:02 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:05:40 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Doesn't matter what it is defined as (well not as much). What matters more is what police and transit agencies are told that THEY HAVE to do about it. And I don't believe that they are told to treat photographers as they are. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it, or feel free to email me...

Post a New Response

(533464)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:16:15 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:09:13 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think it rather unfair to gang bang a motorperson for doing what they were ORDERED to do. And then NOT backed up by those authorities that ORDERED them to do what they did.

No one is doing any such thing.

My ONLY interest here is in trying to assert the poor bastard's side in this in that they had NO choice but to do what they did.

That's not true. She had plenty of choice, since all she was told to do was call it in, right? Everything else that she did was totally optional and uncalled for an undirected by her employer, right?

Post a New Response

(533465)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:19:03 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:41:21 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Heh. You TRULY don't understand. You don't ASK for clarification, you DO as you're TOLD ... ah well ... my job here is done. SOME will get it. :)

No ... MANAGEMENT needs to be challenged here ... and all everyone's talking about is an hourly. She is NOT the problem here. THAT was my point!

Post a New Response

(533468)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 13:25:07 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:02:12 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
T/O didn't want to piss of the geese by doing what they were told to do in the event a photog failed to "cease and desist" ... namely taking the train out of service, inconveniencing the customers and having to spend hellweek amongst the beakies. She apparently contacted command, didn't GET a response, felt endangered based upon her training, got NO support as expected and was left alone to deal with something that she never expected to be left to deal with alone.

This was, for me, the most confusing part of Nilet's account.

How often is it the case that supervision is contacted about a possibly dangerous situation and simply never heard from?

The trouble is that in my experience most of what I've observed doesn't remotely bear on this sort of incident, e.g., most often actually it's about receiving the wrong lineup or just getting stuck at the red signal for a too long time, and in those cases, even though sometimes the same or another wrong lineup is given (I've seen that, alas, happen multiple times at 59th St and DeKalb), I've never had occasion to observe talk about unsafe conditions caused by riders.

(A few times on LIRR, but again, that was about persons on electrified tracks, and it would be damned peculiar to receive no guidance on that).

So on this, I'll defer to NYCT employees for their experiences.

Post a New Response

(533469)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:25:59 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 12:55:19 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Cops are permitted discretion. You can believe whatever you wish - others can tell you that they WERE required to show ID, and in a number of cases, it WAS written down. If I recall properly, Nilet was in such a circumstance. I won't argue with you as to how things work, I can only tell you what I know. DHS *wants* the information. As to whether a particular episode "escalates" to that is up to the situation and circumstances.

But I *can* tell you this ... refusing to cooperate and sitting there citing your "rights" can pretty much guarantee a report. Just like G-2's amongst transit folks, press enough buttons and you DO get to visit the house of pain. :)

I don't want to argue about this though ... my ONLY point in commenting is that back to the original question - I won't blame the train operator for the outcome - they DID what they were told to do, didn't get the backup they were told they were supposed to get and ultimately YOUR issue is improper training of the T/O on this issue and failure of management to back up their instructions with action.

Anything else is irrelevant. Nilet's issue is NOT actually with the T/O, it goes much further up the chain or that T/O would have just moved the train and to HELL with whatever was going on outside their cab. Period.

Post a New Response

(533471)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:26:34 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:19:03 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Heh. You TRULY don't understand. You don't ASK for clarification, you DO as you're TOLD

No, you wrote: "isn't about ANYTHING other than "Simon says" and if in DOUBT, ask Simon if they SAID."

... ah well ... my job here is done. SOME will get it.

No, some will not get it, as she was NOT told to tell photographers that photography is not allowed! AFAIK, no NYCT employee has ever posted here saying that they or someone they know was specifically told, as part of official training, to tell photographers that photography is not allowed and that they must stop.

Post a New Response

(533472)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:29:50 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 12:56:48 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Like I said, I *know* you to be a reasonable person, which is why I wanted to explain where I was coming from. As I've also indicated, *I* have photos of UNDERCAR from the Chambers Street wreck (not for posting) ... all a matter of HOW you comport yourself, how you respect the wishes of those who give you chotchke, and making sure that everyone involved knows that you won't screw them if they let you go somewhere others don't get to go. In other words, you're NOT an asshole. :)

You're MOST welcome! But this incident is CLEARLY improper training.

Post a New Response

(533473)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:29:51 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 13:25:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
This was, for me, the most confusing part of Nilet's account.

How often is it the case that supervision is contacted about a possibly dangerous situation and simply never heard from?


I don't understand how that is relevant. Where in her training was she told what do if she contacts Control about a photographer and Control doesn't respond to her? If so specific info about that was given, doesn't it make sense that you should continue doing your job unless otherwise told not to?

Post a New Response

(533474)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:31:56 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:12:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ah well ... I've said my piece ... you're more than welcome to continue yammering. :)

Post a New Response

(533475)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:32:58 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:16:15 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You said you HAVE the bulletin ... quote it to me. :)

Post a New Response

(533476)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:39:46 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:25:59 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Cops are permitted discretion.

Thank you, as that is not what you said previously.

You can believe whatever you wish - others can tell you that they WERE required to show ID, and in a number of cases, it WAS written down.

Again, thank you, this is as I stated it in post you are responding to. Just because the police say you have to show ID and then write it down, doesn't mean THEY HAVE TO OR THAT DHS TOLD THEM THEY HAVE TO! You said otherwise! But you just reversed opinion by saying that cops have discretion.

But I *can* tell you this ... refusing to cooperate and sitting there citing your "rights" can pretty much guarantee a report.

That has nothing to do with this. We're discussing what the cops HAVE to do and/or what DHS says they HAVE TO DO, not what the cops may do contrary to the law.

Anything else is irrelevant. Nilet's issue is NOT actually with the T/O, it goes much further up the chain or that T/O would have just moved the train and to HELL with whatever was going on outside their cab. Period.

I don't know what you are talking about, but if you read back up this subthread, we are discussing why she told him that photography was not allowed when he stepped onboard the train after filming it after it stopped to make the station stop. I believe that was the first thing she did. We are also discussing why she later used the word "terrorist" in reference to him. It'd be pretty funny if all this time you were talking about something else.

Post a New Response

(533477)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:42:02 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:29:50 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
What you have is irrelevant. We're talking about the T/O's improper behavior, and how she is to blame for violating the memo, her training, and common sense.

Post a New Response

(533478)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:43:40 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:31:56 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
No, that is a cop out. I presented evidence that directly contradicts you and you can't say anything. Funny how that happens... It's called "being dishonest."

Post a New Response

(533479)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:44:00 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:32:58 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I did not say that.

Post a New Response

(533480)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:45:18 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 14 13:25:07 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I can only relate my own experiences from the 1970's, since I've been away since back then. Long-short-long-short on the meatwhistle was "yo! Cops! Train needs assistance!" (radios didn't work so well back then, so that horn signal was "YO, COPS!" and back then you'd usually GET a cop. Not necessarily at the FIRST station you blew whistle in, but usually no more than 2-3 at worst.

When the radio WORKED where you were, you usually got an answer pretty quick. Given that radios WORK nowadays, and "in THESE times" there should be a greater priority to "distress calls" I can't FATHOM why the train wasn't met or cops didn't appear "magickally" ...

I have NO idea as to why the T/O's call wasn't honored, but I also know that the railroad ain't what it used to be either with too many layers of "Simon says" to sign off on ANSWERING a call. :(

Dunno why, wasn't there, dunno all the facts other than I was told that the person in question was NOT disciplined and since when anyone SNEEZES here, someone else goes downtown, then looks like she was in the right for handling things the way she did or she'd be on the street. I *assume* it's been investigated already since this place has more "platform conductors" in the house of pain than Grand Central.

I *honestly* don't know ... said my piece in trying to explain WHY the particular T/O did what they felt they HAD to, and apparently no problem with HOW they did it as far as management goes. Again, going back to my original comment - there's a problem with the TRAINING of the hourlies for this to have happened in the first place. I do NOT have the video, and I do NOT have the memo. More than seven friends have discussed this with me privately and have told me that what happened IS an issue raised in several bulletins as well as "safety training" and that the T/O *followed* what they were trained to do.

If it is UNSAFE to operate as to a possible threat, rule is do NOT move the train until the situation is resolved. Discharge the train if there's a potential threat and above all else, demand backup. Training only goes so far, "photography rules" are NOT part of the security and safety training and perhaps Nilet should take comfort in the fact that the T/O didn't break out their official TWU "Plastic safety pack" which would mean total escalation. :)

Post a New Response

(533485)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 13:48:11 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:29:50 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
The NPPA addressed some of the NYPD/MTA issues at the MOFTB hearing yesterday:

Complete text here

As the MOFTB may be aware in 2004, the MTA proposed a ban on photography and videotaping on buses and subways as a terrorism-prevention measure. The NPPA strenuously opposed those rules and ultimately the MTA withdrew them. Unfortunately just last week the NYCLU filed suit against the NYPD after one of its officers allegedly detained and handcuffed a graduate student who was taking photographs at a subway station. The NPPA believes that it is in everyone’s best interest to avoid this type of situation and we would hope that there is a genuine willingness on the part of the MOFTB, the NYPD and in particular the DCPI, who deal directly with the press to prophylactically address these issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent NPPA before you today. Thank you.


Post a New Response

(533489)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:53:29 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:26:34 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Suggest as humbly as possible that you take this issue up with SIMON. Everyone's dumping the T/O ... has anyone ASKED SIMON?

And stop twisting words ... what I said was that if SIMON SAYS, it's a go. If SIMON DIDN'T say, then don't move. If it was NOT in the training, it does NOT exist. That is what I meant.

If this MEANS so much to you, please show us the response from the MTA about your written complaint.

Waiting ...

Post a New Response

(533490)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:55:08 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:45:18 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I can't FATHOM why the train wasn't met or cops didn't appear "magickally" ...

Because many (hopefully the majority) cops know that this photography stuff is B.S., and if they have anything remotely more important or pressing to do, they will do it, and not ran after a photographer. And I mean this in a way that does not violate police protocols - I'm assuming that you respond to calls/issues in the order of importance (per your discretion), unless given a direct order by a superior officer.

I have NO idea as to why the T/O's call wasn't honored, but I also know that the railroad ain't what it used to be either with too many layers of "Simon says" to sign off on ANSWERING a call.

It has been posted here that it is not unheard of to call control or a tower or whatever and not get an immediate response.

Dunno why, wasn't there, dunno all the facts other than I was told that the person in question was NOT disciplined and since when anyone SNEEZES here, someone else goes downtown, then looks like she was in the right for handling things the way she did or she'd be on the street. I *assume* it's been investigated already since this place has more "platform conductors" in the house of pain than Grand Central.

Again, how do they know who the T/O was? And if you know she wasn't disciplined, then how come you don't know if it was even investigated!!??!!

I *honestly* don't know ... said my piece in trying to explain WHY the particular T/O did what they felt they HAD to, and apparently no problem with HOW they did it as far as management goes. Again, going back to my original comment - there's a problem with the TRAINING of the hourlies for this to have happened in the first place. I do NOT have the video, and I do NOT have the memo. More than seven friends have discussed this with me privately and have told me that what happened IS an issue raised in several bulletins as well as "safety training" and that the T/O *followed* what they were trained to do.

I've already addressed this.

If it is UNSAFE to operate as to a possible threat, rule is do NOT move the train until the situation is resolved. Discharge the train if there's a potential threat and above all else, demand backup.

Which was not the case here.

Training only goes so far

B.S. Plenty of NYCT employees do not exhibit ANY of the behavior that a few select ones do.

perhaps Nilet should take comfort in the fact that the T/O didn't break out their official TWU "Plastic safety pack" which would mean total escalation.

No.

Post a New Response

(533496)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:59:43 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 13:48:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Um......

As I understand it, he was photographing a subway station from non-MTA controlled property. 1050.9(c) and the 2004 proposed changes to it have nothing to do with the case. The quote you posted is factually in error and makes an inappropriate comparison. Doing that only hurts what we are trying to do.

Post a New Response

(533498)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:03:34 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:39:46 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I'll wait for Sarge to see this and chide in if he wishes ... yes, cops DO have discretion. If you can ASSURE them to their satisfaction that you're not a threat or an asshole, then you can go on your merry way after a "government sniff" ... but SCREW with them, and they can make for "interesting times" indeed.

DHS *wants* reports of "suspicious activities" that have any modicum of merit. Piss off a cop, or cause an "incident" and REST ASSURED, you'll have a file. So no, don't dismiss what I said, all a matter of HOW you handle a situation. And there's PLENTY of morons with dossiers. :)

The directive is "NOTIFY" of ANY "suspcious activity." You're being selective here. And yes, the bulletin as WELL as the video training make it VERY clear that photography of "infrastructure" *IS* terrorist activity and DHS *wants* names taken on ANY such! As to whether it happens or not comes down to the usual NYPD "is this worth the paperwork or should we just beat the qwap out of them and leave them on a curb somewhere?" determination.

And as to the T/O ... for the LAST and FINAL time, they DID what they were INSTRUCTED to. Failure to carry out written instruction in civil service is the basis for being brought up on charges of "dereliction of duty" and "failure to follow instructions." TRUST me, this is serious stuff which is WHY the reaction Nilet got. When you've been a civil servant and sworn in, you can finally tell me "Selkirk was right about it ... dayum!" But UNTIL you've been sworn in, sorry ... WRONG!

LAST comment, bro ... you are *WRONG* ... every which way but loose. 1059c is *NOT* part of the instructions given, and is COMPLETELY irrelevant ... take THAT issue up with MANAGEMENT ... it is NOT the hourlies' concern! Their concern is "DO what you're TOLD ... OR ELSE!" :(

Post a New Response

(533501)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 14:06:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 13:53:29 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Suggest as humbly as possible that you take this issue up with SIMON. Everyone's dumping the T/O ... has anyone ASKED SIMON?

That's certainly an option. You could ask them just as well as I could - maybe even better, since you seem to know who the T/O was and that she was not disciplined and you also spoke to 7 people who have seen the video.

And stop twisting words ... what I said was that if SIMON SAYS, it's a go. If SIMON DIDN'T say, then don't move. If it was NOT in the training, it does NOT exist. That is what I meant.

I did not twist words. I quoted you. You said if in doubt, ask simon.

Also, if you are now saying that if simon didn't say, then don't move, then how come she told Nilet that photography was not allowed if Simon didn't tell her to say that?

If this MEANS so much to you, please show us the response from the MTA about your written complaint.

Wow. Just wow.

1. This doesn't mean so much to me. RTFT!
2. I don't have a valid complaint, I WASN'T THERE!!! I'm discussing this based on Nilet's version of the events.

Post a New Response

(533508)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:14:00 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:42:02 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yawn. :(

Post a New Response

(533510)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:16:28 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 13:43:40 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Last and final word ... no, YOU are "being stupid and completely unaware of civil service" ... as I said before, wasting everybody's time and bandwidth here, SHOW me your salary grade, show me the bulletin, or go away. You just DON'T get it. How MANY times must I repeat this?

Doctor Ron was RIGHT about you, sad to say ... you DO have "issues" which I could care less about. I've said my piece, I'm *done* ... and HAVE a nice day! :)

Post a New Response

(533518)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Dec 14 14:21:01 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:16:28 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Great! Maybe *now* you will answer my question about setting computer time? : )

ROAR

Post a New Response

(533519)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:23:21 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Fri Dec 14 13:48:11 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Glad to see it! Hopefully, some RE-education is in order that wasn't in the original "training materials" ... what'd be even BETTER in an MTA age of a fistful of paper each day to crews when reporting would be inclusion of THAT in the "daily bundle." :(

Our "other buddy" here seems to be taking all I've offered as some "march to war" wherein thankfully YOU and many others understand that employees are only as good as the quality of the training they receive and any SOLUTION involves "improving" that training. Let's PRAY that this makes its way down to those in the trains ... :)

Post a New Response

(533521)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 14:27:02 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:03:34 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I'll wait for Sarge to see this and chide in if he wishes

Ahahahaahahahahahah! You mean the ex-cop who basically stated that while he was a cop, he would not hesitate to nonchalantly break someone's camera who photographed him in public and he didn't like it? Um, no, we're not going to take his word for it. Find a different cop.

DHS *wants* reports of "suspicious activities" that have any modicum of merit.

Yeah, so?

Piss off a cop, or cause an "incident" and REST ASSURED, you'll have a file. So no, don't dismiss what I said, all a matter of HOW you handle a situation. And there's PLENTY of morons with dossiers. :)

Again, irrelevant to the discussion, as I already said. I quote "We're discussing what the cops HAVE to do and/or what DHS says they HAVE TO DO, not what the cops may do contrary to the law."

The directive is "NOTIFY" of ANY "suspcious activity." You're being selective here. And yes, the bulletin as WELL as the video training make it VERY clear that photography of "infrastructure" *IS* terrorist activity and DHS *wants* names taken on ANY such!

Fine. But IIRC and AFAIK, neither the video nor the bulletin say that "photography of infrastructure *IS* terrorist activity" and that they instead say that they MIGHT be suspicious.

And as to the T/O ... for the LAST and FINAL time, they DID what they were INSTRUCTED to.

No she didn't. She was not told tell him that photography is not permitted. I've said that soooo many times.

LAST comment, bro ... you are *WRONG* ... every which way but loose. 1059c is *NOT* part of the instructions given, and is COMPLETELY irrelevant ... take THAT issue up with MANAGEMENT ... it is NOT the hourlies' concern! Their concern is "DO what you're TOLD ... OR ELSE!" :(

No, I am not wrong. Terrorism is a serious matter, and employees are given instruction on how to deal with suspicious behavior. They are specifically told to radio it in. They are not told anything about it being illegal, or that they should enforce the non-rule about it being illegal by directly confronting the person. In fact, confronting a terrorist (for the purpose of pissing him off by telling him he can't take photos) without having the training to do so is the worst thing you can do. That's the common sense part, and that's WHY they are told to RADIO IT IN. That is what I am discussing this whole time. I don't know what YOU are discussing, since she obviously did NOT follow the rules (of simply radioing it in), even though you claim she did follow the rules.

Post a New Response

(533523)

view threaded

Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)

Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 14:27:59 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:14:00 2007.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Exactly, what you have is irrelevant, and you should try to stick to the issues being discussed.

Post a New Response

First : << [11 12 13 14]

< Previous Page  

Page 12 of 14

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]