Understanding The Power Of Social Media

October 17 Comments Category: Disruption Quietly Grows, Involvism, Thoughts

staff.jpg

Image created and provided by a pro graphic designer who wishes to remain anonymous

—

Yesterday I wrote a blog post about something I had witnessed in an underground station – a guard being verbally abusive to a traveller and eventually suggesting to “sling him under a train”.

At the end of my blog post I mention I had said to the guard’s colleague that he would lose his job for that outburst. It was my opinion – that’s all.

Fast forward 24 hours and the story has run as the leader on Sky, BBC, LBC, ITN (see sample news coverage here) and on the front page of the Evening Standard. This followed thousands of Tweets and Re-Tweets (including the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, getting involved), 65,000 video views yesterday alone on YouTube and hundreds of comments on this and many other blogs. Plus, the guard has been suspended and is under investigation.

All I did was see something that shouldn’t be tolerated and used the ammunition we have in our hands – video/blogs/network.

I blog almost every day so this wasn’t any different. The content of this one seemed to grab attention though, and it was this attention that made things spiral. Hence, the main reason this story has flown is due to what happened on camera. We must remember that. It’s not me. I didn’t ‘invent the story’. I just blogged, like I do, and the Twitterverse powered the rest. Although charming to be the focus of the viral activity – I actually had the smallest part.

Through this post I will cover exactly what steps I took to make this happen and look at ways that TFL could have done things differently. It’s a long post below but hopefully containing valuable insights you can use.

To preface this post I should point out that I didn’t seek out a salacious event to ‘get famous’ and I don’t have an issue with TFL or their (non-abusive) staff.

But.

I detest injustice and know how to use social media tools.

—

IMG_1343.JPG

–

BBC NEWS | England | London | Tube worker suspended over rant.jpg

—

Tube worker tells elderly passenger he will _sling him under a train_ | Mail Online.jpg

—

Video of Holborn tube guard sparks Twitter campaign for his dismissal | Technology | guardian.co.uk.jpg

—

Tube employee says elderly passenger should be _slung under train__ video - Telegraph.jpg

—

london underground abuse - Google Search.jpg

—

london underground - Google Search-1.jpg

—

Content by Title - Google Analytics.jpg

—

This is an example of the incredible power of social media and the reason the story played out the way it did is because of how the social environment works.

Understanding the power of social media means that anyone can do what I did – but more importantly, companies and organisations would be able to better prepare for good and bad outcomes – in this case, the latter for TFL (Transport for London).

We live in a world where Big Brother isn’t just an ‘eye in the sky’. This mantle used to be reserved for CCTV cameras but now many of us have cameras in our phones – and those who don’t, commonly own a camera anyway.

This means that we are all Big Brother now. We are all watching and thus, we all live under potential scrutiny.

From CEOs through to admin assistants, behaviour is now easily recorded – even when you would imagine nobody is watching. Due to this, everyone inside an organisation needs to incorporate new media methodology. In staffing, training, strategy and delivery. This is what we address in this fluid world, in helping companies achieve clarity and excellence in a fast-changing and unpredictable environment.

—

Ultimately, there are two outcomes of recorded events that then spread across society:

1. Things are good, people are absorbed by the story, mainly as they are inspired by it, then tell everyone else. Everyone wins and goes home happy

2. Things are bad, people are absorbed by the story, mainly as they are appalled by it, then tell everyone else. The perpetrators get sacked or worse

Obviously the 3rd option is that nobody talks about what you do. That’s another problem altogether.

So – with our two options, the common element is that people talk about it.

My original blog post outlined what happened, but here I will give some options of what TFL could have done – most certainly for a more positive outcome. This is non-exhaustive but gives you an idea:

—

1. They should have been prepared. Without sounding funny, the best way to avoid these things is to be prepared – staff and company alike. But they weren’t – and I hereby extend a public offer of help in this preparation to them – you can contact me from my contact page. Even though the staff members have a tough job, there are probably more productive ways of dealing with the nasty bits – without shouting and swearing

2. They should have been monitoring, in real time, any mention of words on the web such as ‘underground’, ‘abuse’, ‘passengers’, ‘staff’, ‘TFL’, ‘tube’, etc and noticed that an article had been written. It took Google 40 minutes to show my blog in related search terms and the post was written early evening yesterday, so actually, TFL had a 12 hour head start on the Twitter/Blog/Press people

3. They should have instantly suspended the staff member and implemented a pre-arranged procedure where they get someone (maybe even the original blogger – in this case me), to speak with a number of other staff to get a balanced view of what staff can really be like. I would have happily liaised with TFL

4. They should have prepared a circulation for the entire company staff, highlighting this incident and used it as a real time training manual – announcing this method to all press and bloggers to highlight that they not only are aware but are using this constructively

5. They should have joined the digital conversation and pointed out other feedback received, for the world to see the balance in place. Offline, they should have called the press first and invited themselves to speak alongside me at every press call throughout the day – but they didn’t

6. They should have built a campaign around the perpetrator showing the exact steps taken to ensure it never happens again – including posting it on the front page of their site immediately

—

The Twitterers, Bloggers and commentators were the only people who played this right. The stories were shared and eventually the press picked it up.

What we need is for Industry to learn the key techniques of Involvism that the Twitterers, Bloggers and commentators already implement.

For anyone who wants to do what I did – this is the 8-step process that happened:

1. As I always carry either a camera or camera phone, when I saw the guard’s behaviour I pressed record – this is because I try and record things that may be of value to citizens as that is my favourite subject

2. As I have a blog, I wrote a blog post, uploaded the video to YouTube, embedded the video in my blog and published it

3. As I am on Twitter, I sent out a few Tweets about the post (asking people to ‘RT’ which means Re-Tweet), including some directly to the very powerful Twitterers. I did the same on Facebook too.

4. As some large press organisations are on Twitter or online, I ensured that they would find the story too by directing them to my blog post

5. I then waited overnight for people to start talking – which they did. I re-joined the conversation which was now vibrant across the web

6. As I have a contact page on my site, anyone who wanted to get in touch with me could – so by mid-morning Friday (16th Oct), many journalists used my contact page to ask whether they could speak with me about the story

7. I made myself available to be interviewed – meaning trekking all over London from studio to studio – showing willing makes it easier for the press to write and film more

8. I wrote this follow up post as an account of the events and hopefully as guidance and encouragement for others to do what I did – then repeat from point 2

—

The conversation may continue for a while and I hope that more citizens become aware of the power they already have to stop hatred, abuse and fear – but also to celebrate the good things in life too.

Yes, this means that we need new rules in company staffing, training, strategy and delivery and yes, if we work with people, we have to assume that anything can be caught on camera and distributed.

Like it or not, the only people who should have a problem with that are those who don’t want their quality of work highlighted.

It’s unstoppable and its here, now.

Welcome to the age of Social Media.


[del.icio.us [Digg [Facebook [Google [LinkedIn [Reddit [Spurl [Squidoo [StumbleUpon [Technorati [Yahoo! [Email More »
  • Student
    Jonathan, from the way it looks, you appear to of wanted all this attention for yourself. I saw both your interviews on BBC and ITV, and you didn't appear to strike me as somebody that had 'genuine concerns' for a passenger..but somebody who was more out on a revenge mission!

    The story that was going around amoungst staff regarding that particular passenger is that he had been regularly intimidating the female member of staff on previous occasions, hence Ian's intevention.
    You see, I don't know what happened before, we only have your word on this,
    As somebody that works on the railway Part Time, I know all to well that some passengers are generally unpleasant, rude and obnoxious.
    I don't blame Ian for losing it....because I know how we get treated when we put up and shut up!
  • brendanphipps
    Yawn.... old News! Bloody students. Always moaning!
  • subotaibahadur
    I'm looking at this from the US, so I admit that my understanding of the situation may not be clear. First, I understand that the LU is either government owned or a government guaranteed monopoly. As such, its employees are backed by the coercive powers of the State. Further, British subjects are constantly under surveillance by State cameras, pretty much everywhere. Thus, the State has the advantage, one that from our point of view over here is not conducive to liberty. The existence of social networks, the ability of the individual to return the favor online, is a great equalizer of political power and a long overdue check on the arrogance of the State's agents. From family who have lived in Britain, and Brits of my acquaintance, I am under the impression that both arrogance and petty oppressions by the government are the norm. Your own media are constantly full of instances of administrative incompetence, quango bullying, and indifference to reality in favor of political correctness as far as dealing with the common citizen/subject is concerned. At the same time, the upper levels of your government preach civic virtue, and are constantly being caught engaged in the most venal crimes. If Mr. MacDonald would have done as suggested, and quietly approached the management; there is no indication or assurance that anything beyond a complete cover up would have occurred. If justice cannot be depended on from within the system, you get it wherever you can. If the system will not guarantee a measured justice, then it will be ad hoc.

    The viral nature of the response would indicate that enough of your public is being what some have referred to as a "lynch mob", possibly because they have received or have seen abuse by those in petty positions of power, and this may be the first time they have seen anything done about it. The answer is to reduce the abuse.

    Oh, just for the record, in the criticism of the British government and its various entities above, please don't take it that I am claiming any excess of virtue for the US government and society, or even the presence of it. We have the same generic disease and symptoms here, including a corrupt and hypocritical government [of BOTH political parties]. Our case just has not gone as far as yours, not for lack of trying by our political class. Fortunately, we have a somewhat different set of checks and balances, and it is in the hands of the people. We may end up in worse shape than you, or we may barely save ourselves. The issue is very much in doubt.
  • That is one of the most insightful replies we have had - thank you (and all others) for your collective time within this conversation.

    Reason is a great balance.
  • 1smallstep
    He's a bully who's been caught out (read what others, who know him, say of him) however i do agree that he's been most unfortunate in the tsunami of attention that he has attracted. That's the 'net for you; nothing the blogger here could do about it, when a story goes viral it's a site to behold. Witness the guardian injunction story a few days ago.

    As to the LU employees defending him on this site, what are you thinking about? This is the guy that is letting YOU down, not the blogger, this is the guy that is giving you a bad name.
  • icemaker
    From what I can gather, Ian tried to get the customer to come upstairs to wait for the British Transport Police, but out of arrogance and indifference the 'elderly' customer got back on the train, fired his last salvo and Ian, his, and the rest is history. An assault is an assault- the degree to which it has been inflicted isn't the point, although the worse the assault, the higher the possible penalties. Ian might not have had any lasting damage from the elbow in the ribs, but it's still unacceptable.

    Like I pointed out, the elderly customer thought some Tube worker was fair game and didn't care about the consequences of his actions. It seems the train pulled out before Ian had much of a chance to make a sterner attempt to send him up to the Supervisors office to wait for the BTP- in the chaos and crowd, the train needed to leave the platform, hence why there was no further attempt made to detain the customer-

    I don't expect for one moment that the police turn up quick in a flash for an incident like this, but they probably would have, given some time. Time Ian didn't have on his side, nor his colleague. If you (Ismallstep) worked in that environment for a day or a week and see what staff have to endure (from low-level sneering to assaults, spitting, gross personal insults, threats, being spoken down to... the list goes on) add very odd hours, a unique environment in all weathers and it's not an easy ask for staff to always be consistently professional. Just think about how you'd react in a bar or in another social or public setting and you were elbowed in the ribs deliberately or were belittled... it's not always easy to turn the other cheek and remain calm.

    I have friends who work for the Underground- they're good people, but i can see after a day or a week or month of the kind of ill mannered, poorly-formed rudeness from customers that it would get to you. And unlike a lot of customer service jobs, it's uniqueness brings its own set of challenges. Customers must behave as much as staff members do. Otherwise were all as bad as each other.

    Yob culture is a customer issue, as well as a staff one, and whilst two wrongs don't make a right, this whole affair could have been handled so much differently than those of a self-aggrandizing and manipulative chancer, who knew exactly what he was doing.

    It isn't obvious to most people that he's a yob- only people that either haven't found themselves in that situation or haven't worked in that environment, which could be the knee-jerkers I mentioned who have no respect for Tube workers because of the reasons I've already made.

    Hearing people interact with others, I'm reminded time and time again that in so many cases people don't know how to talk to others.... and people are still supposed to stand there, smiling through gritted teeth?

    We're the most filmed nation on the planet... and you're OK to have more
    'concerned citizens' as judge and jury about the ugly side of human behaviour? That said, the film was one-sided and I hope that you're not subjected to that kind of scrutiny on one of your off days.
  • michael
    surely the threat to take him to see the BTP was part of the insults and aggression? the man had done nothing to deserve police investigation (assuming of course that the events reported before the film starts are correct), just complained to Ian that he'd shut the doors on the carriage of the faulty train before everyone was off
  • 1smallstep
    Icemaker you can write as much as you like for as long as you like, it's pretty obvious to most people that the guy is a yob, a yob with a uniform but a yob nevertheless.


    The idea that he was elbowed, numerous times, in the ribs is laughable, you know as well as I that had that been the case then the BTP would have been called - not just threatened. Read some of the other people who have actually come in contact with this customer service champion.

    We are videod everyone, i like the idea that that we can also use video ourselves
  • icemaker
    The 'threats' that Jonathan is experience is also the flipside of his citizen journalism crusade - he must of anticipated some of the fall out. Judging by his CV, he's an intelligent man, but to suggest that you couldn't have seen this coming (and enjoyed the adulation and the fuss this all created), is folly. It's interesting that, once again, the arguments for and against are about class- it's mainly those in professions who are pouring scorn on Ian's behaviour and it's mainly working people who work in front-line, customer serving roles, or at least have some empathy of the customer service role.

    What is also clear is that the full story hasn't emerged and whilst a camera doesn't lie- the editing and the choice of segments can and does distort- Jonathan knew and knows this. But it was totally his choice to make some grandstanding social experiment and tell the media (he also must of known things such as bias). He could have spoken to the Station Supervisor, spoke to the member of staff, tactfully intervened or sent the footage to TfL privately, but he didn't. So, he has to accept the consequences of his actions, as Ian has to. But if Jonathan has threats against him, it seems only fair that the working people rally around Ian and take care of their own. Not everyone is lucky, talented or bright enough to be in positions of responsibility and social standing. It's therefore not fair nor intelligent to pour scorn on a guy who lost his rag in an incident that it is rumoured to have started by an elbow to the ribs of Ian by the elderly gentlemen

    Why is the passenger's age a factor? If he assaulted Ian then he needs to apologise himself- from the footage he seems belligerent, arrogant and couldn't care less. Perhaps because he has this middle-class attitude and presumption about people who work in a 'lesser' job of low social standing. Jonathan called Ian a 'guard'- like someone pointed out before, guards on the Underground died out years ago. So, Jonathan couldn't have been that bothered to research Ian's actual title, possible proving that he couldn't care less because he works in a "crap" job and anyone who does is probably thick and didn't do well at school. Jonathan's happy to work in a middle-class environment, that usually pours scorn on people working in blue-collar environments- simply because there's an presumption that they're just cannon fodder.

    Look at the body language of the 'elderly' gentleman-completely ignorant of what he has done and couldn't care less, even when the other member of staff is taking to him calmly. Perhaps this is consequence of presumptive behaviour about people working for the Underground- an authority the elderly gentlemen doesn't recognise and possibly has contempt for- another possible case of class bias.

    Not that Jonathan seems to believe that the elderly man should have respected the authority of the staff who needed to speak to him about the earlier and unfilmed incident and been co-operative, which probably provoked the frustrated reaction from Ian. It doesn't matter if you clean toilets in a public space, everyone needs to be treated with respect. It's the minimum any human should expect.

    Given that Jonathan got more of the incident than was shown and failed to get the story from the staff members, this is grossly irresponsible journalism (If you can call it journalism.) To then pretend that Jonathan wouldn't know (even in a small way) the impact of what might happen is just a disgrace. He happily told the media of the negative aspects of this story- to suit the sensationalistic agenda (otherwise there would be no story) but doesn't bother or the media outlet doesn't have time for any hint of mitigation or explantation from the other side. Hence why so many comments have been knee-jerky, sneering, pompous and indignated- in the main from people who have no respect for people who are perceived as lesser beings because the job they do is mundane and, at times, I assume, robotic, therefore not requiring intelligence, tact, emotional maturity and skill. That attitude doesn't seem far from the stubborn ignorance of the 'elderly' customer on the platform. It seems that people have trouble or not of confronting or expressing their own prejudices. It says a lot about the British class struggle- which, should have by now, been replaced by more informed thinking. I wonder if Ian had been of a different race, been fat, been ugly, had glasses, was scruffily dressed....what then?

    I've been bullied most of my life and work in a customer serving role- mainly because bullies made me diffident and miserable. I wouldn't call Ian a bully. What he said was wrong, but I understand why he may of acted that way. Customers have just as much responsibility to be civil to everyone they come into contact with in public and private life- it's not just the responsibility of the customer service employee. As far as I'm aware, a ticket on the Underground entitles you to a journey from A to B, not a pass to patronise and sneer at people trying to get on in life, who, are, let's not forget, only human. If Ian had resolved the incident on the platform with a handshake there would be no story, no need to get wound up. People on the tube do a difficult job, work long, very anti-social hours and they do keep London moving. We should be proud of the job that they do. Jonathan, who should have and must know better, must also accept the good and the bad of the baby he's birthed. Besides, the ideas behind his agenda seem fairly pompous in their intention.

    As far as I'm also aware his mock-up of a Tube ad that asks customers to treat staff with respect is breaking copyright laws and I've also been informed that filming on the Tube without a permit isn't permitted either-one reason, might be, is to stop these media/social experiments from reaching their conclusion.

    Ian isn't a specimen on a petrie dish- he's a real human being. It would have been nice if a little thought had been applied to the process, rather than the opportunistic agenda setting of someone who seems to want to right a few wrongs because of personal experiences. Ian didn't bully anyone- he lost his professional placidity, which for most people can be forgotten about and shaken off at the end of the day- unfortunately, now he's gone to ground. The bullied has become the bully. Plain and simple. It's a pity Jonathan hid behind his camera to prove a point. It would have been far more courageous for him to have intervened and allow his behaviour to be filmed by someone else, pulled apart for the chattering classes and the Twitter generation. No guts... no glory
  • michael
    i was disappointed by JM's propagation of the story - simply blogging and sending to TFL would have been enough - the story would have spread among people interested in the tube - sending it out to high profile twitterers etc seems too much, especially before waiting for an official response.
  • Zoolander
    Having seen this article on the BBC News I was first appalled by the media coverage, the total one sidedness of the reporting, but that is what we expect of the BBC these days.

    I do not know about what caused “Ian” to act in the way that he did, unfortunately none of the press coverage actually shows any information about the start of the incident. Whilst the TFL workers actions are not appropriate in any way, I do not think he should lose his job until the full details of the incident emerge and he is given a fair trial.

    I currently work in a customer facing job in the mobile phone industry whilst setting up a new business of my own. One thing that is VERY apparent is the total lack of manners and respect that some ‘customers’ have, the incident being talked about is not quite a weekly occurrence but pretty close abuse wise if directed towards the employee rather than the customer. None of these incidents even get close to any kind of newsworthiness.

    If nothing else this incident shows to me the sensationalist approach the some Broadcasting Corporations now think is appropriate rather than the unbiased reporting that was once seen as the gaol in the media.

    What I think we should remember is that all people around us are equals, common courtesy and manners cost nothing and should be part of the fabric of our society. Part of this is that we are all treated fairly and justly by our pears, therefore due to the lack of full information give we are unable to judge the outcome of the situation. ‘Ian’ is entitled to a fair hearing in my opinion and I think his superiors have so far acted in everyone’s best interest. The media on the other hand has acted brutishly and with no courtesy at all in the coverage of this incident.
  • brendanphipps
    I find it disgusting the level of thinly veiled threats levelled at Jonathan now.

    So, he has made an enemy of everyone on the tube has he?

    You tube workers don't wear the uniform at the evening don't you?

    Perhaps you would like to state exactly what you mean by that?

    This cyber bullying is akin to 14 year old boys logging on to football hooligan forums and making out they are the big "I am" under cover of a computer.

    Everything leaves a trail on the internet. I would suggest threatening remarks should be curtailed. Or are you going to sling everyone of us that agrees with Jonathan under a train just like your colleague, the "Jedi".

    There are 2 sides to this. How come the tube workers side seems to be so much more agressive. Jonathan, whether you agree or not with his motives, reported a factual event - that is all. it is not right that people who were not there can give their opinions about what should be done to Ian, however they are allowed to comment on what they saw. In the same way, you Tube workers should be commenting on the piece of evidence presented. Not making threats in a return to the days of the union boot boys.
  • happygilmore
    Well you must feel like the big man now you have your 15mins of fame.
    After reading some of the comments I have to agree the reaction was out of line by Ian.
    You have very cleverly put just the end of the of a one sided argument.... further reports state that this Ian guy was digged in the ribs.
    Any decent person would have stepped in to help the "old" man if they had been that appalled by the bullying they witnessed or at least reported it to someone more senior on the station or left it with TFL to investigate your official complaint.
    You went straight to the press and now someone is living in fear for his safety and will probably loose his job too.
    The worst thing about this is that you have posted pictures of all the headlines you've created and are basking in all the glory. Who is the real bully here? Ok you are not making the threats but you didn't think about the consequences by going public with this..... to me you are not a bully but the ringleader.
  • We all make choices and we all have to live by them. Acting like a dick means you live the consequences of being that dick.

    I can't help thinking that the arrogance of the tube unions has rubbed-off on Ian, and made him feel like he could do and say whatever he likes with impunity. Video + social networking short-circuited that "power". It's been a long time coming, but I'm glad it's here.

    Three cheers for J Mac-D!
  • And the arrogance of working in the media ripples through this entire situation. Jonathan has created this situation, deliberately, and then sat back and is trying to claim "I didn't know this would happen." However, his own 8 step plan to how you can repeat this exercise proves objective, intent, and thought process.

    Ian lost his temper and was bang out of order, and should have been dealt with through the system.

    Jonathan decided what he was going to do, in a calculated way, and he deliberately chose a course of action that would promote him, choosing to throw another person, his family, children, whatever, to the wolves on the way. If it was incidental that that happened, then Jonathan is at best thoughtless. However, he clearly says that his actions were done deliberately, posing to powerful twitterers, choosing to send the link to the newspapers, and so on. The only conclusion from that has to be that he doesn't mind who he steps on to promote himself, and that in fact, he is the biggest and most selfish bully in all of this.

    Well done indeed Mr Macdonald. Oh hurrah for you.
  • Norris McSquirter
    >> Ian lost his temper and was bang out of order, and should have been dealt with through the system.

    No he shouldn't. The system is half-arsed, and will engage to cover-up the incident as they see fit. Tube workers are renowned for getting away with blue murder under the protection of unions.

    Blowing the issue up allows public scrutiny of the incident and also what TFL does about this and subsequent incidents. That scrutiny would not occur in any other way. TFL will have to pick up their game with regards to station staff - and THAT has been a long time coming. All the time I see scruffy, disinterested, arrogant, rude staff lounging around stations. This will hopefully start the process of a good kick up the arse for them and more importantly the management behind them. That has been a long time coming.
  • As a passenger on the tube on an irregular basis, I have to say it's the business men who have indulged a little too much at the liquid lunch and knocked off early on a Friday that are more a problem for me. Tube staff have at best been helpful and kind, and at worst grumpy, but never rude, foulmouthed or lecherous, something I have experienced from the suited brigade.

    Blowing up the issue does allow public scrutiny, I cannot deny you that Mr McSquirter, but doing with human sacrifice is, I feel, more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

    There is only one beneficiary from all this. It isn't the public, it isn't TFL, and it isn't Ian, or even the gentleman involved. It's Jonathan MacDonald's ego.

    How inflating that further will aid the common man, I have no idea. Perhaps he could enlighten us?
  • Get post and great work Johnathon. Well done
  • fletchnz
    This is an example of an inflection point in human history. jMac - I blogged about it here: http://retwt.me/14Ovg - cheers for having the guts to do what you did!
  • Something I was just thinking about whilst pottering about was the repeated use of the word "bullying". It's been used a lot by this blogger (who claims to have been bullied himself at school), and in the comments.

    In my classroom there are one off incidents, as there are in any school. They are dealt with swiftly and firmly, with parents brought in as soon as they can make time to get to school. Bullying, however, is something that happens over a protracted period of time, to the same person, by the same person or people. To claim that Ian is bullying this apparently faultless gentleman (and has he come forward in all this? I don't know.) is therefore unkind, and incorrect. However if Jonathan's definition of bullying as he presents it here, as single incidents of harassment, is correct, then therefore he is bullying Ian now, and encouraging others to do so, and claiming the moral highground for doing so. Do two wrongs make it right?

    By taking this straight to the public domain, not going through the proper channels, which exist, and do work well, Jonathan has denied Ian any right to reply, and is subjecting him to a trial by media, which, by nature of the "evidence" (only starts half way through the situation, thus leaving us only Jonathan's account of events up to that point) is biased.

    Chockster's accusation of bullying (presumably painting the blogger as the victim) fits neatly into this idea that, should anyone be looking for a fair trial for Ian, or should they disagree with the presentation of events, or the way that they were publicised and sensationalised, that these people are also bullying.

    I feel this is not "bullying", but rather young people with a victim culture who would claim the responsibility of others for their own actions.
  • Chockster
    Bullying isn't defined by a period of time. Would you prefer I used the word abuse? Defining your own terms to create your argument seldom works, as you point out, but Jonathan hasn't used any insulting language like the other commenters here.
  • I think abuse is a better term, and that there has been abuse on both sides, both of the passenger by the staff member, and by Jonathan in the way that he has chosen to handle this. In a way, his abuse can be seen as more calculated, (and by your terms, bullying) than the staff member who was clearly having a flash point moment.

    In retrospect, would it not have been better to go through the proper channels, holding this kind of thing in reserve, rather than having it seen as self promotion, and therefore devaluing the actual facts?

    This kind of witch hunt, which is all this is degenerating into being, with Jonathan himself saying he hopes the man loses his job, which in this climate is a veritable burning at the stake with huge financial and familial implications.

    If this is what social media trials are like, then justice would appear to be over.

    And in answer to your final point, in several of the replies to commentators, he has used crude language. Surely not as a flashpoint response? :-)
  • Chockster
    You've got some idiots posting here this weekend haven't you? Well done for not deleting them; their vitriol, short-sightedness and downright bullying is as damning as any counter-argument I can come up with.
  • sarah_the_suburbanite
    Oh my word. You really sought out your 15 minutes of fame didn't you? The story wasn't shared, you shouted and waved "look at me!" until it was seen, like a child with a painting. Except a child with a painting really does want to share, as opposed to self-promote. I would rather tfl focused on running the transport system rather than stooging the net looking for self-righteous moaning from people like you. If you don't like the service, walk!
  • icemaker
    interesting....
  • peter33
    I've read through a lot of the comments on the original article about the incident at Holborn station. Something really bugs me. Is it not very hypocritical to write a piece about how awful this situation was with the language and threats used, and then leave comments saying that the station assistant should himself be murdered, given a kicking and of course calling him every name under the sun.

    You've written a long and interesting piece here about social media but you let your site be used for people to discuss the matter using language and threats of violence far worse than those originally shown in the video. To me that shows a lack of responsibility or understanding of the responsibility you have.
  • peter33
    sorry - i didn't mean to suggest you had left the comments, but that it was hypocritical of the people who had left comments to do so, and that it was irresponsible of you not to remove them.
  • mickcavendish
    Shame u didnt film the start of the conversation/argument, we only get one side of the story from your recording................
    Be nice to come into your office one day and film you when you're under pressure (such as) detraining upto 1200 people inside 3minutes AND get the train out before the next train in the tunnel behind has problems with people dehydrating/fainting etc as well as dealing with customer enquiries.
    Nobody is condoning what this station assistant (not guard) did, but ask yourself why because there are TWO sides to every story and hopefully your actions will mean he is disciplined, but NOT sacked.
  • antonynett
    Well said Mick. I feel so useless being stuck out in the sticks. I wish I had never left Holborn and times like this break my heart. We all know how Ian was pushed into this. This is SO terribly out of character for him. I hear he has now been forced out of his home by hate campaigners. He is such a lovely man as well, this has had me in tears. I just wish I could hug him and make all this go away. Spoke at length with Mr Memo last night and will be going to 42334 tomorrow to meet him for breakfast. This is all too much to bare. Hope you are well yourself, long time eh! LF x
  • mickcavendish
    Hiya Lisa,

    I knew this was a member of staff,just didnt know who, we're allrooting for Ian but it would appear that the media have him toasted already, I'm hoping that someone, somewhere can find something because I really fear for him.
    I have also heard the stories about Ian being hounded at both his AND his mum's place, maybe that's the hook thats needed, the media have already cooked him, why should the company as well...........
    I also spoke at length with John Smith and asked him if we can put a little protection up for Kerry, after all, she is also in the video and we don't want her villified as well.

    Take care, spk soon

    Mick
    x




    ________________________________
  • antonynett
    Firstly may I say that I would have liked to see the footage that lead up to this point ... especially the part where the customer fiercely elbowed the station assistant in the ribs and refused to stand back behind the yellow safety line causing his arm to be shut in the train door which he then blamed on the staff. Also I would like to ask why the public don't film the attacks on tube staff by customers that happen EVERY day. These staff have to endure verbal abuse, being spat at, punched and much, much worse in the course of their daily duties. What makes us, the public, feel that these tube workers are scum only there to be looked down upon, spoken to like lower class citizens, blamed personally for every fault on an ageing, over worked rail system, from late trains to suspensions, fare prices etc. These staff deal with thousands of people an hour. One person finally cracks and retaliates. This man will most likely lose his job now. Tell me, if I came to your work place refused to obey simple safety instructions that are your company's policy and then physically assaulted you for following procedure would you then retaliate or would you simply swallow the fact that your ribs are killing you because I had just elbowed them and smile sweetly? What you wouldn't want is for someone to then film half the story and turn you into a national disgrace. I don't think that the staff should have reacted in the way that he did, but I fully understand why it happened but I strongly believe that it was none of your business and that if the customer had a problem with it he should be the one to make an official complaint be it to Boris Johnson or whoever. You seem an intelligent enough person, if totally blinkered to the real world. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing when you got your mobile out and started filming. If you are so much better than the man on question then why are you revelling in his demise? If you had any decency at all you would go public with the complete story, tell the papers what really went on before you started filming and then close this blog down.
  • antonynett
    Just one other point - did you have a license to film on the underground? Yes you are allowed to film if you are a passenger passing through and you do not use a flash or a tripod AS LONG AS THE FILM IS FOR PERSONAL USE AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION. I do hope that you haven't broken any copywrite laws because that might make you a criminal.
  • Cuthbert Feck
    Davey Boy. Jonathan Macdonald was quite right to do what he did. I pity poor Ian for the backlash, but it is tough titty. Yes we have all made mistakes - yes we have all had outbursts we are ashamed of. But if there was this sort of social justice in the old days then I am sure we would all (myself included) have behaved more honourably in stressful situations.
    Now shut your mouth or I will throw you in the river!
  • Richard Gotlieb
    In an age where most bystanders who witness an act of bullying, crime or some other inequity, remain quiet with downcast eyes wishing someone would speak up, get involved and offer help, I applaud Jmac’s actions. To be sure, the story’s amazing momentum may have overshot the severity of the crime, it speaks more to the power of social media than about the intentions of the blogger.

    Jmac, if you ever find your way to Montreal, give me a shout – beers are on me.
  • peter33
    But he did remain quiet - he just hit record!
  • DaveyBoy
    Trial by media is disgusting, whatever format that media might be in, I think it's disgusting in the tabloids and I think it's equally disgusting on the internet.

    Clearly, there was no need for Ian to say the things he did but we've all done things in the heat of the moment. Fortunately the majority of us haven't had some self-absorbed "social media champion" filming our off moments and posting them online for the world to see.

    You claim that all you want to see is injustices righted and bullies taught a lesson. Do you honestly see the backlash of this on Ian as 'Just'? If so, then you have a truly warped sense of justice. Yes he should be punished, but the storm this has created is ludicrous. The elderly gentleman unfairly endured 5 minutes of abuse. Ian is likely to going to endure abuse for months, if not years after this, likely to lose his job, and thanks to your initial efforts, going to find it very difficult to find work elsewhere.

    You could've sent the video to TfL, retaining the original for yourself and asked them to sort it out, with them knowing that you were still in posession of a copy and willing to go to the press. But you didn't. Hell, you could've even stood up for the poor chap at the time it happened, challenging him that there was no need for his behaviour. But you didn't, you were too cowardly to do so and instead, whipped out your camera thinking I'll get the internet to do it for me and get on my soapbox from the nice and safe position of behind the keyboard. Seriously, if you are that angered by these injustices, why do you not challenge them when they happen?

    Instead, you played your trump card straight away and posted it on your blog. But posting it on your blog wasn't all you did was it, as you keep claiming...by your own admission in the last blog entry you got straight in touch with the press. You KNEW that with the current price-hikes this was going to be hot news. If you think that you can assuage your guilt with a poor excuse like 'how could I have known?' then you can't. You DID know.

    Your post today is also full to bursting with pictures and comments that scream 'look, look, look at me, this was me that did this, look how big my story has become!' wrapped up in a neat little diatribe about the power of social media. Well you aint fooling me mate. You've had your 5 minutes of fame destroying someone elses life. I certainly hope you're happy.
  • You actually think that the entire media storm was something I did.

    You think nobody else twittered it?

    You think nobody else blogged it?

    And if anyone did - it was because of me?

    For real?

    This isn't about how big MY story has become.

    This is about how empowered we as people ARE.

    The 'backlash' on Ian isn't just or unjust. I just reported events.

    And finally - in closing - your point: "Fortunately the majority of us haven't had some self-absorbed "social media champion" filming our off moments and posting them online for the world to see."

    Well my friend. Get used to it.

    This is the world we live in - and if others can withstand the ignorance of others to stand up for themselves and human rights, then you will see a lot more of the 'off moments' published.

    So - you are left with some questions.

    Do you think that you can ensure that doesn't happen?

    Can you take on social media mentality and citizen broadcasters?

    Can you?

    Really?
  • DaveyBoy
    I'm not saying the entire storm was something you did, but you did start it. The fact that angers me is that you showed no restraint whatsoever whilst being clearly aware of the possible media storm this could whip up (including contacting the press, which once again you choose not to respond to, if you hadn't got the big media involved, then I doubt that this would've blown up the way it did.)

    The backlash on Ian absolutely IS unjust, it's completely out of proportion for what he did and is not suitable punishment for his "crime". You're absolutely right, I can't take on social media mentality and/or citizen broadcasters or, to put it another way, online mob rule. And no, I won't 'get used to it' as you so succinctly put it, we are all human beings at the end of the day and we are all subject to human error and we all make mistakes, it frightens me that those mistakes could then be broadcast online for all the world to see. Think for one moment about a time when you have lost your cool, then look at it the other way and see yourself plastered all over the internet with people up and down the country baying for your blood. It's a scary thought and no, not a society that I myself am happy with living in. As if there aren't enough CCTV cameras about watching my every move, I now have to contend that any Tom, Dick or Harry can whip out a camera and sensationalize something that in the grand scheme of things is so trivial.

    You talk about Human rights, correct the elderly chap had the right to use the tube without being abused. Conversely,Ian should have the right to a fair hearing and the right to privacy, instead with how this has become, those rights have gone out the window, the internet has become judge and jury and you talk about this like it's a good thing...maybe the government could make a saving by getting rid of the justice system and instead throwing court cases on twitter, leaving it 24 hours and then making a ruling based on the comments made by the people. Do you think that would be fair?

    I'm sorry mate, but you're lying to yourself if you're saying you aren't getting any pleasure from all this and you know you are. This whole blog post reeks of it. I'm sure that maybe you thought your initial intentions were noble, I just don't think you thought it through to conclusion before you did what you did. By it's very necessity a media storm requires the involvement of hundreds and thousands of people, that's why it's a media storm others have to pick it up and run with it. But you had the power and the discretion to prevent this from happening in the first place. As I said before, there were other routes you could have considered but you didn't. Maybe you didn't know, maybe you didn't care, maybe you were after the attention, maybe not.

    All of the maybes aside.....do you not feel ANYTHING for the guy? Do you not even have the slightest inkling of sympathy for him? If this was happening to me I'd be afraid to leave the house, don't you even in the least think that's awful again, given the proportion of his 'crime'?
  • Angela
    Jonathan,

    I think you were right to post the first blog entry about this incident but this second entry gives me the impression that you are enjoying the attention a bit too much. It's a shame it is at someone else's expense.
  • dukeswharf
    Jonathan, is there any need, what-so-ever, to justify to another why you choose to experience life the way you choose to?

    Do what you do, fearlessly :)
  • Jonathan - I support you and don't think you deserve some of the comments being made here. You were right to do what you did. Just want you to know that.
  • RobF
    Grahamstaunton, please learn to fucking spell. And no, I'm not just referring to the 'txt spk' in your reply to Jackart, although that's bad enough.

    'ENEMYS'?!? Jesus wept. I suppose it must be true then, about what happens when you pay peanuts...
  • Witters
    Jackart,

    Are you serious?
    You're like a playground child saying "Ummm. I'm telling"
  • Jackart
    Well, I'm sick of being treated like cattle by RMT union monkeys. They run to the police at the first disagreement, I will run to the TFL complaints procedure.

    He's making clear threats, and needs to be called on it!
  • Jackart
    Has anyone else noticed the threatening tone of the comments from Grahamstaunton? He clearly works for LU too and is clearly also part of the problem...
  • grahamstaunton
    Fuck u cock
  • AsYouLikeIt
    "LUL" is Dutch slang for cock
  • Jackart
    You're clearly an educated man. I do hope for your sake that Graham Staunton is not your real name, because it's winging it's way on a complaint to your employers as we speak.
  • Jackart
    Good work,

    Perhaps this is the real reason they (effectively) banned photography in public places (whilst pretending they haven't)
  • nicole
    thanks for this post jmac - interesting reading on how we live today in an always on environment and with a voice to say if we're pleased or not pleased with how we're treated or just generally about love, life & the universe
  • Mike42
    Seems to me there is another paradigm shift going on in public information and its effects.

    20 years ago the mechanisms the public had were Big Media to find out about something, and Big Media / snailmail to respond - letters to editors, firms, talkback radio etc. The feedback took days or weeks. Emotions passed.

    Along came the internet/email, and it became easier to find out about things, and to comment/lean on your elected reps or firms who were afraid of loosing your custom.

    Twitter/FB has shifted things again, because they don't rely on a centralised discovery mechanism (Big Media) or a relatively limited distribution mechanism (i.e. everyone in your email address book. Picking who you want to alert to an injustice or cause by email would just take too long, and email being so personal/time consuming, you'd quickly mark yourself as a spammer to friends, family & colleagues.

    With Twitter/FB, people have opted in to hear what you have to say, by its nature you can absorb info in a stream very easily/quickly, and it doesn't impinge on your work as you can just not look at Tweetdeck or whatever. Elected persons / firms can get real-time info back on how cross their electorate is or how damaged their brands are by association with a particular issue - Jan Moir's ad-free page for example. I'd bet that the Daily Mail advertisers have had stern words over that piece, and just might not want to risk being tarnished in future given the Mail's track record of late. That commercial pressure just *might* filter down to the editorial tone and article content.

    As JMac puts so eloquently above, the genie's out of the bottle and media/firms/governments need to adjust to the reality of operating in a real-time SocNet world. Just as they had to for radio, telephony, TV, the internet, and email.

    Progress, I think we call it.

    Cheers

    Mike (not a SocNet/Media expert by any stretch, so apologies for any bollocks above, just my take on it)
  • One of the most rounded, reasonable and sensible comments in the last 600.

    Thank GOD for Mike Stead.
  • fletchnz
    Good healthy banter ... sweet as jMac! Wouldn't life be sooooooo boring if we all agreed with each other all the time?
  • alison
    It's clear London Transport staff are cross with your success hence their comments. Bad luck for them.

    What you did was post a plain nasty out of order injustice. Bullying a member of the public who pays to use a service is unacceptable. Using foul language in his job in full of the public is disgusting. Suggesting he be slung under a train is beyond contempt. It is the London Transport member, not you, who was out of proportion. If members of the public are furious with this story, from what I read in the comments yesterday it is because this is not the first time their staff have bullied and abused customers and because we all feel powerless to do anything about it. Had this situation been a customer abusing staff you can guarantee it would have been just as viral and people would have been just as outraged and we all know the maximum penalties would be sought. Here all we know is that this man has been suspended, likely on full pay, and that his Union will back him to the hills. I hope more and more people use cameraphones to record such incidents until there is full accountability. Meanwhile perhaps London Transport staff would like to consider first some training before coming on here and attacking what you might benefit from - a few basics for example: calmly and rationally handling members of the public in proportion to the circumstances and not threatening and abusing them?? Just a thought.

    Thank you for what you did. I'll be doping it myself in future. I couldn't care less if I appear on the news or not!
  • alexfromherts
    Lets get some perspective... It is never, ever, ever acceptable for one person to speak to another in such a way. Even if the elderly man had provoked the incident (which the original information hinted that he hadn't) then this is STILL unacceptable.

    It seems to me that those accusing Jonathan of benefitting from press attention are subconsciously jealous for not being the ones to catch this horrendous incident themselves. Why else would anyone object to this injustice being made plain? Let's just get on with our lives in the knowledge that people cannot always get away with treating others as animals within the sphere of their employment. I am sure that that guy will have a hearing and be given a fair chance to respond to what has happened... I do suspect, however, that there will be no reasonable justification for what he has done.

    And you know what? perhaps Jonathan has benefitted from having the courage to stand there and film this... A fair reward if you ask me, although as someone who was also bullied badly in my childhood, I understand/expect that it was the gross injustice that prompted him to get his camera out.
  • Matt_Hicks
    I can assure you I am FAR from jealous of the media attention that Jonathan is getting from this thank you very much. If I wanted media attention I would audition for Big Brother!

    If you had bothered to read my comment you will see that I do not agree with the way the CSA was talking to the customer. BUT at the same time we cannot all make judgements on a piece of video evidence taken from ONE perspective!

    I also made it clear that even though the CSA maybe in the wrong, there are better ways of dealing with this than to run straight to the press.
  • The press ran to the twitter buzz mainly - oh, and a clear case of abuse. Did you see that bit?
  • alexfromherts
    Calm yourself. I said 'subconsciously' "if you had bothered to read my comment". Apologies if you are, in fact some how completely in touch with your sub-conscious thoughts! The context never EVER justifies bullying. He called him a girl! I for one just do not find that acceptable whatever the context. Moreover, I strongly believe that if the status quo remains unchallenged, things can become worse, and the idea that the tube worker was prepared to refer this man to the police is appalling after what he did.
  • aaronsavage
    It’s incredible when something you do does go viral. I picked up on your story early yesterday morning and joined the conversation too. It was one of two stories that caught my eye through the week and I also wrote a blog post about Citizen Journalism and how the two stories (very distinctly) give the media a few interesting questions to answer as well as companies. Its
    http://www.interactive-mix.com/wordpress/?p=40 if you are interested.

    I agree with you that what you did was highlight injustice and unprofessional behaviour. The resultant baying mob had more to do with the inability of TFL to act than it did with your actions. I think what happened is that anybody who had suffered bad levels of service and professionalism by any transport staff became focused on this particular instant and so it became concentrated and quite vicious (I don’t think he needed to be outed on Facebook for instance). It was the for TFL to offer a focal point of information and also to stand as a company to show that something was going to be done. That would have shifted the mob’s focus to the company and not the individual, and it is one of the cornerstones of civilisation to avoid mob rule. TFL didn’t do that until very late in the day. This is going to serve as a case study of how and how not to handle examples of citizen journalism so well done. You have earned your place in the Internet hall of infamy.
  • Good article and yes, this will go on record as an example of how NOT to handle feedback from the public.

    Nice one Aaron.
  • Witters
    What I am highlighting is that Social Media can be very powerful.
    I am not blaming you for using it or for blogging, but I think the result is too strong.
    So, in creating this campaign, you have not put the necessary moderation steps in place. And, as a result, the effect on Ian is out of proportion with the wrongdoing he committed.

    I'm not saying "You" are put of proportion. But the size of the campaign is. That says nothing bad about me (which is the empty accusation you throw at me) and has nothing to do with others' comments; the thoughts are all my own.

    I read your post with a lot of interest last yesterday. I was pleased with you championing the cause but, in the cold light of morning, I have realised something about the power of social media...and how that has not been reined in in this instance.
  • Ah yes - when an uncontrollable thing needs to 'be controlled'.

    Its an awkward one.

    What we need to do is stop people commenting too harshly and stop the press reporting stuff too widely.

    Good luck with that.

    Mind you - what would have been best is that the tube guy hadn't said the passenger should be slung under a train.

    Maybe you should look at that part too. The 'Genesis' as they say.
  • Matt_Hicks
    Well pat yourself on your back Jonathan, you obviously got what you wanted......media attention!

    First, I would like to point out that I do not agree with how this Customer Service Assistant (yes, thats what they are called...."Guards" as you like to call them, are usually found on TRAINS and as such LUL haven't had any guards for 10 years!) seems to have reacted on the platform.....HOWEVER what you have shown us (and indeed the world by the looks of things) is only half of the story. From the start of your video all we can see the argument in full flow. There's no footage from before this. No evidence of who did what first. For all we know the "elderly gent" as you like to call him may have assaulted (physically or verbally) pushed, spat at or just been plain offensive to the CSA.
    I find it quite sad that instead of using a bit of common sense and reporting this to a Supervisor on site or even complained to TFL later, you decided to use it to your "advantage" and get the media involved.
    Well hey-ho it looks like it worked for you. Numerous mentions on many media stations....TV....Radio.....Newspapers....Internet. Thousands viewing your videos and leaving messages on your blog. It seems like you really are profiting from somebody's unfortunate situation.
    Then, not content with the fact that everyone in London now knows your name (when are the paid TV interviews coming eh??) what do you do next? Blog about how successful you are in using the media as ammunition to help somebody lose their job!

    Well all I can say is I hope you are happy with yourself now. Hypocrisy is the key word here.
    Here you are making a big deal out of the fact that a member of LUL staff has "dealt with a situation poorly".......So what do you go and do? Give the press a call straight away and let them know.

    Well handled!!!

    I hope you sleep better at night now Jonathan Macdonald!
  • Actually, what I want is that people who abuse people are caught.

    Sorry if that is a paradigm too far for you.

    Thanks for taking the time to comment.
  • grahamstaunton
    Matt Hicks you say it how it is. Now as for you Jonathan, Good luck cos you have fucked off all the staff at LU, just remember they only wear uniform at work mate!!! Karma is a bitch!
  • Is that your position as an LU staff member?
  • That's what I'd like to know too. The person calling himself "grahamstaunton" is all over the comments to yesterday's entry too and insulting others in a rather vile language. I honestly hope he's not working for London Underground.
  • grahamstaunton
    No but my wife works there and u slagging off LU is slagging of her! So sort it out! U got a lot of enemys!
  • grahamstaunton
    No but my wife works there and u slagging off LU is slagging of her! So sort it out! U got a lot of enemys!
  • Actually Graham, I have said may times that in every company there are good and bad people. As it happens, I have met some incredible LU staff who have done great things and are lovely people.

    Just for the record.

    I absolutely, categorically do not think for one moment that all staff, including your wife, treat people badly.

    Its a shame that you say I have a lot of enemies because I genuinely didn't want to label the entire workforce, rather report one particular bad apple - hell, even the lady on video is heard apologising to the old guy..

    But there you go.

    I am beginning to feel as if it would be unsafe to go underground now - and by the sound of your comments, you would probably agree.

    At least all this is out in the open and stored.
  • antonynett
    For the record Jonathon, Ian is one of the most laid back gentleman I ever met. I have never seen him lose his cool before in the four years I have known him. Like I said in my own message, you have only filmed half the story. This
    defenceless old man as you portray him isn't entirely innocent as you well know!
  • whowantstoknow
    Imagine how Ian feels
  • Witters
    I think there is a real issue here that JMac has highlighted, but the action and reaction seems to be way out of proportion for the crime.

    This guy has had his face splashed across the national media and will be pilloried wherever he goes. He hasn't raped or murdered anyone - he was clearly having a bad day and was out of order. He should be suspended, but that should happen through the correct channels.

    I feel that JMac is using this to prove a point about social media (and by association, his area of expertise). The execution of JMac's campaign is way out of proportion - in legal terms, it is beyond reasonable force. Does this guy really deserve to be made a pariah for the sake of proving the power of social media?

    If you had used social media well, then you would have pressured his bosses (TFL) into action. You could have highlighted the injustices of their price rises in the face of a shoddy service without ruining Ian's life. You could have stood up for the common man and proved the power of collective consumerism without having to create a victim.

    Ian acted badly. He should be censured. But punishment needs to be proportional to the crime and meted out by the correct authority. And this campaign meets neither of those criteria. And in doing so, you are committing an equal and opposite crime of defamation against Ian.

    A good act used for bad purposes, when it could have been so much more powerful. What a shame.
  • Lets be clear here Witters.

    All I did was publish a blog post as I have done thousands of times before.

    Please separate others' comments from what I did.

    I am 'using' this because I cannot stand injustice and yes, because I use social media tools.

    As a bullied child, I am absolutely horrified with seeing the same behaviour that left me damaged for many years.

    I would tread carefully in suggesting I am acting 'way out of proportion' as video-ing injustice and writing about it is something that if you think is wrong, says more about you than me. Sorry.

    The thing about social media is that the comments go where the comments go. Good and bad.

    Trying to control comments and/or posts is simply unrealistic. As this is a start of a longterm trend of citizen journalism, I fear you will find social media and uncomfortable place as civilisation moves forward (in its most literal sense).

    By all means, have a go at people who are making (what you may deem as) unfair points of 'beyond reasonable force' but don't, please, confuse reporting with reaction.

    Many thanks for taking the time to comment though.
  • grahamstaunton
    I hope Ian catches up with you son!
  • whowantstoknow
    Thank you so much Witters I totally agree and i have been blogging about it since last night, i am happy that some else see the light.
    As for you JMac come on, we are not stupid. The big mistake you have made here was giving the name of Ian, you had no rights. You wanted people to talk about you here we are but you had no right to destroy someone’s life for your own interest. My forecast on this story this is going to backfire on you.
    Oh as for some other comments I saw that suggest that people that don’t agree with your actions, are jealous I would like to put their mind at rest I am definitely not jealous and actually I am glad that I am nothing like you. I guess that make me human with a conscience. Have a nice day!
  • I am finding it very hard to work out what I should have done differently.

    1. I dislike bullying

    2. I blog (as you do)

    3. I reported what I saw - and anyone can see via video

    4. I didn't predict the incredible take up by Twitter

    --

    Could I have not blogged it? Yes. I could have ignored the event - or, just reported it to TFL without blogging it.

    Why didnt I?

    Because it sickens me that people can bully others and often get away with it - and I blog what I find interesting. I don't force people to follow it - read it - or even comment on here (but thanks for doing so nonetheless).

    The twitterverse effect should tell us something about what thousands of people feel about this story.

    People could have equally ignored it.

    The only person who 'destroyed Ian's life' is Ian.

    I know how to blog/twitter/etc but I have no ability to put words in Ian's mouth.

    I didn't say 'sling him under a train'.

    I didn't call a passenger a 'stupid little git'.

    I didn't force the twitter effect.

    It's a real shame that you feel that I am somehow to blame for reporting real life.
  • 3.1
    Either way (and what you still keep failing to comprehend), the reaction to the problem was not of equal force. There's no two ways about it. I was bullied at school – I was severely injured at one point – and even though there were plenty of times I wanted to smash this boy's face in for beating me up, I didn't go and do it. I went to the teachers and it got sorted.

    You've basically gone the other way. For somebody who has been supposedly 'bullied', you've done everything a victim shouldn't do – you yourself have become the bully. Social media CAN backfire. You're going around with the illusion that it won't by going to the papers and whatnot, and I suppose this guy thought the same thing as well: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-...

    He came through one of his regular destinations a few days afterwards and was ridiculed, pointed out and laughed at by normal everyday passengers. But I guess he thought everybody would be on his side, no?

    With your follow up of how TfL can be 'assisted' in the use of social media and 'staff training', you claim that you 'know' how to use social media 'tools'. Look at how you post up your screen grabs like they're trophies (or I suppose you'd say they're 'examples'). You say you didn't expect the reaction you did, yet you also say 'Through this post I will cover exactly what steps I took to make this happen' with regards to viral activity within social media.

    You will never admit you used this story for your own benefit. Of course you wont. I guess claiming you know how to use social media tools is a euphemism for that. You haven't gained any real insight into your actions with regards to this, but you've made a whole load of enemies along the way. Applause to you. And whilst people are here praising you and giving the compliments, all the while waiting for your next move, you'd just better hope you don't trip up.

    Social media is a beast you can't claim to tame.
  • whowantstoknow
    Let’s be clear about this, there is 2 points in this argument.
    1. Ian acted in an unprofessional and rude manner and I certainly do not even try to defend his action, but and this is a big BUT the punishment he is as we speak going through is disproportionate to the crime. Ian has not rape or murdered anyone and still thanks to you his face is on all the papers in the country and all over the internet. Now would I have done things differently? Yes I would have, I would have spoke out at the time of the incident. Now is that how you should have reacted? Well we are different so I can’t judge but one thing I am sure about is publishing his name and where he works, is totally out of order, he has a right to privacy like anyone else. You have started something you cannot control and I really hope that things do not spin out of control. Don’t come back to me with I didn’t know it will turn out this way, you sell yourself as a clever man, so you knew exactly what you were doing.
    2. My second point is that I strongly believe (not that you will ever admit it) that you did that for your own interest and not because you were concern about the public. You have singled out one man (even if he did wrong) and made a business case out of him. Good case I will admit as this story is going wild and show the power of media. That was for your own benefit. And probably a story you will be selling for many years.
  • This then will be my last correspondence with you as you have already decided what you think and you are sticking to it.

    So be it.

    After spending most of my time at school getting the shit kicked out of me, I kinda react in a certain way when I see someone behaving in the way that the bullies did to me.

    Thank you so much for thinking that I have the power to control the entire twitterverse and press. Sadly I don't. Its not down to cleverness, its because I simply do not believe ANYONE has that power.

    This is crowd power.

    Crowd accountability.

    On your second point - of all the comments that anyone has written, this is the most saddening to me. Mainly because you clearly have misjudged why I do what I do.

    It is what it is and you are entitled to your opinion. However, I simply cannot carry on defending myself against you.

    So - like a bully - you win.

    Well done you.
  • mathewbirkin
    This is crowd power...


    More like heard psychology. You seem to be quite good at this john, I can think of another man who was also quite good at this. A man who also chose easy targets and fought for ''social'' justice. Like yourself he was bullied as a child, and suffered many beatings. Upon finding his social media he also became famous, and with the same god complex delt out his own second party punishments. Only you are english and this man was german.

    Can you think who he is?
  • You may want to read up on this before you descend to the crudest of all comparisons, buddy!

    Something like this has happened before (see here for an early example: http://bit.ly/2KLvSN) and it will happen again. And, in fact, it will happen again more and more often. Not because of Jonathan's vanity (as far as I can tell, he probably has as much and as little of this as most of us) but because people now have the power to respond!

    It may have been particularly unfortunate for Ian that Jonathan was standing there because he does - as he stated - understand the power of social media (and arguably as well as few others do) BUT that is not the point.

    In a world where communication and publishing tools have no cost, citizens can respond and "go public" - with all the great or horrible consequences this may have, depending if you have been doing good or bad. It puts a new accountability on all of us, which is, as far as I am concerned, a really good thing: you do good, people notice and act accordingly; you do bad, the same thing happens.

    Go and read Clay Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody" (http://bit.ly/3RjgaC). That should get you going.

    And as to your misplaced attempt at historic wit: try and imagine what may have happened had there been camera phones, blogs and Twitter back in Germany's darkest age. I am sure the nazis would have had a hell of a job on their hands to keep people at bay. Might have saved a few lives, too. And why? Because someone who was doing bad would have been exposed...
  • mathewbirkin
    your an idiot, you cant see that social media is part of the cancer that is plaguing each citizens civil rights on a daily basis.

    Secondly if they did have computerised social media back then, it would have only helped with that particular regime, which was a society, scared of non-conformity because they never knew who was spying on them and when. As I have just learned, it is dis-respectful to use comparisons to this for argumentitive purposes, So rather from an Orwellian perspective, Jonathan may aswell open a telescreen shop.

    If Privacy had a tombstone, it would read, "Remember, This is for your own good".
  • Language, dear Sir, language.

    A plague, huh? Here's an easy one for you: don't use it. A small but noteworthy difference to other plagues (don't try it with cholera!).

    As to "them" and their all-encompassing spy society: they were unable to control even a couple of 100m people (as the Austrian decorator eventually realised). They could not do this with 6.5bn. Iran couldn't do it (and they are fairly strictly organised, I believe). China is struggling with it even with an army of people to prevent (sic!) the use of social media. No, your argument cannot win here.

    The power of social media lies in open access. Everyone has access. Poor Ian would have had access: he could have launched a counter-attack if he was so unduly exposed; Twitter, blogs, YouTube, all open. The Twitter addresses of the country's leading journalists are easily available within, say, 10 minutes on Google. Well, he didn't. Is this Jonathan's fault?

    Social media is not good for people who prefer to hide; behind superiors in case something goes wrong (this argument was also heard - and dismissed - in Nurnberg), behind drawn curtains, behind generic avatars and names so they can post comments without having to "fear" they would need to stand up for it.

    Social media is great for people who value open discourse and discussion and are ready to stand up for their own actions.

    I prefer a society made up of the latter.

    The power of social media per se has nothing to do with privacy (that comes only into the game once you participate in it).

    If your - public (!) - acts are fair, you will be judged accordingly. If not, well... But does the wrongdoer really deserve pity? Or not rather the abused gentleman? No word on him from you, is there? What about HIS dignity and HIS right not to be abused?

    Without the power of social media there would have been no real remedy for the abused man: filing police reports, pressing charges, all the "traditional" means of pursuit have a terrible downside: the transaction costs often outstrip a) the affected person's budget and b) are not easily available for many people. Social media democratises this. And that is good!

    Privacy comes into play whenever you cannot react (e.g. being filmed on CCTV on Trafalgar Square and then perhaps put into dubious data bases). No redress possible, no access, no control, nothing. Social media is the opposite. It gives you all of that: access, transparency, the ability to react: you as well as all your fellow citizens are available to leap to your defence because it is all out in the open (for instance in this comment function; Jonathan did not switch it off; really poor spin doctor he is then, huh?).

    Oh, and lastly: if the tag "idiot" puts me in the company of Jonathan and - for that matter - people like Clay Shirky (who you included by inference), I feel quite at home. Good day, dear Sir!
  • Keith
    Actually he was Austrian
  • mathewbirkin
    you lose too
  • Chockster
    You lose the argument. You may not appeal this decision.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
  • mathewbirkin
    damit
  • whowantstoknow
    LOL
    No you didn't go there NO you didn't call me a bully LOL

    Jonathan I am not bulling you I am just telling you what I think and what I believe in. You have open yourself to this

    Now for the crowd accountability comment, I am not stupid and I know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop this now, but I also know that you knew when you started sending this to the papers that this could have been a consequence and I don’t think that you should have taken the risk.
    Even if I condemn what Ian has done, I don’t know the guy but I actually feel sorry and I am worried for him at this moment. He didn’t deserve that, and yes he has learned the biggest lesson of his life but no one should feel scared to walk down the street for something like this.
  • Bravo. Well said, Jonathan.
  • Marcos Scriven
    I can't help but think you're milking this, to your own benefit, for all it's worth. It discredits the value of the story in my opinion.

    It's not just 'the power of social media', it's 'the power of social media to get people to come and see my CV and commission work'
  • Actually, as I was bullied as a child I get really pissed off with bullies.

    You can take my CV and burn it for all I care.

    But - whilst I have breath in my body I will defend any Citizens right to call foul when they see it - and I don't give a flying fuck whether you get that point or not.
  • grahamstaunton
    Oh thank god for you Jonathan! You're our hero?! But really your just a silly little man who wants to earn a few quid and get publicity so you can afford to have you balls trod on by a dominatrix and also buy a farm so you can suck of some sheep! You're pathetic! You should have gone through the right channels! You may have ruined Ian's life?! You are a fucking cunt! End off!
  • Mike42
    Wow - did your hand slip with the Bovril this evening there chap?

    Think: would you say that to Jonathan's face? *really*?

    Seems to me you cannot accept that an individual who witnesses an appalling act *just might* be motivated to report it as he knows best with nothing other than completely altruistic motives. And that's your problem to deal with, not Jonathan's.

    Mike
  • whowantstoknow
    Ok so you have been bullied as a child and that give you the right to bully someone else.
    Not really logical to me...
    You didn't defend any Citizens you took your camera out of your pocket and made an advert for your services.
    JMac you are an intelligent man, but so are we...
  • I took a camera out of my pocket, recorded an instance of abuse and blogged it.

    I worked in this space before the instance happened, yet if I worked in a bank I would have done exactly the same thing. Would you then suggest I was advertising the bank's services?
  • catarino
    wtf is wrong with u ppl?

    I just can't believe these kind of comments. just can't.
  • What you're talking about is sousveillance - watching from beneath. As I wrote about in my article about your social media adventure we now have much more power.

    But I do wonder if we have figured out how to wield this power responsibly. I don't doubt that your actions were correct; it's always a good idea to expose bullies. But when I read some of the over-reactions that people have posted on your blog, it makes me deeply uncomfortable. You're not to blame for their reactions, of course, but is it possible to have a subtle and nuanced conversation with the baying of a mob behind you?

    Regarding media rapid response - I think it's the sort of thing that can only happen after the first incident. When I took a photo of a police van parked in a disabled bay - I was highly impressed with Surrey Police's use of social media to apologise and put their side of the story. I suspect that TfL will have to implement this kind of SMR (social-media-relations as opposed to PR).

    It will take some time for everyone to adjust to a world where what once was gossip can become news.

    Thanks for highlighting this.
  • peterrockcliffe
    This is a fascinating debate! I am afraid for me there appear to be two areas of concern with this subject.

    Over the last thirty years I have become more despondent about the media and its vitriolic destruction of people who are initially celerated and then systematically destroyed. The standard of reporting is neither balanced nor fair. It panders to the masses, the lynch mob mentality and the need for people to find scapegoats for all the ills of the world!

    Human nature is very complex. We are often victims of our knee jerk emotional responses. In my experience some of us have great capacity for compassion and a deeply held desire for social justice and fair play. But our emotions are often toyed with in an attempt to derive a reaction often grossly out of proportion to the real events.

    There are clearly forces at work here that are an abuse of power, however it is not entirely obvious how anyone could control them at an individual level.

    TFL do have responsibility for safety and a duty of care to fare paying passengers. As a regular but infrequent traveller on the London Underground, happily I have witnessed few if any episodes of this nature although I am aware that these stories are not uncommon and there are times when individuals can lose their self-control.

    Those of us who read these reports and felt the anger that an elderly gentleman should be abused in such a way, have a tendency to react by responding, RT-ing, spreading the word until there is a furore fueled by the media who see an opportunity to sell papers to bolster their flagging profits.

    The social responsibility issue is a moot point. Do we have the 'right' to report and publish whatever we deem as an injustice? Well I would say "Yes" providied that we present the facts, all the facts in an unbiased, socially responsible and impartial way but how can we exercise constraint once the genie is out of the bottle? JM reported the issue and used the tools at his disposal to dissemminate the story. Whilst I may not agree with his motivations or his lack of even-handedness, I would uphold his right to speak out. The difference is could he have spoken out in such a way that was just and fair to all the parties concerned?

    Whilst I do not condone the utterances of Ian the CSA, which went far beyond what would have been reasonable in the circumstances, I do appreciate that what he said and did in the heat of the moment could have been more restrained and I trust that TFL will deal with him proportionately, allow him to train to a better standard of self control so that he can manage his anger in what must be very stressful circumstances.

    The foregoing perhaps makes me look more impassive and self-controlled than I actually am. When I first viewed the video and read the reports, I felt anger at the way this passenger was treated and felt that it was completely unnacceptable. Perhaps it is because at some time we have all been abused by an official who has exceeded their remit and acted reprehensibly. But here's the rub! Over the last twenty years of using the Internet from newsgroups to blogs and commenting, I have learnt self restraint. I no longer feel it is necessary to immediately react to something for which I may not be in possession of all the facts. In fact I go so far as to say that I refuse to be manipulated for someone else's agenda without undertaking a modicum of research to try and ensure that my perspective is objective.

    I have become so cynical of media manipulation that I no longer accept at face value what I read in papers or see on TV and moreso what I find on the Internet. My point is this! We are all to blame for what we have allowed and even tacitly supported in our society. Individually we can say we are blameless but everyone of us who is franchised to vote in our electoral system is culpable for what our society has become.

    As Terence Eden said we all have so much more 'power' at our fingertips than ever before. The problem is how do we exercise that power for good? As somone who experienced bullying in childhood it is easy to fall into the trap and believe in our divine right for vengeance against someone that we perceive to be in the wrong. But what if we are wrong? Are we willing to accept the consequences of actions and the reverberations that they can carry around the planet?

    A few years ago I worked with a Chinese consultant on a big project. She was fiercely proud of her country and the way it dealt with some of it's social problems. I had reacted to the treament of the Falun Gong without having a complete understanding of the subject and to a Western mentallity it seemed that the Chinese stated was acting extremely harshly. Although initially angry and hurt that myself and colleagues thought negatively about China, she attempted to educate us and explain why the State took such a dim view of this quasi religious sect. She did not try and coerce us into taking her point of view. She just wanted us to see her Governments side of the story.

    A short time later, I read a story in the UK press about a woman who was a Jehova's Witness who died in childbirth whilst refusing a blood transfusion. The medical staff wanted to save her life and that of the child. I felt mixed emotions about whether she had the right to refuse the blood or whether the NHS had the right to enforce their Hyppocratic Oath to save her life. The media of course made a big issue of the story.

    Sadly there isn't always a right or a wrong answer to every trouble in society. We do not all have the capacity to take a balanced or mitigated view, therefore when we do speak out, we have to ask ourselves who are we actually serving and what deep seated motivations are we trying to respond to? If Ian is culpable and the elderly passenger also bears some responsibility for what led up to the incident, do we really have the right to set in train a chain of events without being responsible for the outcome?

    For John's sake, I hope that the outcome is proportionate. For the rest of us, I hope that we can live with the consequences of our postings. Most of all I trust that we temper our virtual pens and swords with virtue and restraint.
  • Disgusted
    You felt the need to blog it.....fair enough. You could have expressed all your disgust in writing and given the video to TFL so they could take the appropriate steps to deal with the situation. Ian would be disciplined, something put on his file and found it harder to get promoted. Maybe sent to anger management courses. There was no need to put the video online. He would have been disciplined, but fairly. There is no way he will be treated fairly now with the public and mayor involved.

    By posting the video, you have ruined his life. Boris has got involved so TFL are more likely to sack him, he will find it incredibly hard to get work elsewhere and may need to leave london, his mother is being harassed by press on her doorstep.....and all so you can get a hard on and make yourself look good.

    Before you start whining that you didn't do it for selfish reasons, maybe you can explain why you felt the need to allow yourself to be interviewed for the news. The video speaks volumes and you could have fleshed it out on your blog. It appears you were just promoting yourself for your own selfish reasons. You could have just given them a statement over the phone.

    I was also bullied at school and abhor it when I see it done to others. Why didn't you speak up at the time? If you were worried about him turning on you, you could have pointed out the conversation was being video'd. Why didn't you speak to the female member of staff and asked her to either intervene or to call her supervisor down?
    Have you read the comments left on youtube? People are threatening this man.....bullying him. Talking about causing him physical harm or paying to watch videos of other people hurting him. He won't feel safe walking the streets.....I'm sure, since you were bullied, that you realise how horrible that feels.

    Ok. He shouldn't have shouted at the guy, or called him what he did, but the reaction is way over the top.

    I hope you enjoy your brief moment of glory.....and it will be brief.......I also hope that one day you realise what you have done to this man's life and his family. I hope you are disgusted also when you realise you have become a bully and enabled other bullies.

    People like you disgust me.
  • Yes, he *could* have expressed all of his disgust privately and given the video to TFL, but he blogged it. That's what bloggers do. Hell, that's what people do in this hyper-connected world. They share their experiences on the web, and why not? And you know what? When public servants are treating the public badly in a public place, you're damn right that I as a member of the public want to know about it. Thank you Jonathan.

    If any devastation has been caused, then the fault lies with the man who committed the wrongdoing. We are all responsible for our own actions and he (like all of us) had a choice not to behave atrociously that day. If you believe media exaggeration is responsible, then take that up with the media. They decide which stories they're going to run with and sensationalize. Not the blogger here. The blame certainly doesn't lie at the feet of the man who decided to blog his experiences of that day.

    As for the threatening messages being left around the internet, they are hardly the fault of the blogger either. Seriously, which parallel universe does this kind of logic and thought process emerge from because it's completely alien to me? Are we now to conceal our every criticism for fear of being held responsible for the actions of others? Others in this case being the people who behave with remarkable bravado when granted the anonymity provided by an internet connection. Others like you, who are so quick to stick the knife in but don't even provide a valid name, never mind a link back to a home page, a blog, or *something* that provides an in-cling of who they are or what they are about. Seriously, your little rant just reeks with irony.
blog comments powered by Disqus