Clockwinder accused of racism by vile family is banned from Station!

[Crimson Dynamo]

File this under: You could not make it up

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/08/07/3CDFDB5F00000578-4202574-image-a-20_1486539719075.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/08/07/3CF105D300000578-4202574-image-m-18_1486538586260.jpg

Jim Walker has been keeping the clock ticking in Carnforth Station since 2004
He was 'banned' from entering parts of the station after an alleged racist remark
The 71-year-old says was discussing refugees entering the UK from Europe
Station heritage trust said it was a 'very serious incident which could have involved the police'

A 71-year-old volunteer claims he has been banned from winding up the railway station clock made famous in the classic film Brief Encounter because of alleged racist remarks.

A family made a complaint about timekeeper Jim Walker when they overheard him speaking about refugees in Carnforth Station, Lancashire.

He has been 'banned' from entering parts of the station where he has been volunteering for 14 years and features in the 1945 romantic drama.

The former train driver said he was overheard discussing a newspaper article which compared Jewish children arriving in England in 1933 and the refugees entering the UK from Calais.

The 71-year-old, husband to Betty, said the migrants were 'incomparable' with the six-year-old Jewish children arriving on Kindertransport trains fleeing the Nazis.

Mr Walker claims the Carnforth Station Trust later decided to move the tools he needs to access the clock to an outbuilding not in the trust's control to enable him to continue his duties.

Mr Walker, from Carnforth, said: 'Carnforth Station Trust received a complaint from a visitor who wasn't happy about me speaking to somebody about the issue.'

The solicitor's letter sent to Mr Walker said the 'serious complaint' followed a family cutting short their trip to the heritage centre due to 'loud offensive remarks' which used 'inflammatory and highly abusive' language.

The letter said: 'It is clear the visitor's version of events was a true and factual picture of what went on.'

Carnforth Station Trust chairman Peter Crowther said he did not wish to comment further until after the meeting, but added that it was 'a very serious incident which could have involved the police'.

“He said that if action wasn’t taken he would report the matter as a hate crime to the police.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/brief-encounter-clock-stilled-migrant-comments-row/


So once again the Trust out of FEAR just banned the guy rather than do what was right. What the poor chap said was indeed correct. Very sad.

Thoughts?

[Northern Monkey]

It depends what he actually said.If he really only said what it says he said then it is absolutely ridiculous.The family seems to be claiming they heard 'loud offensive remarks'.The problem is that there's no way to prove it unless there was a witness.
I think it's a hasty move without an independent witness to prove the accusation.

[Livia]

Everyone's so terribly offended... Accusing this old boy of a hate crime minimises the terrible abuse that some people have to endure at the hands of real racists.

[Crimson Dynamo]

maybe the "family" could just stop listening to other peoples conversations?

[DemolitionRed]

I was recently at my doctors surgery when I heard an old guy having a right go at this pregnant African woman. He was being very racist and verbally assaulting her so I went up to the reception and told them they needed to deal with this racial bigot. On hearing me, he got up and came right in my face, screaming obscenities at me. The police were called but by the time they arrived he was long gone. The receptionist didn't appear to know who he was so that was that.

If he had been caught there were umpteen witnesses to back up my story. There appear to be no witnesses in the case of the clock winder and so its 'hearsay'. They will of had to suspend him whilst a full investigation is done but its doubtful he will be permanently banned from the station because you can't sack someone without proof of a wrong doing.

[DemolitionRed]

Everyone's so terribly offended... Accusing this old boy of a hate crime minimises the terrible abuse that some people have to endure at the hands of real racists.

We don't know if he was terribly offensive. Its his word against theirs.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I was recently at my doctors surgery when I heard an old guy having a right go at this pregnant African woman. He was being very racist and verbally assaulting her so I went up to the reception and told them they needed to deal with this racial bigot. On hearing me, he got up and came right in my face, screaming obscenities at me. The police were called but by the time they arrived he was long gone. The receptionist didn't appear to know who he was so that was that.

If he had been caught there were umpteen witnesses to back up my story. There appear to be no witnesses in the case of the clock winder and so its 'hearsay'. They will of had to suspend him whilst a full investigation is done but its doubtful he will be permanently banned from the station because you can't sack someone without proof of a wrong doing.

And what will that "full investigation" consist of?

[Livia]

I was recently at my doctors surgery when I heard an old guy having a right go at this pregnant African woman. He was being very racist and verbally assaulting her so I went up to the reception and told them they needed to deal with this racial bigot. On hearing me, he got up and came right in my face, screaming obscenities at me. The police were called but by the time they arrived he was long gone. The receptionist didn't appear to know who he was so that was that.

If he had been caught there were umpteen witnesses to back up my story. There appear to be no witnesses in the case of the clock winder and so its 'hearsay'. They will of had to suspend him whilst a full investigation is done but its doubtful he will be permanently banned from the station because you can't sack someone without proof of a wrong doing.

This man is a volunteer. You can't "sack him" at all.

[Brillopad]

File this under: You could not make it up

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/08/07/3CDFDB5F00000578-4202574-image-a-20_1486539719075.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/08/07/3CF105D300000578-4202574-image-m-18_1486538586260.jpg

Jim Walker has been keeping the clock ticking in Carnforth Station since 2004
He was 'banned' from entering parts of the station after an alleged racist remark
The 71-year-old says was discussing refugees entering the UK from Europe
Station heritage trust said it was a 'very serious incident which could have involved the police'

A 71-year-old volunteer claims he has been banned from winding up the railway station clock made famous in the classic film Brief Encounter because of alleged racist remarks.

A family made a complaint about timekeeper Jim Walker when they overheard him speaking about refugees in Carnforth Station, Lancashire.

He has been 'banned' from entering parts of the station where he has been volunteering for 14 years and features in the 1945 romantic drama.

The former train driver said he was overheard discussing a newspaper article which compared Jewish children arriving in England in 1933 and the refugees entering the UK from Calais.

The 71-year-old, husband to Betty, said the migrants were 'incomparable' with the six-year-old Jewish children arriving on Kindertransport trains fleeing the Nazis.

Mr Walker claims the Carnforth Station Trust later decided to move the tools he needs to access the clock to an outbuilding not in the trust's control to enable him to continue his duties.

Mr Walker, from Carnforth, said: 'Carnforth Station Trust received a complaint from a visitor who wasn't happy about me speaking to somebody about the issue.'

The solicitor's letter sent to Mr Walker said the 'serious complaint' followed a family cutting short their trip to the heritage centre due to 'loud offensive remarks' which used 'inflammatory and highly abusive' language.

The letter said: 'It is clear the visitor's version of events was a true and factual picture of what went on.'

Carnforth Station Trust chairman Peter Crowther said he did not wish to comment further until after the meeting, but added that it was 'a very serious incident which could have involved the police'.

“He said that if action wasn’t taken he would report the matter as a hate crime to the police.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/brief-encounter-clock-stilled-migrant-comments-row/


So once again the Trust out of FEAR just banned the guy rather than do what was right. What the poor chap said was indeed correct. Very sad.

Thoughts?

A very good example of PC gone mad. Since when can someone be found guilty and convicted on hearsay and no real evidence. That is typical PC behaviour.

If people are allowed to make such allegations with no evidence and others take it seriously there is something seriously wrong in this country. Anyone can say anything - could be an agenda, malicious behaviour or some over-sensitive twat that sees racism round every corner.

Someone should challenge this as there appears to be no evidence and to stop such ridiculous unfounded allegations being made in future. Such perpetrators should be charged.

[Kizzy]

Yes they should have just reported him to the police if that's what he rather happen.
'Vile' family eh?

[Brillopad]

maybe the "family" could just stop listening to other peoples conversations?

Exactly. Even if the guy had said something they didn't like, as long as he was not shouting it over the rooftops and it was a private conversation not meant for big flappy ears intent on policing the opinions of others - he did nothing wrong.

[Brillopad]

Yes they should have just reported him to the police if that's what he rather happen.
'Vile' family eh?

What is vile is trying to force others to think like they do. Free thought and personal opinion in a private conversation is a RIGHT. This is not a dictatorship.

[Cherie]

The 71-year-old, husband to Betty :laugh:

However he phrased it, and that is a matter of opinion he is right though it is not comparable, we tend to be all misty eyed about Jewish refugees but they had to backed up by a 50.00 guarantee from a family in the UK, and the Jewish community rallied round and provided these guarantees



Most Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria found it very difficult to enter Britain. However, by September 1939 about 70,000 Jews had been granted refuge in this country. The main area of settlement was North-West London.
Among those who obtained entry visas were many women who came as domestic servants. Almost 10,000 Jewish children were admitted without visas on Kindertransports. Several thousand men arrived on transit visas, which allowed them to re-emigrate to other countries.
The Jewish community in Britain responded actively to the desperate plight of Jews in the Third Reich. The Central British Fund for German Jewry was set up to raise funds. The CBF guaranteed the government that it would bear all costs of maintaining the Jewish refugees. The Jewish Refugees Committee and other Anglo-Jewish organisations found homes for the children and accommodation and jobs for the adults.
In February 1939 these organisations and their Christian and charitable counterparts were housed in Bloomsbury House, London, a lifeline for many a desperate refugee. Initially, many refugees were destitute and faced a desperate struggle to maintain themselves and their dependents, while also coping with the emotional and psychological aftermath of enforced emigration.
Some sections of public opinion, and some organisations, remained hostile to the refugees. For many refugees, their cruel separation from homes and loved ones and their flight to a strange land was a bitter and traumatic experience.

[user104658]

He probably was being loudly outright racist and is (for obvious reasons) playing it down in his version of events. Just saying. It's the most likely explanation.

[Kizzy]

A very good example of PC gone mad. Since when can someone be found guilty and convicted on hearsay and no real evidence. That is typical PC behaviour.

If people are allowed to make such allegations with no evidence and others take it seriously there is something seriously wrong in this country. Anyone can say anything - could be an agenda, malicious behaviour or some over-sensitive twat that sees racism round every corner.

Someone should challenge this as there appears to be no evidence and to stop such ridiculous unfounded allegations being made in future. Such perpetrators should be charged.

There were witnesses, if you are in a public place working on behalf of an organisation you have to commit to their rules of conduct, regardless of the law.

[Kizzy]

'incomparable' is not an offensive word...

The family and the witnesses reported 'loud offensive remarks' which used 'inflammatory and highly abusive' language.'

Therefore he must have said something else not stated here.

[Livia]

He probably was being loudly outright racist and is (for obvious reasons) playing it down in his version of events. Just saying. It's the most likely explanation.

YOu have no way of knowing that.

There were witnesses, if you are in a public place working on behalf of an organisation you have to commit to their rules of conduct, regardless of the law.

He was not working, he was volunteering.

[Northern Monkey]

He shouldn't be banned from his duties on hearsay.Anyone can make up any old crap about someone.If he's denying the accusations they need to investigate it.If there's no one to corroborate these people's story then he should be left to carry on his clock winding.

[Kizzy]

He was not working, he was volunteering.

That is by the by, he is a representative of the organisation he wears the uniform and has a duty to abide by their rules of conduct also.

[Livia]

That is by the by, he is a representative of the organisation he wears the uniform and has a duty to abide by their rules of conduct also.

Legal advice. Thanks...

We're never going to agree on this. You automatically think someone's a bigot because he's had a complaint of racism agaiinst him. I prefer to see the whole story before I condemn someone. That's the kind of legal advice I prefer.

[Kizzy]

Legal advice. Thanks...

We're never going to agree on this. You automatically think someone's a bigot because he's had a complaint of racism agaiinst him. I prefer to see the whole story before I condemn someone. That's the kind of legal advice I prefer.

Not legal advice... I just happen to know this, I have volunteered myself .

I have not accused anyone of anything, therefore what basis have you for the suggestion I think he's a bigot? Legally what is the term for this?

He could have been referred to the authorities, he wasn't
He could have been escorted from the premises and asked not to return, he wasn't.

Therefor this is exactly what it looks like, a non story about a non event.

[Livia]

Not legal advice... I just happen to know this, I have volunteered myself .

I have not accused anyone of anything, therefore what basis have you for the suggestion I think he's a bigot? Legally what is the term for this?

He could have been referred to the authorities, he wasn't
He could have been escorted from the premises and asked not to return, he wasn't.

Therefor this is exactly what it looks like, a non story about a non event.

So why are you engaging me on this? Let it go whydontcha...

[Jamie89]

maybe the "family" could just stop listening to other peoples conversations?

Exactly. Even if the guy had said something they didn't like, as long as he was not shouting it over the rooftops and it was a private conversation not meant for big flappy ears intent on policing the opinions of others - he did nothing wrong.

He's working/volunteering in a public place, it's not other people's responsibility to make sure they don't hear him, it's his responsibility to make sure that he isn't heard (if he did make racist remarks, or better still just not make them in the first place).

[Crimson Dynamo]

He's working/volunteering in a public place, it's not other people's responsibility to make sure they don't hear him, it's his responsibility to make sure that he isn't heard (if he did make racist remarks, or better still just not make them in the first place).

of course it is, if i am in a public place i of course try at all times not to listen to private convos, its normal

:umm2:

[Kizzy]

So why are you engaging me on this? Let it go whydontcha...

You quoted me, I was just being polite.

[Livia]

You quoted me, I was just being polite.

Haha... right.

[Brillopad]

He's working/volunteering in a public place, it's not other people's responsibility to make sure they don't hear him, it's his responsibility to make sure that he isn't heard (if he did make racist remarks, or better still just not make them in the first place).

We don't even know any remarks he did make were 'racist' as it is often about perception and over sensitivity from some.

If most were as sensitive as a minority seem to be we would not have put up with Islamic preachers spouting their hate on British streets. In any Islamic country anyone doing that wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.

You cannot police opinion simply because it doesn't agree with your own.

[Kizzy]

Haha... right.

Left :smug:

[Livia]

Left :smug:

Are we marching?

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think it perhaps boils down to


Fred: I think we need tighter controls on immigration as too many are arriving at the moment and we have no idea who they are or in what number?


Marjorie: You vile nazi racist brexit pig i am going to report you for a hate crime

[Kizzy]

Or .... it's silly click bait and I don't know why I'm wasting my time discussing it.

[Jamie89]

of course it is, if i am in a public place i of course try at all times not to listen to private convos, its normal

:umm2:

Hearing someone make a remark is a bit different to intentionally trying to listen into a private conversation. You can't stop yourself from hearing something :unsure:

We don't even know any remarks he did make were 'racist' as it is often about perception and over sensitivity from some.

If most were as sensitive as a minority seem to be we would not have put up with Islamic preachers spouting their hate on British streets. In any Islamic country anyone doing that wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.

You cannot police opinion simply because it doesn't agree with your own.

That's true but I was just commenting on the principle of what you were saying more than anything else, if he's working for a company (even if it's not paid) he's representing them and anything he says will impact the company's reputation, so if he wants to make racist remarks, and especially if they're 'loud offensive remarks', then he shouldn't be doing it while in that position. You say you can't police opinion but that's not what's happened, he's entitled to his opinion but the company have a right to manage how they're perceived, if his opinion is bigoted then he just needs to make sure he's not voicing it while he's representing them.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Hearing someone make a remark is a bit different to intentionally trying to listen into a private conversation. You can't stop yourself from hearing something :unsure:
.

Yes but most people know that as the conversation is not for them that they may be missing the context etc

Its not like a drunk woman on a bus shouting death to ***** to the whole bus for 10 minutes

[user104658]

I think it perhaps boils down to


Fred: I think we need tighter controls on immigration as too many are arriving at the moment and we have no idea who they are or in what number?


Marjorie: You vile nazi racist brexit pig i am going to report you for a hate crime

Or a clockwinding old fart has been reading the tabloids every morning and was understandably mislead into thinking that "racism is OK again hooray!" and felt bolstered to sound off in public, whilst acting as a representative of a larger body (paid or otherwise), to stroke his prejudice.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Or a clockwinding old fart has been reading the tabloids every morning and was understandably mislead into thinking that "racism is OK again hooray!" and felt bolstered to sound off in public, whilst acting as a representative of a larger body (paid or otherwise), to stroke his prejudice.

unlikely as the Trust has said zero in its defence when asked by many media agencies. We have the account of the man and to date not one single person including the person who reported him have come forward with any alternatives to what the man said

[Tom4784]

I refuse to believe his version of events, If he actually said what he said then no one would have cared. He obviously said something way worse, got caught out and has now run off to the DM to get sympathy from people who are desperate for reasons to complain about political correctness and how they can't be openly racist without judgement any more.

[Kizzy]

unlikely as the Trust has said zero in its defence when asked by many media agencies. We have the account of the man and to date not one single person including the person who reported him have come forward with any alternatives to what the man said

'Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident and decided to ban Mr Walker from those parts of the station it operates and rents from Network Rail.

The trust said Mr Walker, who the trust claims refused to attend the meeting at which his fate was decided, has since refused to wind the clock up.

“Mr Walker has been given the right to go into the station to get the tools to maintain the clock without having to go into trust buildings and he is not doing it,” said Mr Crowther. “The clock not being wound up is his personal decision and nothing to do with the trust.”

[user104658]

'Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident and decided to ban Mr Walker from those parts of the station it operates and rents from Network Rail.

The trust said Mr Walker, who the trust claims refused to attend the meeting at which his fate was decided, has since refused to wind the clock up.

“Mr Walker has been given the right to go into the station to get the tools to maintain the clock without having to go into trust buildings and he is not doing it,” said Mr Crowther. “The clock not being wound up is his personal decision and nothing to do with the trust.”

Wanted free reign to "air his (racist) views". Wasn't allowed. Threw tantrum.

Sounds about right for a snowflake DM reader.

[Jamie89]

Yes but most people know that as the conversation is not for them that they may be missing the context etc

Its not like a drunk woman on a bus shouting death to ***** to the whole bus for 10 minutes

And most people watch what they say in public places for that same reason, but if it happens that a racist remark is made and someone overhears it and is offended, then it's not the fault of the person who heard it, it's the fault of the person who said it.

[Brillopad]

Wanted free reign to "air his (racist) views". Wasn't allowed. Threw tantrum.

Sounds about right for a snowflake DM reader.

Where's that roll eyes smilie when you want it!!!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wanted free reign to "air his (racist) views". Wasn't allowed. Threw tantrum.

Sounds about right for a snowflake DM reader.

how do you know which newspaper he takes?

[user104658]

Where's that roll eyes smilie when you want it!!!

https://s30.postimg.org/k28w8zsdt/6e3b6.gif


... No idea where the smilie you're looking for is though.

[user104658]

how do you know which newspaper he takes?

I know a DM reader when I see one, he just has that sort of face.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I know a DM reader when I see one, he just has that sort of face.


He is probably a nazi too, that clock has a very Germanic look

:suspect:

[Livia]

I do hope that if I'm ever tried by jury, no one from TiBB is ever serving. I hate it when people make conclusions with absolutely nothing to go on but a bit of hearsay in a newspaper, and that's enough to damn anyone apparently. Already this man has been tried, found guilty and is on the way to the metaphorical gallows.

"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto.

[Brillopad]

I think it perhaps boils down to


Fred: I think we need tighter controls on immigration as too many are arriving at the moment and we have no idea who they are or in what number?


Marjorie: You vile nazi racist brexit pig i am going to report you for a hate crime

Sounds about right.

[Northern Monkey]

I do hope that if I'm ever tried by jury, no one from TiBB is ever serving. I hate it when people make conclusions with absolutely nothing to go on but a bit of hearsay in a newspaper, and that's enough to damn anyone apparently. Already this man has been tried, found guilty and is on the way to the metaphorical gallows.

"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto.

:laugh:

I think it's the millennial motto of the west tbh.Not just Britain.

[user104658]

I do hope that if I'm ever tried by jury, no one from TiBB is ever serving. I hate it when people make conclusions with absolutely nothing to go on but a bit of hearsay in a newspaper, and that's enough to damn anyone apparently. Already this man has been tried, found guilty and is on the way to the metaphorical gallows.

"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto.
Yet amazingly, you have absolutely NO problem with LT branding the others involved "vile" and intimating that they are liars, based on... What was it... Oh. Not even a bit of hearsay in a newspaper. Absolutely nothing in fact.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yet amazingly, you have absolutely NO problem with LT branding the others involved "vile" and intimating that they are liars, based on... What was it... Oh. Not even a bit of hearsay in a newspaper. Absolutely nothing in fact.

incorrect its is the actual statement from the poor accused Clockwinder


so not hearsay but from the very mouth of the innocent 71 year old man:nono:

[Niamh.]

I do hope that if I'm ever tried by jury, no one from TiBB is ever serving. I hate it when people make conclusions with absolutely nothing to go on but a bit of hearsay in a newspaper, and that's enough to damn anyone apparently. Already this man has been tried, found guilty and is on the way to the metaphorical gallows.

"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto.

To be fair though the same can equally be said for those supporting the man one of which actually started this thread and opened it up for discussion and reached his conclusions about what was or was not said :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/webimage/1.8373500.1486382581!/image/image.jpg

Here he is looking at a map of places he is "allowed" to go to at the station

[Alf]

Brief Encounter is a masterpiece of motion picture, it's so atmospheric.

It's not cool for a man's man like me to like such a film, but it's one of my all time favourites.

If you've not seen it and like film, you should watch it, this St Valentines day.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

[user104658]

incorrect its is the actual statement from the poor accused Clockwinder


so not hearsay but from the very mouth of the innocent 71 year old man:nono:

I beg your pardon then. It was indeed, equally, a bit of hearsay in a newspaper.

The point stands though, that it's a piece of hearsay in a newspaper that is fine by Livia because it confirms her predisposition to believe the testimony of "poor old men" over that of ... Others.

I mean of course, when it's a case of one person's word against another's, it's only logical to automatically believe the accused. That's just good law practice.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I beg your pardon then. It was indeed, equally, a bit of hearsay in a newspaper.

The point stands though, that it's a piece of hearsay in a newspaper that is fine by Livia because it confirms her predisposition to believe the testimony of "poor old men" over that of ... Others.

I mean of course, when it's a case of one person's word against another's, it's only logical to automatically believe the accused. That's just good law practice.

The trust banned the man based on one accusation and did not speak to the clockwinder before sending him a solicitors letter one night

that is scurrilous and cowardly behaviour

[Crimson Dynamo]

Subsequently it is alleged that staff at the visitor centre were telling people who kept asking about the clock that it had "broken" down rather than give the real reason, shocking

[Niamh.]

Subsequently it is alleged that staff at the visitor centre were telling people who kept asking about the clock that it had "broken" down rather than give the real reason, shocking

Well I for one am totally shocked by this LT

[user104658]

The trust banned the man based on one accusation

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too [emoji23].

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too [emoji23].

so they say but they carried out this "investigation" without once speaking to the accused so draw from that what you will. They were happy enough to lie to members of the public about the clock so adding a few "extra" ear witnesses seems right up their strada.

or do you agree that he should not have been involved?

[user104658]

so they say but they carried out this "investigation" without once speaking to the accused so draw from that what you will. They were happy enough to lie to members of the public about the clock so adding a few "extra" ear witnesses seems right up their strada.

or do you agree that he should not have been involved?
I agree that he should have been spoken to face to face rather than in a letter, yes. On the other hand it's a voluntary thing that he's doing and, to be frank, if he wanted to continue doing it he should have had a greater understanding of the fact that you can't expect to spout all of your views while you are representing a larger body.

Do you think I say the stuff I do on here to staff or customers at work? Nope. Because I would end up facing disciplinary action. I appreciate that coz I'm not an entitled li'l snowflake like Ol' Clock Bob.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I agree that he should have been spoken to face to face rather than in a letter, yes. On the other hand it's a voluntary thing that he's doing and, to be frank, if he wanted to continue doing it he should have had a greater understanding of the fact that you can't expect to spout all of your views while you are representing a larger body.

Do you think I say the stuff I do on here to staff or customers at work? Nope. Because I would end up facing disciplinary action. I appreciate that coz I'm not an entitled li'l snowflake like Ol' Clock Bob.

I would love to know what he said but i would imagine that is he was a garrulous racist he would not have lasted 13 years.

Lets see the picture and testimony of the grass and we can then judge

of wait we cant as they are somehow being protected

[arista]

Thoughts?

Yes LT
showing how stupid so many are.

Leave the Old fella ALONE
POXY LEFT WINGERS

[Tom4784]

I do hope that if I'm ever tried by jury, no one from TiBB is ever serving. I hate it when people make conclusions with absolutely nothing to go on but a bit of hearsay in a newspaper, and that's enough to damn anyone apparently. Already this man has been tried, found guilty and is on the way to the metaphorical gallows.

"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto.

So it isn't okay to disbelieve his version of events because they make no sense but it's fine to believe him when it allows you to take a pop at 'PC gone mad' bull****?

[DemolitionRed]

Thoughts?

Yes LT
showing how stupid so many are.

Leave the Old fella ALONE
POXY LEFT WINGERS

What the hell is wrong with you?
Do you really believe its only left wing people who would be offended by racial slurs? You seriously need educating Arista.

[user104658]

I would love to know what he said but i would imagine that is he was a garrulous racist he would not have lasted 13 years.

As someone who works around previously-closeted xenophobic old men all day every day, I can tell you for a fact that people who previously wouldn't have said boo to a goose are recently feeling VERY out-and-proud in their opinions when it comes to immigrants... or "spear chuckers" as one lovely old fellow who I have known for 6 years, without any previous indication of racism, recently called them.

However you want to spin it; the "out" vote at Brexit was a big neon sign to certain members of the "older generations" saying that it's now OK to rewind time back half a century and let out the decades of hateful bile that they haven't felt confident in expressing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

As someone who works around previously-closeted xenophobic old men all day every day, I can tell you for a fact that people who previously wouldn't have said boo to a goose are recently feeling VERY out-and-proud in their opinions when it comes to immigrants... or "spear chuckers" as one lovely old fellow who I have known for 6 years, without any previous indication of racism, recently called them.

However you want to spin it; the "out" vote at Brexit was a big neon sign to certain members of the "older generations" saying that it's now OK to rewind time back half a century and let out the decades of hateful bile that they haven't felt confident in expressing.

Or thee opposite is true and he is a lovely old man who actually remembers the Jewish children being evacuated to the UK and is appauled by the ridiculous comparisons with the economic "child" men migrants at Calais?

As any self respecting adult who knows a smidgeon about history would be.

[user104658]

Or thee opposite is true and he is a lovely old man who actually remembers the Jewish children being evacuated to the UK and is appauled by the ridiculous comparisons with the economic "child" men migrants at Calais?

As any self respecting adult who knows a smidgeon about history would be.


It just doesn't seem like the most likely explanation though, does it?

Scenario A) We assume him to be a lovely old gent is having a quiet musing with a friend about history and the differences with a modern situation. Someone overhears this mild conversation, and goes out of their way to make a complaint to staff, even threatening to get the police involved because of racist abuse, simply because they are "vile" and have decided that - of all the low key racism they no doubt experience every day - this one minor incident was the one that really got to them and made them want to approach law enforcement. The company then decided to get rid of him immediately, because they are also vile and some sort of immigrant sympathisers PC gone mad PC gone mad, and even invented false witnesses as justification.

Scenario B) He was spouting obviously racist garbage, was reported, several real witnesses confirmed it and they had to let him go. He played it down to spare himself embarrassment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[Brillopad]

As someone who works around previously-closeted xenophobic old men all day every day, I can tell you for a fact that people who previously wouldn't have said boo to a goose are recently feeling VERY out-and-proud in their opinions when it comes to immigrants... or "spear chuckers" as one lovely old fellow who I have known for 6 years, without any previous indication of racism, recently called them.

However you want to spin it; the "out" vote at Brexit was a big neon sign to certain members of the "older generations" saying that it's now OK to rewind time back half a century and let out the decades of hateful bile that they haven't felt confident in expressing.

All entirely hypothetical of course - put whatever spin on it you like but if people face as much racism as suggested why would they single out a harmless old man stuck in his ways.

Personally I feel it was the usual over-sensitive type set on making an example of anyone who dares express an opinion different to theirs. An old man was an easy target?

[Kizzy]

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too [emoji23].

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.

[Kizzy]

All entirely hypothetical of course - put whatever spin on it you like but if people face as much racism as suggested why would they single out a harmless old man stuck in his ways.

Personally I feel it was the usual over-sensitive type set on making an example of anyone who dares express an opinion different to theirs. An old man was an easy target?

No excuse, he saw others as an easy target therefore this bleeding heart response is pointless.

[Alf]

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.Don't you be bad mouthing Alf. He's a distinguished member of his community I'll have you know.

[Northern Monkey]

If there were other witnesses and he was loudly shouting racist abuse and not just stating his opinion in a private convo then his employers probably took the right course of action.

[Brillopad]

No excuse, he saw others as an easy target therefore this bleeding heart response is pointless.

Really, so you expect an old man in his seventies who grew up in a different time to move on in these progressive times but don't have the same expectation of Muslims who come here and refuse to move on from the sexist controlling ways they grew up with. Why is that no surprise!

[DemolitionRed]

All entirely hypothetical of course - put whatever spin on it you like but if people face as much racism as suggested why would they single out a harmless old man stuck in his ways.

Personally I feel it was the usual over-sensitive type set on making an example of anyone who dares express an opinion different to theirs. An old man was an easy target?

Oh fcuk that. When that old man approached me in the doctors he held his fist two inches from my face and the things he shouted in my face were disgusting and inexcusable. Am I supposed to excuse his actions because he's just an old man stuck in his ways?

[Brillopad]

Oh fcuk that. When that old man approached me in the doctors he held his fist two inches from my face and the things he shouted in my face were disgusting and inexcusable. Am I supposed to excuse his actions because he's just an old man stuck in his ways?

No, that sounds different as he was being physically threatening. However the way that made you feel makes it difficult to remain unbiased on this in my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Really, so you expect an old man in his seventies who grew up in a different time to move on in these progressive times but don't have the same expectation of Muslims who come here and refuse to move on from the sexist controlling ways they grew up with. Why is that no surprise!

Yes my mother is in her 80s and she wouldn't dream voicing such ignorant views...
I do have an expectation for EVERYONE to follow the law as well as the codes of conduct for the organisations they represent.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.

and you know it was this how?

[Brillopad]

Yes my mother is in her 80s and she wouldn't dream voicing such ignorant views...
I do have an expectation for EVERYONE to follow the law as well as the codes of conduct for the organisations they represent.

Double standards.

[DemolitionRed]

No, that sounds different as he was being physically threatening. However the way that made you feel makes it difficult to remain unbiased on this in my opinion.

Not at all. I was surrounded by a lot of elderly people all waiting to see a doctor and they cheered me challenging him. I would never tar the elderly with the same brush as him.

[Tom4784]

Really, so you expect an old man in his seventies who grew up in a different time to move on in these progressive times but don't have the same expectation of Muslims who come here and refuse to move on from the sexist controlling ways they grew up with. Why is that no surprise!

What an ignorant example based on nothing more than pure hysteria. Do you believe all Muslims are sexist and abusive? Do you hold sweeping stereotypes about all religions as gospel or just the ones mostly followed by Arabic people?

[Brillopad]

What an ignorant example based on nothing more than pure hysteria. Do you believe all Muslims are sexist and abusive? Do you hold sweeping stereotypes about all religions as gospel or just the ones mostly followed by Arabic people?

Not hysteria, just what I see almost every day.

[Tom4784]

Not hysteria, just what I see almost every day.

More likely what you want to see with your broad judgement on an entire group of people.

[Tozzie]

I think a lot of people are guilty of making racist remarks whilst in conversation, almost everything we say in these PC days can be deemed as racist remarks, we mostly should all walk around with our mouths zipped, it has gotten to the point where people are afraid to open their mouths or speak their minds. I remember Jade Goody getting done for saying 'that Shilpa Poppadom or whatever her name is' and I thought it ridiculous she got a serious warning for that. If someone calls me a Yorkshire Pudding I don't going around shouting...........RACIST, everything is bloody racist these days. I'll probably get locked up now for saying this, *waiting for the handcuffs*

[Brillopad]

I think a lot of people are guilty of making racist remarks whilst in conversation, almost everything we say in these PC days can be deemed as racist remarks, we mostly should all walk around with our mouths zipped, it has gotten to the point where people are afraid to open their mouths or speak their minds. I remember Jade Goody getting done for saying 'that Shilpa Poppadom or whatever her name is' and I thought it ridiculous she got a serious warning for that. If someone calls me a Yorkshire Pudding I don't going around shouting...........RACIST, everything is bloody racist these days. I'll probably get locked up now for saying this, *waiting for the handcuffs*

PC gave us Brexit at the end of the day because people have been pushed too far. PC is judgemental and oppressive - everything it accuses 'racists' of being. Pot and kettle. Free speech is only applicable to them and they are too far up their own A***s to see it.

[Scarlett.]

What is vile is trying to force others to think like they do. Free thought and personal opinion in a private conversation is a RIGHT. This is not a dictatorship.

The station have the right to not allow him into certain parts of the station if they so wish to do so, this report seems to be lacking in details, so its hard to actually say if he was in the wrong or right, but either way, the station has the right.

[Scarlett.]

I think a lot of people are guilty of making racist remarks whilst in conversation, almost everything we say in these PC days can be deemed as racist remarks, we mostly should all walk around with our mouths zipped, it has gotten to the point where people are afraid to open their mouths or speak their minds. I remember Jade Goody getting done for saying 'that Shilpa Poppadom or whatever her name is' and I thought it ridiculous she got a serious warning for that. If someone calls me a Yorkshire Pudding I don't going around shouting...........RACIST, everything is bloody racist these days. I'll probably get locked up now for saying this, *waiting for the handcuffs*

While I didn't agree with Jade Goody's stupid thoughtless comments, I thought the way she was vilified for what she actually said was rather over the top, the hate she got was far worse than some silly little comment.

[DemolitionRed]

While I didn't agree with Jade Goody's stupid thoughtless comments, I thought the way she was vilified for what she actually said was rather over the top, the hate she got was far worse than some silly little comment.

There were a number of people in the house that were emotionally bullying Shilpa. Jack Tweed called her a **** ****** and Goody called her 'Shilpa ****awallah' and Danielle Lloyd said she should '**** off home'. From what I remember it was really nasty stuff at the time and I believe they got a record number of complaints and lost BB sponsors because of it.

Whilst it had to be shown that this sort of talk was not acceptable, the media were particularly cruel to Goody, even after she apologised. In my mind, Jades mum, Lloyd and Tweed were much worse than Jade but she was the one who was made to suffer.

[Scarlett.]

There were a number of people in the house that were emotionally bullying Shilpa. Jack Tweed called her a **** ****** and Goody called her 'Shilpa ****awallah' and Danielle Lloyd said she should '**** off home'. From what I remember it was really nasty stuff at the time and I believe they got a record number of complaints and lost BB sponsors because of it.

Whilst it had to be shown that this sort of talk was not acceptable, the media were particularly cruel to Goody, even after she apologised. In my mind, Jades mum, Lloyd and Tweed were much worse than Jade but she was the one who was made to suffer.

Pretty much, I think people just pinned it mainly on Jade, because she was the biggest name in the show at that point, what she did was wrong, but the backlash against her was way over the top. I remember at the time thinking Danielle Lloyd seemed to be the most horrible toward Shilpa.

[user104658]

There were a number of people in the house that were emotionally bullying Shilpa. Jack Tweed called her a **** ****** and Goody called her 'Shilpa ****awallah' and Danielle Lloyd said she should '**** off home'. From what I remember it was really nasty stuff at the time and I believe they got a record number of complaints and lost BB sponsors because of it.

Whilst it had to be shown that this sort of talk was not acceptable, the media were particularly cruel to Goody, even after she apologised. In my mind, Jades mum, Lloyd and Tweed were much worse than Jade but she was the one who was made to suffer.

Yeah, the "Shilpa Poppadom" comment was really the least of what went on that year... although I agree, Jade took most of the flak for it (because of her higher profile at the time) when she wasn't the worst by far.

[Kizzy]

and you know it was this how?

By reading the link in the OP.

[Kizzy]

Double standards.

:/ Where, I haven't stated any?

[Niamh.]

Yeah, the "Shilpa Poppadom" comment was really the least of what went on that year... although I agree, Jade took most of the flak for it (because of her higher profile at the time) when she wasn't the worst by far.

Yeah was about to say the same thing. It was a sort of the higher you are the harder you're going to fall type thing, no one even knew who Jack, Jades mom and Danielle were which is why Jade and Jo took most of the backlash.simply because they were known to the public more

[Kizzy]

PC gave us Brexit at the end of the day because people have been pushed too far. PC is judgemental and oppressive - everything it accuses 'racists' of being. Pot and kettle. Free speech is only applicable to them and they are too far up their own A***s to see it.

Ah, PC is out for an airing... the nonsense non word that means nothing and everything in an attempt to give credence to a right wing perspective on anything...Without actually having to have the intelligence to form a credible opinion on any given topic.
Who are 'them' and why do you insult them?

[Livia]

So it isn't okay to disbelieve his version of events because they make no sense but it's fine to believe him when it allows you to take a pop at 'PC gone mad' bull****?

Dezzy, I have no idea what this means in relation to what I wrote.

[Kizzy]

Yeah was about to say the same thing. It was a sort of the higher you are the harder you're going to fall type thing, no one even knew who Jack, Jades mom and Danielle were which is why Jade and Jo took most of the backlash.simply because they were known to the public more

Well of course, if you are offensive to a national treasure on national television you are going to be the ones held to account, Imagine someone being offensive to Joanna Lumley on Indian TV There would be OUTRAGE!

[Niamh.]

Well of course, if you are offensive to a national treasure on national television you are going to be the ones held to account, Imagine someone being offensive to Joanna Lumley on Indian TV There would be OUTRAGE!

and rightly so Dahling :laugh:

[Livia]

Until there is testimony from the man in question it's all just conjecture. One group stands behind the accused without knowing what happened, one group stands behind the accusers without knowing what happened. We're all starting to make up our own version of events.

[Livia]

and rightly so Dahling :laugh:

Oooo bit racist...

[Kizzy]

I'm offended.

[Tom4784]

Dezzy, I have no idea what this means in relation to what I wrote.

It's fairly simple, Livia. You slated everyone for making their minds up about the story and then you ended your post with '"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto' which suggests that you are siding with the man which is exactly what you were slating everyone else for, perhaps even worse, given how unlikely his version of events are.

[Niamh.]

Oooo bit racist...

Typo TYPO

http://rs375.pbsrc.com/albums/oo194/TheCuteWoofer/Smilies/Weird/sofahide.gif~c200

[Livia]

It's fairly simple, Livia. You slated everyone for making their minds up about the story and then you ended your post with '"I'm offended" is fast becoming the national motto' which suggests that you are siding with the man which is exactly what you were slating everyone else for, perhaps even worse, given how unlikely his version of events are.

I respectfully refer you to Post 96.

You may think "it" may be fairly simple, but I'm not. Just for the record.

[Kizzy]

Giving this a little perspective, it is just the trust buildings he was prohibited from entering and due process was followed by management, witness statements and a meeting ( which he neglected to attend) he had ample chance to explain his version of events but chose not to.
He is still rightly entitled to free speech as network rail have stated the ban does not extend to the railway station in it's entirety, the issue was on trust property any therefore an issue for them and their codes of conduct alone.

All organisations have these, they are not a court of law therefore I don't understand the comparison.

[Livia]

No one knows the whole truth, that's all the perspective that's needed. In my opinion it's been a massive waste of time and money.

How many times have I been called names? Everything from a Zionist up to a filthy Jew. I don't look typically Jewish so I've really got off lightly compared to friends and family members experiences in the past. I've been called names and abused on this forum... several times. I reported it once when it just got too strong and that was years ago. If everyone who is aggrieved starts demanding procedures and witness statements the only good that will come out of it, lawyers will make more money. So... double-edged sword, really.

[user104658]

Giving this a little perspective, it is just the trust buildings he was prohibited from entering and due process was followed by management, witness statements and a meeting ( which he neglected to attend) he had ample chance to explain his version of events but chose not to.
He is still rightly entitled to free speech as network rail have stated the ban does not extend to the railway station in it's entirety, the issue was on trust property any therefore an issue for them and their codes of conduct alone.

All organisations have these, they are not a court of law therefore I don't understand the comparison.

Exactly. Like I said, there are PLENTY of opinions that I express on here / when socialising with friends that I wouldn't come out with at work... because even if it is to a friend / colleague there's always the risk of being overheard and I could face disciplinary action. That part has nothing to do with whats legal or moral... ... ... when you work for a company or organisation, paid or not, whilst on duty you are a representative of that organisation and you have to watch what you say. What is or isn't appropriate is fully down to that organisation. Simple as that.

[Livia]

How simple the legal system would be if all cases could be cut and dried with so little information.

[Tom4784]

I respectfully refer you to Post 96.

You may think "it" may be fairly simple, but I'm not. Just for the record.

Still doesn't change the fact that you seemed to leaning towards one side in the post I quoted.

Until there is testimony from the man in question it's all just conjecture. One group stands behind the accused without knowing what happened, one group stands behind the accusers without knowing what happened. We're all starting to make up our own version of events.

There's witness statements that sided with the family and plus it's only common sense that the trust wouldn't ban him over saying what he said he did in the article since it's not offensive in any way. Witnesses have backed up the family's version of events but we only have this man's word when it comes to his version of events.

[Livia]

Still doesn't change the fact that you seemed to leaning towards one side in the post I quoted.



There's witness statements that sided with the family and plus it's only common sense that the trust wouldn't ban him over saying what he said he did in the article since it's not offensive in any way. Witnesses have backed up the family's version of events but we only have this man's word when it comes to his version of events.

Again... I am on neither side. I don't know all the facts.

[Kizzy]

No one knows the whole truth, that's all the perspective that's needed. In my opinion it's been a massive waste of time and money.

How many times have I been called names? Everything from a Zionist up to a filthy Jew. I don't look typically Jewish so I've really got off lightly compared to friends and family members experiences in the past. I've been called names and abused on this forum... several times. I reported it once when it just got too strong and that was years ago. If everyone who is aggrieved starts demanding procedures and witness statements the only good that will come out of it, lawyers will make more money. So... double-edged sword, really.

Nobody has made any money...there were no courts or lawyers involved :/
You are intent on expressing this as a legal issue and it really isn't.

There is a report feature on here, if you are offensive you are banned...same as the trust in effect.

[user104658]

Nobody has made any money...there were no courts or lawyers involved :/
You are intent on expressing this as a legal issue and it really isn't.

There is a report feature on here, if you are offensive you are banned...same as the trust in effect.

I actually heard that LT is suing over the SD ban :worry:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The guy is a retired volunteer who winds clocks. He got a letter sayhing eh was banned, job done. Then this so called Trust want him to come in a face some fecking panel?

are you mad, of course he thinks feck you. Its laughable the whole thing, some jumped up trust twats playing at politics and feeling all important

Let them pay for a new clock winder and lose money.

[Kizzy]

The guy is a retired volunteer who winds clocks. He got a letter sayhing eh was banned, job done. Then this so called Trust want him to come in a face some fecking panel?

are you mad, of course he thinks feck you. Its laughable the whole thing, some jumped up trust twats playing at politics and feeling all important

Let them pay for a new clock winder and lose money.

:joker::joker::joker:

[user104658]

:joker::joker::joker:

All because he uttered some so called "racism" whilst winding up some so called "clock" :fist:

[Kizzy]

Bliddy clocks.. comin in ere tekkin are jobs, tekkin are wimmin!

[Withano]

The guy is a retired volunteer who winds clocks. He got a letter sayhing eh was banned, job done. Then this so called Trust want him to come in a face some fecking panel?
.

Obviously an openly racist guy shouldnt be working for your company, we can all agree there
The question is, was he racist? We can all presume yes, but cant know for sure. A fecking panel is a chance for him to defend himself should he want to do so. I'd imagine all innocent people would like to clear their name from such a horrific label. I'd imagine most guilty people would hide in knowing they got away leniently.
Is there an update? Did he face the panel? It would be pretty telling and conclusive for me. We're left to believe he didnt bother with the panel are we?

[user104658]

Bliddy clocks.. comin in ere tekkin are jobs, tekkin are wimmin!

Send them back. Damn tick-tocks, they're only after benefits anyway.

[user104658]

Is there an update? Did he face the panel? It would be pretty telling and conclusive for me. We're left to believe he didnt bother with the panel are we?

I think the suggestion was that he was too offended by the accusation.

I think they call that irony...

[Crimson Dynamo]

All because he uttered some so called "racism" whilst winding up some so called "clock" :fist:

actually you are quite right

he said something negative about economic migrants and the "new outraged left" cried racism as they seem to now do if such a subject is broached

[Withano]

I think the suggestion was that he was too offended by the accusation.

I think they call that irony...

I really don't want to conclude on so little information, but he hasn't done much to convince anybody otherwise. Most non–racist people accused of racism would be upset id imagine, and love a chance to apologise for the misunderstanding. This guy is happy leaving things as they are? Who does that?

[Northern Monkey]

All because he uttered some so called "racism" whilst winding up some so called "clock" :fist::joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I really don't want to conclude on so little information, but he hasn't done much to convince anybody otherwise. Most non–racist people accused of racism would be upset id imagine, and love a chance to apologise for the misunderstanding. This guy is happy leaving things as they are? Who does that?

A volunteer who winds a clock once a day?

[Kizzy]

I think the suggestion was that he was too offended by the accusation.

I think they call that irony...

:hehe:

[jennyjuniper]

Oh for f...s sake. I am so sick of people being 'offended' by a remark. I don't know whether what this guy said was racist or not, but he has a right to an opinion. So long as he's not threatening someone with death (like those hate preachers in nighties) then he has a right to voice an opinion.THIS is what has brought Britain to it's knees. Weak assed people who are so scared to be seen to be doing the wrong thing, that they do nothing at all. Which is why so many scum in Britain got away with (and presumably still do) of ,olesting and abusing children.

[Scarlett.]

Oh for f...s sake. I am so sick of people being 'offended' by a remark. I don't know whether what this guy said was racist or not, but he has a right to an opinion. So long as he's not threatening someone with death (like those hate preachers in nighties) then he has a right to voice an opinion.THIS is what has brought Britain to it's knees. Weak assed people who are so scared to be seen to be doing the wrong thing, that they do nothing at all. Which is why so many scum in Britain got away with (and presumably still do) of ,olesting and abusing children.

He has a right to voice his opinion, just as someone else has the right to be offended, and the train station has the right to refuse him access to certain areas. Free speech works both ways, you can say what you want, but people wont always agree with you.

[Withano]

A volunteer who winds a clock once a day?

Top answer was actually insensitive people
I would have also accepted racist people and people who know they dont have a leg to stand on
Not sure you can ever find evidence that all clockwinding volunteers would turn down the opportunity to aplogise or explain themselves, just because of this one guy. More likely that this one guy is just insensitive.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Top answer was actually insensitive people
I would have also accepted racist people and people who know they dont have a leg to stand on
Not sure you can ever find evidence that all clockwinding volunteers would turn down the opportunity to aplogise or explain themselves

Do you seriously think a 70 year old guy who has retired and was banned without being spoken to could be seriously arsed to go in and sit in front of some fait au complet panel who he neither knows or works for just so they can complete some quotas and pat themselves on the back?

:joker:

Sure Jan

as I said let them now pay someone to wind the clock

[Withano]

Do you seriously think a 70 year old guy who has retired and was banned without being spoken to could be seriously arsed to go in and sit in front of some fait au complet panel who he neither knows or works for just so they can complete some quotas and pat themselves on the back?

:joker:

Sure Jan

as I said let them now pay someone to wind the clock

I think every non-racist person would (at least should) love the opportunity to defend themselves from an untrue label
This guy doesnt want to, so I think its reasonable to question if he is racist
Or at best, this guy isnt doing something he should do (to apologise to people he upset). So at best, I have no sympathy for him.. he seems like a cruel and bitter man, even if he isnt racist.
This is all based on the latest update though, maybe hes changed his mind.

[Kizzy]

Or..... get a less offensive volunteer?

[Withano]

I dont understand the other side of the argument
Nobody (regardless of jobrole, jobrank, or age) would say something inoffensive, find out that the inoffensive phrase was mishead as racism, get told that they were banned from a place that they clearly enjoy because of the misheard racist phrase, and just accept it despite having the opportunity to fight it. Literally nobody... unless it was somewhat true.
"Oh, I was misheard? Well thats that then, I'm racist and I have no hobby, no need for me to defend myself, I was mishead, can't fight that"

[user104658]

Oh for f...s sake. I am so sick of people being 'offended' by a remark. I don't know whether what this guy said was racist or not, but he has a right to an opinion. So long as he's not threatening someone with death (like those hate preachers in nighties) then he has a right to voice an opinion.THIS is what has brought Britain to it's knees. Weak assed people who are so scared to be seen to be doing the wrong thing, that they do nothing at all. Which is why so many scum in Britain got away with (and presumably still do) of ,olesting and abusing children.
Again, when he's working for someone else, paid or voluntary, he quite simply ****ing doesn't have the right to "voice his opinion" if he wants to keep his place there.

Have you ever had a job? Seriously?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Again, when he's working for someone else, paid or voluntary, he quite simply ****ing doesn't have the right to "voice his opinion" if he wants to keep his place there.

Have you ever had a job? Seriously?

So taking the man at his word with what he said he said


Do you think this so called trust should have done anything?

[Alf]

I think all workers in any job, should have their mouth taped up when they go to work.

Why is it always me that comes up with the progressive solution?

[user104658]

So taking the man at his word with what he said he said


Do you think this so called trust should have done anything?
It's not mine, yours or his so frankly it isn't up to any of us. Would I be having strong words with an employee voicing contentious political opinions in our shop, especially regarding immigration, when we have paying customers who are immigrants? Yes, without question. Instant dismissal obviously not (I don't having hiring / firing powers anyway, boooo) BUT if it happened again after one verbal warning then yeah, it would be an official written letter and disciplinary meeting.

[Alf]

It's not mine, yours or his so frankly it isn't up to any of us. Would I be having strong words with an employee voicing contentious political opinions in our shop, especially regarding immigration, when we have paying customers who are immigrants? Yes, without question. Instant dismissal obviously not (I don't having hiring / firing powers anyway, boooo) BUT if it happened again after one verbal warning then yeah, it would be an official written letter and disciplinary meeting.What about if you said something your employee decided to take offence against, would you discipline yourself?

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's not mine, yours or his so frankly it isn't up to any of us. Would I be having strong words with an employee voicing contentious political opinions in our shop, especially regarding immigration, when we have paying customers who are immigrants? Yes, without question. Instant dismissal obviously not (I don't having hiring / firing powers anyway, boooo) BUT if it happened again after one verbal warning then yeah, it would be an official written letter and disciplinary meeting.

I dont think anyone would say that what he said he said was in any way contentious, he was making a point about a comparison drawn by a commentator (not a migrant) about migrants and genuine child refugees from Germany.

[user104658]

I dont think anyone would say that what he said he said was in any way contentious, he was making a point about a comparison drawn by a commentator (not a migrant) about migrants and genuine child refugees from Germany.

As an SD regular I'm pretty sure you know that any opinion regarding immigration is potentially contentious...

[Tom4784]

That's assuming he's telling the truth about what he said which is unlikely.

[Crimson Dynamo]

That's assuming he's telling the truth about what he said which is unlikely.

why is it unlikely?

In another thread on here you seem happy to believe that all beggars are real charity cases but here you are casting aspersions on a perfectly happy, married retired gentleman?

[Tom4784]

why is it unlikely?

In another thread on here you seem happy to believe that all beggars are real charity cases but here you are casting aspersions on a perfectly happy, married retired gentleman?

Do you even read the articles you post?

It's unlikely that his story is true because the decision to ban him was made after witnesses were interviewed. There's no proof that what he said happened is true but there's obviously enough evidence to support banning him which means he likely said something racist about immigrants instead of what he claimed he said.

You should probably read things twice before posting, your reading comprehension seems a bit off if you think my post in hte Homeless thread is anything like you said it is here.

[user104658]

Do you even read the articles you post?

It's unlikely that his story is true because the decision to ban him was made after witnesses were interviewed. There's no proof that what he said happened is true but there's obviously enough evidence to support banning him which means he likely said something racist about immigrants instead of what he claimed he said.

You should probably read things twice before posting, your reading comprehension seems a bit off if you think my post in hte Homeless thread is anything like you said it is here.

LT's opinion is that the so-called trust invented the so-called witnesses.

Because that, apparently, is more likely than an old tit telling porkies.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do you even read the articles you post?

It's unlikely that his story is true because the decision to ban him was made after witnesses were interviewed. There's no proof that what he said happened is true but there's obviously enough evidence to support banning him which means he likely said something racist about immigrants instead of what he claimed he said.

You should probably read things twice before posting, your reading comprehension seems a bit off if you think my post in hte Homeless thread is anything like you said it is here.

well we have no evidence save what the trust have said as they conducted that aspect in secret and without the accused, but keep on going believing a trust that has a lot to lose against a man who has nothing to lose

[Crimson Dynamo]

and as always dezzy

quit with the personal barbs as they always let you down...

[Northern Monkey]

well we have no evidence save what the trust have said as they conducted that aspect in secret and without the accused, but keep on going believing a trust that has a lot to lose against a man who has nothing to lose

A 'so called trust' at that:laugh:

[Brillopad]

Oh for f...s sake. I am so sick of people being 'offended' by a remark. I don't know whether what this guy said was racist or not, but he has a right to an opinion. So long as he's not threatening someone with death (like those hate preachers in nighties) then he has a right to voice an opinion.THIS is what has brought Britain to it's knees. Weak assed people who are so scared to be seen to be doing the wrong thing, that they do nothing at all. Which is why so many scum in Britain got away with (and presumably still do) of ,olesting and abusing children.

I agree entirely Jenny. It is exactly this kind of controlling PC behaviour that has led to Brexit and Trump and the PC brigade have nobody to blame but themselves.

Insecure people who are trying too hard to be seen to be the 'good guy' and collect their brownie points.

[Crimson Dynamo]

the key is when the "outraged" person threatened the police the Trist went into "blame fear" and did what they did to avoid blame

lets not kid ourselves that anyone at the trust gives a flying fck about racism

and of course, what race is being hated on here?

you could not make this sh1t up

[DemolitionRed]

I agree entirely Jenny. It is exactly this kind of controlling PC behaviour that has led to Brexit and Trump and the PC brigade have nobody to blame but themselves.

Insecure people who are trying too hard to be seen to be the 'good guy' and collect their brownie points.

So do you and Jenny believe everyone should of minded their own business when that old guy in my doctors surgery verbally abused a young pregnant African woman? When he came at me was it because I was at fault?

[Brillopad]

So do you and Jenny believe everyone should of minded their own business when that old guy in my doctors surgery verbally abused a young pregnant African woman? When he came at me was it because I was at fault?

No of course not, as I said before he was physically threatening and this situation is not the same.

[Tom4784]

well we have no evidence save what the trust have said as they conducted that aspect in secret and without the accused, but keep on going believing a trust that has a lot to lose against a man who has nothing to lose

Ignoring facts because they don't support what you want to believe doesn't make them go away. The man refused to attend the meeting, acting like the ban was underhanded and/or done without this fool having a chance to defend himself is silly. He had a chance to defend himself and he chose not to so the Trust went with the evidence of the witness accounts to take action.

There are witness accounts that attest to his behaviour but no evidence of his innocence. Considering how much you usually go on about evidence it's particularly bizarre that you are going to such lengths to ignore it in this case because it doesn't suit your agenda.

and as always dezzy

quit with the personal barbs as they always let you down...

https://31.media.tumblr.com/6ef4f9dddb45e52bdad82f6151b5bb20/tumblr_inline_nl073o0ogU1rfgyve.gif

[Scarlett.]

What about if you said something your employee decided to take offence against, would you discipline yourself?

I think the best course of action would be to do one of these (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology). :shrug:

[jennyjuniper]

He has a right to voice his opinion, just as someone else has the right to be offended, and the train station has the right to refuse him access to certain areas. Free speech works both ways, you can say what you want, but people wont always agree with you.

I don't expect people to always agree with me. That's where I and snowflakes differ. They expect that their thoughts and feelings are the only ones that matter, whereas I couldn't give a flying f... what anybody thinks.

[jennyjuniper]

Again, when he's working for someone else, paid or voluntary, he quite simply ****ing doesn't have the right to "voice his opinion" if he wants to keep his place there.

Have you ever had a job? Seriously?

You have to be f....... kidding me. Have I ever had a job? I worked since I was 16, (nearly 67 now) Working for someone else doesn't mean you can't give an opinion. What about you,? Do you work or just sit and pontificate on how best to be a snowflake?

[jennyjuniper]

So do you and Jenny believe everyone should of minded their own business when that old guy in my doctors surgery verbally abused a young pregnant African woman? When he came at me was it because I was at fault?

No I don't. In that case in the doctors surgery, the man was being physically threatening directly to the young woman. That is vastly different from someone voicing an opinion on immigration etc.,

[user104658]

You have to be f....... kidding me. Have I ever had a job? I worked since I was 16, (nearly 67 now) Working for someone else doesn't mean you can't give an opinion. What about you,? Do you work or just sit and pontificate on how best to be a snowflake?
If you've worked since you were 16 allowing airing your views to take priority over the interests of your employer, then there's only one entitled li'l snowflake here and it isn't me :idc:.

[jennyjuniper]

If you've worked since you were 16 allowing airing your views to take priority over the interests of your employer, then there's only one entitled li'l snowflake here and it isn't me :idc:.

First of all you didn't answer my question. Do you work? or do you live off the fruits of someone else's labour?
Secondly I have always been loyal to my employers, which is why in over 50 years of working life I have never been sacked. This doesn't mean I wouldn't voice my opinion, especially if the conversation I had was not dierected at the person/persons 'offended' by my remarks.
I am not, nor ever will be considered a 'snowflake' since I am too politically incorrect to fulfill that role.

[user104658]

First of all you didn't answer my question. Do you work? or do you live off the fruits of someone else's labour?
Secondly I have always been loyal to my employers, which is why in over 50 years of working life I have never been sacked. This doesn't mean I wouldn't voice my opinion, especially if the conversation I had was not dierected at the person/persons 'offended' by my remarks.
I am not, nor ever will be considered a 'snowflake' since I am too politically incorrect to fulfill that role.
If you've read the thread then you'd know that, yes, I do work. I have others working under me whilst also working for a large company. If those under me were affecting business by airing their crap in earshot of those who we make money from, I would be pulling them up on it. If I did it and was reported, the company would pull me up on it. Because the company's interest is its business and not people's "right to be a bit racist".

Now... Your slant on it seems to be "but *I* have the right to express *my* opinion wherever and whenever *I* want to! Wah wah wah!"

Sounds pretty snowflakey to me :shrug:

[jennyjuniper]

Being a 'snowflake' means that you consider only your opinions are valid. I don't consider only my opinions matter, but having an opinion IS important, as is others opinions.
By the way, saying 'wah,wah,wah' to someone is a little childish to say the least.

[Niamh.]

oh ffs can we all drop this snowflake sh**e please?

[user104658]

Being a 'snowflake' means that you consider only your opinions are valid. I don't consider only my opinions matter, but having an opinion IS important, as is others opinions.
By the way, saying 'wah,wah,wah' to someone is a little childish to say the least.

You believe that not only your right to have an opinion, but your right to share that opinion whenever and wherever you want, is more important than the wishes of the company you represent or any other professional consideration. You can't accept that when you are representing something other than yourself (which you are, always, when you are working... unless you are self employed) then actually your personal opinions take a back seat. Share your opinions on something related to the job or business? By all means, that should be encouraged. Share your personal opinions because *you* feel that *your* right to do so is all-important? No. Snowflakey.

[user104658]

oh ffs can we all drop this snowflake sh**e please?

:fist: we must decide on a definition!

[Crimson Dynamo]

oh ffs can we all drop this snowflake sh**e please?

yes keep it in LTs weather centre :nono:

we have new snow today

:hee:

[jennyjuniper]

:fist: we must decide on a definition!

If anyone should know about snowflakes, it's you.:evilgrin:

[Withano]

I don't expect people to always agree with me. That's where I and snowflakes differ. They expect that their thoughts and feelings are the only ones that matter, whereas I couldn't give a flying f... what anybody thinks.

Tbh Jenny, theres nothing snowflakier than being offended at someone elses offence. Sounds like you have a lot in common with said snowflakes.

[Brillopad]

Tbh Jenny, theres nothing snowflakier than being offended at someone elses offence. Sounds like you have a lot in common with said snowflakes.

Sounds like you identify well with snowflakes.

[user104658]

Sounds like you identify well with snowflakes.
Only a snowflake would know if someone identified well with being a snowflake, snowflake.

[Withano]

Sounds like you identify well with snowflakes.

Classic snowflake comment

[Brillopad]

[QUOTE=Withano;9212939]Classic snowflake comment[/


Takes one and all that. :joker:

[Withano]

Takes one and all that. :joker:

http://img.youtube.com/vi/n2gZ32TAgtc/0.jpg

[Brillopad]

http://img.youtube.com/vi/n2gZ32TAgtc/0.jpg

You look older than I imagined.

[user104658]

This is fast becoming one of my favourite threads tbh

[Niamh.]

Serious Debates Indeed

[Crimson Dynamo]

Has anyone posted 'well you smell too?

[Niamh.]

Has anyone posted 'well you smell too?
I know you are but what am I [emoji14]

[Withano]

Has anyone posted 'well you smell too?

Reported.

[user104658]

Has anyone posted 'well you smell too?
Don't be ridiculous, snowflakes don't smell they're only frozen water particles.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Meanwhile this clock goes unwound

[Cherie]

oh ffs can we all drop this snowflake sh**e please?

:worship:

[Withano]

Meanwhile this clock goes unwound

Then why is time still moving linearly? :suspect: