http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/ima...mage/image.jpg

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

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.

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

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

"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?

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

Thoughts?

Yes LT
showing how stupid so many are.

Leave the Old fella ALONE
POXY LEFT WINGERS

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****?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Don't you be bad mouthing Alf. He's a distinguished member of his community I'll have you know.

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.

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!

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.

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.