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

File this under: You could not make it up

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...6539719075.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...6538586260.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...-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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

And what will that "full investigation" consist of?

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

'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.

YOu have no way of knowing that.

He was not working, he was volunteering.

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.

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.

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...

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:

You quoted me, I was just being polite.