[Withano]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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?



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and as always dezzy

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

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Alf

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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Chewy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?