[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Kizzy]

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

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...

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

I think they call that irony...

[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.]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Withano

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?



Sure Jan

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