Bus driver sacked OMG

[Odds]

way too much fun watching you loonies try to work it out. Running around in circles like headless chickens. This is great.

Ah yes, 'discussion' Screwfix style.

 

[Highway Man]

And then if some twonk decides to jump in the drivers seat and have a joy ride, you then have several passengers and a whole lot of expensive bus shaped property to deal with. That and the fact that the insurers have now voided your £120k claim because the bus was unatended.

What's the chances of that?

 

[morqthana]

But the whole story is about him not accepting responsibility and being discontent with the consequences.

You can understand that, at least the 2nd part - quite understandable to be discontent about losing your job. As for accepting responsibility, I'm sure that at the time he thought he was doing the right thing. Even if he's a "fists first, thinking second" type of bloke I'm sure he was sincere in his actions at the time.

Later, should he have been more reflective? Would things have gone differently with his employer if he'd apologised and accepted that he shouldn't have done it but that in the heat of the moment he reacted to a passenger being robbed?

We don't know - there's nothing in the tribunal report about it.

But there is something interesting, and maybe a clue about why the disciplinary process went the way it did. The tribunal report says "Until the events to which this hearing relates, the claimant had no disciplinary issues during his employment" but also that the disciplinary hearing considered "records of previous safety incidents involving the claimant".

It's (too) easy to read too much into things when reading between the lines, but it looks as though it could be that the guy had "history", which had never got as far as formal disciplinary issues (maybe it would have been better if they had?), but this was the final straw?

Anyway - speculation.

What isn't speculation though is that at least the driver did have the right to a proper hearing, to go through a proper process, to have union representation, to take the employer to an independent tribunal.

There are people on the forum who get all shouty about Labour giving employees rights. I wonder what the overlap is with those getting all shouty about this guy getting dismissed.

 

[fillyboy]

'London bus driver who punched thief made me feel safe'

Kartalin Kaszas is grateful to bus driver Mark Hehir for intervening in a "terrifying" situation.

www.bbc.co.uk

She said after Hehir chased the thief and returned with her necklace, the man then came back towards her.

"I was screaming, telling him to stay away from me," Kaszas said, adding: "His face was bad news. It was very, very scary at that point."

Kaszas described how Hehir then stepped between her and the man. "He kept the guy back," she said.

She added: "I'm a single mum. I'm the only one my daughter has. If something happens to me, it happens to her.

"He made me feel safe and since there is no Mark on the buses, I don't feel that safe any more because I know the next driver isn't going to step off the bus to protect me because he's going to lose his job."

 

[Highway Man]

You can understand that, at least the 2nd part - quite understandable to be discontent about losing your job. As for accepting responsibility, I'm sure that at the time he thought he was doing the right thing. Even if he's a "fists first, thinking second" type of bloke I'm sure he was sincere in his actions at the time.

Later, should he have been more reflective? Would things have gone differently with his employer if he'd apologised and accepted that he shouldn't have done it but that in the heat of the moment he reacted to a passenger being robbed?

We don't know - there's nothing in the tribunal report about it.

But there is something interesting, and maybe a clue about why the disciplinary process went the way it did. The tribunal report says "Until the events to which this hearing relates, the claimant had no disciplinary issues during his employment" but also that the disciplinary hearing considered "records of previous safety incidents involving the claimant".

It's (too) easy to read too much into things when reading between the lines, but it looks as though it could be that the guy had "history", which had never got as far as formal disciplinary issues (maybe it would have been better if they had?), but this was the final straw?

Anyway - speculation.

What isn't speculation though is that at least the driver did have the right to a proper hearing, to go through a proper process, to have union representation, to take the employer to an independent tribunal.

There are people on the forum who get all shouty about Labour giving employees rights. I wonder what the overlap is with those getting all shouty about this guy getting dismissed.

You have a point there, mate of mine got sacked for getting caught in his basket without a harness on, although he had never received a written warning they brought up other safety issues they had against him. You gotta love those heath and safety guys...NOT.

 

[pete01]

'London bus driver who punched thief made me feel safe'

Kartalin Kaszas is grateful to bus driver Mark Hehir for intervening in a "terrifying" situation.

www.bbc.co.uk

She said after Hehir chased the thief and returned with her necklace, the man then came back towards her.

"I was screaming, telling him to stay away from me," Kaszas said, adding: "His face was bad news. It was very, very scary at that point."

Kaszas described how Hehir then stepped between her and the man. "He kept the guy back," she said.

She added: "I'm a single mum. I'm the only one my daughter has. If something happens to me, it happens to her.

"He made me feel safe and since there is no Mark on the buses, I don't feel that safe any more because I know the next driver isn't going to step off the bus to protect me because he's going to lose his job."

What a legend and these loons think he done wrong....OMG

 

[Highway Man]

What a legend and these loons thick he done wrong....OMG

Reported

 

[pete01]

Reported

OMG why?

 

[Dec27]

Then it won't be hard for you to show at least some words of mine, accompanied by an intelligent and rational analysis of them which shows how I'm taking the side of the criminal will it.

Except of course, you can't do that, can you? You will fail to even try to prove it, despite how desperately you would like it to be true.

I'm sure you'll either ignore this, or repeat your baseless insults, or bluster on about how you can't be bothered, but the the truth is that your allegation is completely without merit.

You do at least understand the concept of truth, don't you? You have at least heard of it?

Your posts are long and boring. What’s the point ?

 

[noseall]

If you promise to listen carefully. I will explain the difference between the well established common law defence of reasonable force for self defence and the statutory right of someone using reasonable force to apprehend a criminal.

You can fluff out the thread with as much irrelevance as HWM with thwank you for. I care not.

Now that you have read the relevant (CPS report) snippet, and have your source, my work here is done.

 

[Dec27]

You can fluff out the thread with as much irrelevance as HWM with thwank you for. I care not.

Now that you have read the relevant (CPS report) snippet, and have your source, my work here is done.

Admission of defeat above.

 

[Highway Man]

OMG why?

No permission to use OMG

 

[pete01]

No permission to use OMG

Oh

 

[Highway Man]

Admission of defeat above.

Yes I think I put the final nail in the coffin for him. He had nowhere to go thereafter.

 

[Highway Man]

Oh

Exactly