Bus driver sacked OMG

[King Billy]

What's the chances of that?

Thief steals bus fares as Blackpool bus driver gives man first aid

Kath Smith spotted a man lying face-down in water in Blackpool during Storm Gareth.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thief stole cash from empty bus while driver was on break

AN OPPORTUNIST thief sneaked on board an empty bus and stole cash after the driver had gone for a comfort break leaving the vehicle open.

www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk

Pupil's trips at risk as opportunistic thieves steal £15k south Essex school minibus

Thundersley Primary School, in Dark lane, and Kingston Primary School, in Church Road, Benfleet, both share a Peugeot minibus

www.echo-news.co.uk

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/crime/man-took-bus-on-10-mile-joyride-jailed-for-year-4388657

 

[King Billy]

... "records of previous safety incidents involving the claimant".
...
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.

Yes, I'd seen the bits about previous history.

Excellent reference to an employee's rights. A typical example of right-wingers inconsistencies.

 

[King Billy]

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

So now you are admitting you made the allegation without having read any of his posts?

OOI, what's your IQ rating?

 

[King Billy]

irrelevant, a car could also hit into the bus but it didn't, what other risks are you looking at? This happened in the heat of the moment and so he wasn't thinking about company policies or health and safety issues, he was acting for the passengers not against them.

He deserted his post.

 

[King Billy]

Just go backwards from this post.

Dec 27 accused Morqthana of taking the sides of criminals.
Morqthana quite justifiably asked Dec27 to present some evidence to support the accusation.

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.
...

Dec27 admitted he didn't read Morqthana's posts.

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

I wonder if he had to attend casualty for the shotgun injury to his foot.

 

[King Billy]

Seen plenty of bus drivers going for a pee and leaving the bus unattended also if someone wanted to joyride a bus it would be unlikely they would choose one full of passengers.

With the doors open, the keys in and the engine running?





No doubt you'll claim to have taken special notice of such things.

 

[King Billy]

In these scenarios, there is both a subjective element and an objective element when assessing whether force is reasonable.

The subjective element means we take the threat as it was perceived by the defendant, whether or not the defendant was mistaken in that perception.

The objective element means we consider what a reasonable person would think was an acceptable amount of force, in the situation as perceived by the defendant.

The third factor is that, in the heat of the moment, the defendant cannot be expected to weigh the amount of force needed precisely. So, there is significant leeway to use more force than determined in the second step above.

Except that the driver lied to cover his use of force in the second encounter.
He'd already used reasonable force to recover the stolen property, then he let the thief go on his way.

There are two different issues being discussed.
Was the driver's dismissal justified, and did he use unreasonable force?

The driver was not sacked because of his use of excessive force. He was sacked for his dereliction of his primary duty.
As I said previously, if the thief had suffered serious injury, I suspect that charges would have been brought against the driver.
The female victim is hardly likely to be an unfavourable witness, given the circumstances.

 

[King Billy]

He chased him to get the girls necklace back he only hit him when he came back and was aggressive towards the girl.

So he said, and not supported by the CCTV.

 

[King Billy]

I think the driver is saying that, as he was turning around to get back on the bus, he saw out of the corner of his eye that the thief was about to throw a punch, so he turned back round and decked him.

Another version is that he stepped between the female passenger and the thief who was offering a hand of apology.

 

[King Billy]

Yes. So basically, self-defence.

Unless the CCTV disproves his version.

 

[King Billy]

What is interesting is that the tribunal allowed the incorrect opinion of the disciplinary board to stand.

Incorrect in whose opinion?
A self-appointed legal expert on a DIY forum?

 

[King Billy]

Anyone else for source?

Brown?

 

[King Billy]

they could have sacked him immediately, instead of suspending him and simply reverse the decision if they changed their mind.

It's reported that he was employed for about 2 years.
A full investigation during suspension is much fairer than summary dismissal.

 

[King Billy]

You cannot talk for everyone, your opinion is just that, only your opinion. I am No1 for a reason, Think on...

No 1 what?

 

[King Billy]

No indication that he did want to. He'd retrieved the necklace, job done from his POV.

The 2nd assault was in self defence after the thief came back, not an attempt to detain. To what extent it really was self defence seems to be unclear, but it was good enough for the police not to charge him. After that 2nd incident he did detain him until the police came.

The police use other criteria when deciding to charge anyone, e.g. public interest, probability of conviction, etc.
A jury would not be considering the unfair dismissal aspect, only the degree of force used in the circumstances.