Bus driver sacked OMG

[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.

 

[King Billy]

How much time on his hands in his Mum's bedroom must Himmy have? Jeez! Unending pages of multiquotes, guff and lefty waffle from his multiple schizo usernames - benefitting insomniacs and no one else. Thankfully ignore also saves having to scroll down past all this bilge.

Hysterical that the saddo will immediately pounce on this and have a reply in a nanosecond. Even though I can no longer read his garbage.

If you have a complaint about me, you can either address your concerns to the mods or Admin. or you can address them directly to me.
A nebulous reference to some mythical person is hardly an example of good behaviour of a serious complainant.
Judging by your numerous references to hordes of immigrants, I think you lack the courage of your convictions to complain about, or to, a genuine person. Is it because thay are able to respond?

 

[pete01]

So he said, and not supported by the CCTV.

Why would he lie, he knew 50 people on the bus were probably watching aswell?

 

[motorbiking]

I actually edited my post a bit.

I believe they need to show that their interpretation fell within a reasonable range of interpretations.

yep100%. - it just seems odd.

???

MBK and I were just trying to get our heads around the judge's reasoning at the tribunal. We weren't even arguing.

Having had a think about it. I suspect they had enough ground irrelevant of the force used. So it didn’t materially change anything.

 

[Odds]

yep100%. - it just seems odd.
Having had a think about it. I suspect they had enough ground irrelevant of the force used. So it didn’t materially change anything.

27 - gonna go for the record?

 

[motorbiking]

I guess if chicken biker insists on making himself look a knob, so be it.

I was happy to explain it to you. But you keep posting the same incorrect opinion that doesn’t even feature in your “care guide” that you claim to be the source. I think your AI has confused you again.

Your new additional source, which I already posted when I directed you to the BB barrister channel is also in the context of defending against intruders. There is a part that is relevant, but you haven’t posted that bit. Nothing in the document suggests what you have claimed, in relation to use of force in performing an arrest or stopping a crime.