Think you need to go back and read it again instead of putting your own spin on it.
- Status
Sponsored Links
And you need to engage your brain.
If the bus did not stop and collect those passengers, because the driver was scared of those passengers, they had no opportunity to spit at him, or to verbally abuse him.
Unless they did it as he was speeding past them. But then how would he know?
The posters on here can read the last paragraph and decide for themselves.
They sure can along with the bus company's comment:
If the bus was spat at, and someone shouted abuse at it, it would have been better for the bus company not to claim one of its drivers were spat at, or verbally abused. Don't you think?
And as I said, how would he have known? He was speeding past in fear of his life, according to you.
Sponsored Links
When they read the paragraph they'll make there own judgement and if they side with you will no doubt acknowledge your saying it as it is.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,905
- Reaction score
- 2,258
- Country
How do you know? How does anyone know?
I do not believe there is any case law to support the claims in that badly drafted brief (note the disclaimer*). Having protected characteristics does not give you entitlement. If the bus left two women at the stop (which is a protected characteristic), it would not necessarily be a hate crime against women.
*The authors Refugee Council and REAP do not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Specialist advice should always be sought for individual cases, and this information is written with the intention and in a style to raise awareness of some of the issues. It is not intended, nor should it be taken, as legal advice.
My take - some trouble has been brewing and it kicked off, only for someone to call plod and demand they dance the Wokey-cokey. The dim plod had no idea what to make of the situation and perhaps rightly concluded it wasn't a crime only to later find out that they have a new kind of non-crime/crime/non-crime statistic that they could record and tick off their targets.
Last edited:
It's been my experience for bus drivers to have a few tricks up their sleeves. One is when your running to catch a bus and your nearly there and see you in their wing mirror and drive off. Another is don't expect the bus to stop if you don't signal it down, they take great delight in driving past if you don't signal it down.
I can't imagine the need for any British citizens to claim asylum in UK, can you?
Is it me going mad, or are some posters scrabbling at ridiculous straws?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,905
- Reaction score
- 2,258
- Country
You are clearly mad, did you have any doubt?
.
Where's the going come into it.?
I'm not the one claiming that discrimination against asylum seekers is not unlawful.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,905
- Reaction score
- 2,258
- Country
"asylum seeker" is not a protected characteristic defined in the Equalities Act 2010 . Find me some case law to prove otherwise.
You mean there's been no prosecutions?
There may be no prosecutions for many crimes, it doesn't mean that the crime is suddenly legal because there's no 'case' law.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,905
- Reaction score
- 2,258
- Country
Actually if there is no case law and no statute, then yeah its legal and its not suddenly legal, its always been legal. Are you familiar with the legal maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed"?
Which bit of "they are directly protected under the characteristic of ‘race" are you struggling with?
Probably, if the asylum seekers were British, and white indigenous, they might not be protected, but they're not, and they are.
How anyone can possibly imagine a UK citizen claiming asylum in UK is beyond belief.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
