On 30 Jul, 15:49, wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:08 pm, John B wrote:

Hmm. Given that the victim had gone home by the time the BTP arrived,

So in other words he couldn't have been that badly injured or was
feeling guilty and legged it before he could be nicked.

without leaving a forwarding address, I suspect the lack of CPS action
was more based on lack of beyond-reasonable-doubt evidence that a
crime took place, rather than an assessment that the CSA's actions
were legitimate self-defence.

If it occurred on LUL premises it should be on CCTV. If it is I'm sure
plod has already checked it.

Weird the way that people who'd normally double-check if a LUL
employee told them the sun rose in the east (*waves at Boltar*) are
accepting this particular LUL employee's story without question,
innit?

Look at it this way , if someone had assaulted you - especially a
public servant - and you felt you were the innocent party wouldn't you
hang around until plod turned up?

Just because I think LUL see passengers as nothing more than cattle to
milk for money doesn't mean I approve of assaulting their staff!


There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.

Regardless of the merits of anyone's case, the RMT's job is to ensure
that its members get a fair hearing, while the entire political and
business establishment's job is there to ensure that employers get a
fair hearing. Everyone is entitled to representation.

Whatever people may complain about the RMT being involved in
"political" campaigns, I can't see what possible reason John B has for
complaining about them carrying out their basic advocacy role with
respect to members.

The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".