Boltar wrote:

Excuse me? I never claimed to have driven one...

[rubish snipped]

As I can clearly show it did very much seem like you were claiming
exactly that. You didn't quote to well there, hence the misunderstanding.

Brimstone wrote:
Boltar wrote:
...try door to door selling around various rough east end
council estates like I did when I was younger where you
risked getting bitten by the some knuckle draggers
pitbull or beaten up by the local gang and have all
your stuff nicked!

But you chose to do the job, if you didn't like it you
could have quite easily found something else, such as
joining the underground and having a nice cushy job.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^

your reply to that was:
I didn't like it. I did leave and get something else. Thats
the whole point...

[after that you immediately started whining about the bad tube drivers
getting payed for their job and having a union caring for them - what
the big deal about it is I still don't understand]

You didn't like _what_? Your reply could easily be mistaken as it's hard
to tell whether you did quit driving or "cleaning doorhandles".

P.S.: Maybe you should have joined the tube, you wouldn't have to risk a
stroke every five seconds because of your anger. On second thoughts
you'd suffer the stress of driving trains and unsocial hours then -
better not then, stay where you are.

Guy Perry wrote:
...try door to door selling around various rough east end
council estates like I did when I was younger where you
risked getting bitten by the some knuckle draggers
pitbull or beaten up by the local gang and have all
your stuff nicked!

But you chose to do the job, if you didn't like it you
could have quite easily found something else, such as
joining the underground and having a nice cushy job.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^

your reply to that was:
I didn't like it. I did leave and get something else. Thats
the whole point...

Perhaps when you learn to read at a standard higher than that of a
5 year old and can actually follow a thread, you might be able to
figure
out that I was talking about leaving the salesman job.


[after that you immediately started whining about the bad tube
drivers
getting payed for their job and having a union caring for them - what

the big deal about it is I still don't understand]

I'm actually "whining" about them always going on strike when they're
overpaid and overpampered already.

P.S.: Maybe you should have joined the tube, you wouldn't have to
risk a
stroke every five seconds because of your anger. On second thoughts
you'd suffer the stress of driving trains and unsocial hours then -
better not then, stay where you are.

Perhaps if you were self employed and your income *depended* on being
able to get to work (no sick or holiday pay) like mine did at the last
tube strike then you and a load of other apologists on here wouldn't be
so
sanguine about strikes. And as for unsocial hours, pal, I've done
overnight
support work and been at my desk at 3 in the morning so don't talk to
me
about how the poor sausages driving the trains sometimes have to knock
off
at 1am.

B2003

Thank you for being honest enough to own up to never having driven
one.

Since I never have claimed to I wasn't owning up to anything. I suggest
you go
back and re-read the thread.

Now when you take back the rubbish spouted in the second paragraph and

the obscenity in the first, perhaps we could have a sensible
conversation.

You call someone a liar and you get whats coming. Now eff off.

B2003

In article , Mait001
writes
I may be wrong, but surely the fact of having passed signals at red is not in
dispute

I don't know the facts, so I can't comment. Even if a signal was passed
at read, it might not be the driver's fault.

- merely the "sentence" that ought to be imposed. That being so, your
reference to "convicted in kangaroo courts" is otiose.

Not so. If I am convicted by a court where I'm prevented from having the
representation that the law (or, in this case, the agreements in place)
permits, that's an injustice. One to which the term "kangaroo court" is
often applied.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message .com,
Boltar writes
And as for unsocial hours, pal, I've done overnight support work and
been at my desk at 3 in the morning so don't talk to
me about how the poor sausages driving the trains sometimes have to
knock
off
at 1am.

B2003
I've worked shift work all my life, are you boasting about being held
back to 3am one day?
--
Clive.

Boltar wrote:
Guy Perry wrote:

...try door to door selling around various rough east end
council estates like I did when I was younger where you
risked getting bitten by the some knuckle draggers
pitbull or beaten up by the local gang and have all
your stuff nicked!

But you chose to do the job, if you didn't like it you
could have quite easily found something else, such as
joining the underground and having a nice cushy job.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^

your reply to that was:
I didn't like it. I did leave and get something else. Thats
the whole point...


Perhaps when you learn to read at a standard higher than that of a
5 year old and can actually follow a thread, you might be able to
figure
out that I was talking about leaving the salesman job.

I push you to the fact that your reply could have been mistaken and the
above is all that comes to your mind?

You must be of very poor education mate.

- merely the "sentence" that ought to be imposed. That being so, your
reference to "convicted in kangaroo courts" is otiose.

Not so. If I am convicted by a court where I'm prevented from having the
representation that the law (or, in this case, the agreements in place)
permits, that's an injustice. One to which the term "kangaroo court" is
often applied.

You are confusing "conviction" with "sentence". Your original comment was
about being "convicted" in a kangaroo court. My understanding is that he was
complaining about demotion or whatever following his "conviction". Ipso facto
he is not actually complaining about the "conviction", so legal representation
or not for that purpose, is not the issue.

Whether he did or should have had legal representation for the purposes of
"sentence" is another matter, but that is not what you said in your original
message.

Marc.

Mait001 wrote:
- merely the "sentence" that ought to be imposed. That being so,
your reference to "convicted in kangaroo courts" is otiose.

Not so. If I am convicted by a court where I'm prevented from
having the representation that the law (or, in this case, the
agreements in place) permits, that's an injustice. One to which
the term "kangaroo court" is often applied.

You are confusing "conviction" with "sentence". Your original
comment was about being "convicted" in a kangaroo court. My
understanding is that he was complaining about demotion or whatever
following his "conviction". Ipso facto he is not actually
complaining about the "conviction", so legal representation or not
for that purpose, is not the issue.

Whether he did or should have had legal representation for the
purposes of "sentence" is another matter, but that is not what you
said in your original message.

I don't think you know enough about this case to comment in this way.
The ASLEF site says "Driver anger was sparked by the failure of
management to implement action plans following a signal passed at
danger, the manner in which the case conference was held and the conduct
of an appeal which took place without the presence of the member or an
ASLEF representative."

I don't know, and I doubt whether you do either, whether the appeal was
against conviction or sentence, but to conduct it without either the
driver or his union representative being present doesn't sound like the
fair application of justice to me. Also, the reference to failure to
implement action plans might indicate that there were plans to reduce
the risk of further SPADs at that signal, which could be an indication
that the SPAD was not 100% the driver's fault.

Are there any Piccadilly Line staff here who can provide further info on
this case?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message .com,
Boltar writes
And as for unsocial hours, pal, I've done overnight support work and

been at my desk at 3 in the morning so don't talk to
me about how the poor sausages driving the trains sometimes have to
knock
off
at 1am.

B2003
I've worked shift work all my life, are you boasting about being held

back to 3am one day?

Go find out what "overnight support work" in an IT enviroment entails.
B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Clive Coleman wrote:
In message .com,
Boltar writes
And as for unsocial hours, pal, I've done overnight support work and

been at my desk at 3 in the morning so don't talk to
me about how the poor sausages driving the trains sometimes have to
knock
off
at 1am.

B2003
I've worked shift work all my life, are you boasting about being held

back to 3am one day?

Go find out what "overnight support work" in an IT enviroment entails.

Same as night turns on LU. Sitting on your arse waiting for some dumbo to
ask a stupid question.