Tom Barry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

While that may be technically true, to what extent should an employment
contract override your basic legal right to defend yourself using a
level of force that seems reasonable to you in the light of a perceived
threat?

It doesn't. Which is why he's not been prosecuted for assault, presumably.

Personally, if the police and CPS don't prosecute him, they presumably
think his actions were reasonable, so why don't LUL?

Is everything which doesn't result in prosecution by the CPS appropriate
behaviour in your employment?

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Personally, if the police and CPS don't prosecute him, they presumably
think his actions were reasonable, so why don't LUL?

Is everything which doesn't result in prosecution by the CPS appropriate
behaviour in your employment?

No, but reasonable things shouldn't be considered inappropriate.


--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Mike Bristow wrote

Is everything which doesn't result in prosecution by the CPS
appropriate
behaviour in your employment?

No, but reasonable things shouldn't be considered inappropriate.

But the internal hearing followed by an Employment Tribunal if the
dismissed employee wishes should find the facts and make a judgment on
that.

Suppose the employee had been acquitted by a jury who accepted
self-defense that would still not entitle him not to be dismissed and
Tfl could still have to pay damages for what their employee did.

In a recent judgment of the House of Lords in Ashley (Fc) and Another
(Fc) v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police.

"the test of self-defence as a defence in a civil action is
well-established and well-understood. There is no reason
in principle why it should be the same test as obtains in a criminal
trial, since the ends of justice which the two rules respectively exist
to serve are different."

(Ashley, unarmed and naked, was shot dead in his bedroom. Constable
Sherwood was tried and acquitted of murder. The Chief Constable was
willing to admit negligence and pay damages but not to admit that
anyone behaved unreasonably).



--
Mike D