I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,292

'A railway worker who rescued a disabled woman after she fell onto train tracks in Essex has been suspended for breaking health and safety rules.

The unnamed worker, believed to be a security guard in his 60s, was one of four people who rescued the wheelchair user after she fell off the platform edge at Southend Central station on 28 August.

She was rescued from the track before the next train arrived at the station. A spokesman for train company c2c confirmed that a member of staff had been suspended pending an investigation.'

I'd need to know a lot more.

I mean if the procedure is to ensure all the trains are stopped, then rescue the woman. And he didn't do that then I side with C2C

I've done some further research and it appears David Smith was the one who pushed her onto the tracks

Damn you Smith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*shakes fist*

Your turn

Quote: Will Cam @ September 6 2013, 11:39 AM BST

Your turn

View original

Does that chat up line ever work?

Quote: lofthouse @ September 6 2013, 11:16 AM BST

'A railway worker who rescued a disabled woman after she fell onto train tracks in Essex has been suspended for breaking health and safety rules./../A spokesman for train company c2c confirmed that a member of staff had been suspended pending an investigation

View original

That's OK, suspension is a neutral act, it doesn't mean the employer is coming down on this staffmember. They have to do an investigation, and suspension would be the normal thing to do under such circumstances.

Quote: lofthouse @ September 6 2013, 11:34 AM BST

I've done some further research and it appears David Smith was the one who pushed her onto the tracks

Damn you Smith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*shakes fist*

View original

I'm still believing he's a cook:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/27325/

EDIT: What a lovely nearly forgotten thread.

"I don't want to have to get physical"

Wtfh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413319/Father-secretly-records-moment-hour-old-baby-taken-away-social-services.html#ixzz2e5MpZO1g

Quote: Jennie @ September 4 2013, 11:49 PM BST

To a certain extent I can see your point, but it there are good public policy reasons for it.

1)This complainant is under 18. Should we really start bandying children's names about the press?

2)The anonymity provisions exist in sex cases only. There is evidence to suggest that they encourage victims to come forward in circumstances where they may as well stay quiet.

3)There is some force in the argument that the defendant should not be named either, for fear of stain on his character regardless of acquittal. But then - where does it end? All criminal charges can leave a "stain". Sex cases? Terrorism? Assault? Parking offences?

View original

Where does it end? Are you sure you're a lawyer? It ends with all defendants. There is no need to reveal the names of defendants in court cases to the public as part of a court process. Any concerns regarding public right to know could be satisfied with publication after the verdict has been reached.

Quote: Jennie @ September 4 2013, 11:49 PM BST

I'm sure Nat can defend herself - but this kind of comment is beneath you.

View original

Is it f**k. I am Morrissey-weary of twenty-something imaginal feminist types firing off their mouths without thinking about issues they believe they have guardianship over. Nat Wicks - expert on hymens - I don't think so.

Godot are you suggesting yourself as the ncg hymen expert?

On account of you being an impenetrable. C**t

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 6 2013, 6:20 PM BST

Where does it end? Are you sure you're a lawyer? It ends with all defendants. There is no need to reveal the names of defendants in court cases to the public as part of a court process. Any concerns regarding public right to know could be satisfied with publication after the verdict has been reached.

View original

Excellent idea. Don't let the press/public in. Trials are a private business. No need to worry Joe Public.

I hear it works like a charm in North Korea.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 6 2013, 6:20 PM BST

Are you sure you're a lawyer?

View original

You're right. I am the female David Smith.

Quote: sootyj @ September 6 2013, 7:07 PM BST

Godot are you suggesting yourself as the ncg hymen expert?

On account of you being an impenetrable. C**t

View original

Quote: Godot Taxis @ September 6 2013, 6:20 PM BST

Is it f**k. I am Morrissey-weary of twenty-something imaginal feminist types firing off their mouths without thinking about issues they believe they have guardianship over. Nat Wicks - expert on hymens - I don't think so.

View original

No you're right, I've changed my mind. That kind of comment is exactly on your level.

Hymen...master of the universe. I liked him when I was a boy.

I think it is wrong that members of the jury have their names read out in court.

When I did jury service, we thought the pair were guilty but said they were innocent because of a lack of proof. Then I went to get a train with a female member of the jury.

The ones who had been accused got on the train too with several mates and were jubilant. Recognising us, they spent the journey jeering that they had in fact committed the crime.

If they had been sent down, it could have been trickier. It would have been just their angry friends in the same train carriage - and of course they knew our names. It's ridiculous.

That's awful, Horseradish, and worth a quick call to the police - it's technically jury nobbling, even though it is after the verdict, and worth a bollocking at the police station at the very least.

The name thing is tricky. They really have to be read out to establish if either the defendant or witnesses are likely to know anyone. It is also part of the openness of the court process - the right of a defendant to identify those who try them.

But I can see why there would be concern.

I think it's equally important that guilty people get let off if there is an inadequate case, as innocent people get set free. The whole adverserial system works on the basis that if you can't prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt then the accused is considered guilty. Once you start adding special pleading, or political considerations then it
s a short walk off the long pier. I mean when the various terror legislation came in, the government was thinking of something like 3 months in custody without trial or charges.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ September 6 2013, 7:23 PM BST

Hymen...master of the universe. I liked him when I was a boy.

View original

Hymen is that a Jewish super hero?