Domitianus

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitanius - I'm not sure how pointing out that he > is English and that someone else isn't is racial > abuse... > Quote from Nigel apparently: "I am english > remember unlike you". > Who would be proud to be English these days with > all the negative connotations. In London it's far > better to be exotic. > If he'd called me English, that would have been a > real insult! > Don't be too quick to play the 'racism' card. (Accidentally sent the following to Gimme as a PM but was meant for public consumption). I am not playing any 'card' The implication from the report given by the poster who mentioned this comment was that Nigel was pointing out his Englishness in an attempt to claim some sort of superiority or authority over the passenger he was interacting with. This implicitly diminishes the racial or ethnic origin of the other person and there is no doubt whatsoever that under the law this would be seen as racially discriminatory behaviour. I know a little of these complexities having been closely involved in a couple of legal cases involving claims of racial harrassment and discrimination. Obviously this interpretation of the nature of the exchange between driver and passenger may not be accurate but in the context of the thread in general, and since the event was offered as further evidenc e of 'Nigel's' nastiness, I wonder what other interpretation there could possibly be. Perhaps Nigel was engaging in jocular, modest, self-effacing humour, attibuting his own personal stupidity, unpleasantness and meaness to his being English, and contrasting this with the infinitely superior racial/national/ethnic characteristics of the passenger concerned - but I doubt it.

piglet Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have spoken at length to various people and made > numerous complaints in writing about this > particular driver but nothing ever happens. Just > last week he shouted from his cab to an elderly > lady who refused to pass her paper travelcard to > him under the hatch "I am english remember unlike > you". He is a disgusting individual and I have > witnessed him bully and abuse passengers on a > regular basis. > > Today I spoke to a controller at East Thames Buses > who tells me the driver is based at the Belvedere > depot and his name is not Nigel. The attached > photograph should help. > > I don't know what else can be done about this > man. > > photo of a bus driver removed - The Administrator If the above comments are true, then the driver is clearly guilty of racially abusing his passengers. Now, I may be wrong but I believe that racial abuse is a criminal offence? It seems eminently possible that this driver has strayed from just being a bit of an all-round c**t (bad enough) to actually being guilty of criminal harassment of passengers. If that is the case are TFL going to stand by him?

I am still eager to find out what it is with thebeard and his Return key? It has been mentioned many times. Yet, We still see these vast deserts of white scattered amidst his posts. Wht the f**k is going on, thebeard, as this interests me more than the rest of the thread.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > F*ck me I can't ever remember this bothering me in > the slightest for the vast majority of my years > when I, like everyone who is a parent, was infact > childess too, I suggest those few without young > babies and toddlers for whom this seems to be such > a big thing 'get a life' as i think the phrase > goes, something they are lucky enough to be able > to have the time and energy to do if my memory of > 90% of my life is not completley scrambled Ever strike you that there is a principle at stake here? Any significant discrimination is usually part of a creeping process starting with things that 'don't really matter'. I wonder if, as a parent, you would be so blase and view this as a nothing if the boot was on the other foot and Sainsbury's, for example, introduced a 'child-free' evening to allow people to go shopping without rug-rats running around, or set aside part of the Starbucks where children were banned to allow those without to sip their latte in peace? Or established parking spaces next to the doors that were exclusively for the use of those without children in tow and from which family-carrying vehicles were banned? I strongly suspect you and others would be banging their drums about this blatant discrimination against families. What would your reaction be then if someone told you to "get a life" and told you it really shouldn't be any inconvenience to you. It wasn't that long ago since we had some irate poster on here screaming blue murder at Le Chandalier because they had the nerve to ask her not to let her nippers climb over their expensive chairs. That was portrayed, not as the reasonable behaviour of a proprietor wising to protect her furnishings from being used as a climbing frame, but as an outrageous and egregiously discriminatory attack on families. Was that something insignificant? Should she have just been told to "get a life"?

Olive-tree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Horsebox - are you a teacher by any chance? Or > apart of the East Dulwich Forum Police? I luuuurve > they way you are trying to exert authority. > Whatever turns you on. > > I think you'll find my point was relevant to the > topic- and while I don't expect 'super parking' > because I am parent, I think that is a cheek that > people who don't have a young baby or toddler use > the spaces. > > And don't even get my on cyclists............ > (neee noor nee noor EDF Police, someone is going > off the topic again!) > > BORE OFF Horsebox. If other drivers think the parent and baby spaces are a load of ridiculous b***cks (as a good number of posters seem to) then I think it is a d**n good thing for them to ignore them and park in those bays if they want to. I assume they are conveying the message - "Kindly don't treat me as a second-class citizen Sainsbury's, just because I don't have a child in tow!" I think it is a bit of a cheek for anyone to say it is a bit of a cheek for someone to disregard and flout a palpable nonsense! Good for them.

Thanks. So it seems that morbid obesity does not automaticaly confer eligibility.

I am well familiar with the BMI tables and also how people casually use terms beyond their strict medical application. So are you saying that EVERYONE who is morbidly obese automatically qualifies for a diabled badge? And if that is true, then what about those who sneak in on the underside of morbidly obese but are still inconvenienced by their bodyweight in the manner I have described earlier?

any update on how obese one needs to be to get a badge anyone?

how obese does one have to be to get a badge? I mean there must be degrees. And isn't just about every argument on EDF boring and done to death?

Ah! I see.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed. > Thanks to Daizie for bringing this to our > attention. > > (If it actually happened) I am curious by the bracketed comment. Have we any reason to suppose it didn't? Has Daizie form?

Well done Kels!

On an associated point, could we perhaps have special parking spaces for the morbidly obese? I am thinking that exactly the same 'needs' exist for them as for parents and children. Namely: 1. They need more space to get out of their cars. 2. Due to their comparatively impaired mobility (compared to the lean and sprightly) they may find it more difficult to walk greater distances from their cars to the shop. 3. They are at greater risk of being injured in the "dangerous environment" of a car-park as they can't move out of the way so fast. 4. They prolly buy more groceries so have more shopping to carry back to their cars. 5. From the purely commercial argument, they eat more than other people and prolly buy more groceries so are probably a customer group worth courting by Sainsbury's. Am I serious? Of course not, but it is just as compelling an argument as the argument for Parent and Child spaces, i.e. not remotely compelling at all.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's Beemers and there's Beemers, London' s > rammed with 5+ year old ones that you can pick up > for a grandish Exactly!

Funny thing is they have been kicking off (see today's Independent for example) about the infringement of their rights by minicabs/changes at Heathrow etc etc, and, like a bunch of French farmers, they take to blockading the Mall and Trafalgar Square to protect their legally-enshrined monopoly through acts of intimidation and virtual blackmail. Well, if they expect to have their legally-enshrined monopoly protected then perhaps these to***rs should fulfill their legally mandated obligations under said monopolistic situation by taking passengers where they f***ing well want to go!

So what's the explanation then?

ErnestoCHE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dv1- i have a suggestion for you. instead of > living such a experiance rich lifestyle, where > your most enjoyable activities are hassling people > at work and then complaining to a bunch of > nobodies online, do something productive like > jumping off the roof of the sainsbury's which > causes you so much distress. would be very > poetic. > > fyi daytime staff often receive parking tickets > for parking in spaces designated for disabled or > parent/children (pointless waste of space imo), > however evening staff dont have such strict > regulations placed on them about where they park > as the store is usually not as busy and the > parking enforcers have gone home. dont forget as > well that the store carpark is not public streets, > the disabled bays are more of a gesture than a > right. if someone who isnt entitled to park there > does, what are you gonna do? call the police? > write a letter? prove its an employees car. you > cant. basically your one voice singing in the > darkness. > > are you disabled? if not your just a bored wasp > busybody trying to tell someone who you see > beneath you what to do. you went out of your way > to try and make someones job that little bit > harder. > > and to the "he works in sainsburys, how has he got > a bmw" post. maybe he doesnt waste his money on 2 > bottles of wine per night to drown out his > meaningless existance. maybe he doesnt go out to > gastro pubs or overpriced flamboyant restaurants. > maybe hes rich and works in sainsburys as a way to > feel normal. think before you post you single > minded ignorant muppets ErnestoCHE.....ranting the rants that even I fear to rant! On the BMW point, howewver, maybe it is a used car that he has taken out financing to obtain. Maybe it's not his. Maybe it is his pride and joy and he makes sacrifices to have it. Maybe all the things that ErnestoCHE said as well.

dv1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There I was again this evening in Sainsbury's and > spotted the same BMW parked in the same disabled > bay - and nearby the same non-disabled Sainsburys > employee who owns the car, collecting trolleys. > > So I pull up along side and: > > Me "is that your BMW in the disabled bay" > Him "Yes" > Me "are you disabled" > Him "no" > Me" So why do you park your car in the disabled > bay?" > Him "it's only temporary" > Me "but I've seen you before, parking there" > Him "but it's only temporary" > Me "what do you mean by temporary - the length of > your shift" > Him "it's only temporary" > > ..ok so I get the message - it's only temporary. > I wouldn't care except that I just know I would > get a ticket straight away of I parked illegally > in one of those bays. > > I called the phone number for customer services, > but they did not answer at all - oxymoron? > > I am the only one who thinks this is outrageous > that a Sainsbury employee openly parks in a > disabled bay? > > How can I bring this to the attention of someone > who gives a s**t? (see previous post about this > individual) > > Maybe a blockade around his car will do the trick. > > > Maybe we could get Sly and Reggie to bring this > loudly to the attention of Sainsbury's > management!?!? Isn't ALL parking "only temporary?" I mean, I have yet to find someone who parks their car somewhere for eternity?

save yourself. kill them all.

keep complaining. or start an action group. "Disgruntled passengers against the c**t on the 185"?

I think the whole point is not about whether drivers have the right to check tickets (of course they have!) but whether one particular driver is doing it excessively, vindictively and out of a bloody-minded bitterness against the world. Drivers are there to collect fares when appropriate and drive the bus. If one particular driver seems to enjoy hassling people, stopping the bus on the slightest pretext out of some type of power trip, driving like a loon etc, then he is not doing his job and is a liability to the employer. If his behaviour was the norm expected from bus drivers then why do so many people seem to have singled this one person out as a particular problem? I think that if he is as bad as people say, then complaints are well in order.

Anything but f***ing Somerfield or Sainsburys. I mean for crying out loud, if ever there was a place that would go mad for M&S it is ED.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Domitianus Wrote: > > > Since you have either missed or deliberately > > > misinterpreted all my points > > > > Nope - nothing of the sort. > > > > > I don't think I'll > > > bother re-iterating or clarifying any of > them, > > > save to point out your own blatant > > contradictions. > > > > Ok, lets look at that: > > > > > You say that kids carrying knives was normal > in > > your day, > > > > I don?t know what you mean by "normal" - that's > > your word, not mine. I said some of my peer > group > > carried knives. > > > > > that these kids seem to think their behaviour > > normal, > > > > No. I said they didn?t appear to think they > were > > doing anything wrong. Very different. > > (Incidentally, without mens rea there is no > crime > > of specific intent under English law.) > > > > > that their behaviour DIDN'T horrify you in > > retrospect - > > > > I said "...as much (in retrospect)" - at the > time > > it did bother me, as per the original post. > > > > > yet you then go on to suggest that all this > > 'normal', > > > 'non-horrifying' behaviour ... > > > > Your words again, not mine. > > > > > ... says something terrible abut the state of > > our society?????? > > > > An issue raised in a later post under the > caveat > > "Further thoughts on this" ... > > > > > What exactly does it say, if it is so normal > and > > not horrifying at all? > > > > Again, those aren't my words. You have > > misrepresented and miscomprehended what I said. > > There is no contradiction on my part, blatant > or > > otherwise. > > > > In response to your question, I think it is > > reasonable to assume that knives per se are not > > the underlying cause of the recent epidemic of > > knife-related crime since they've always been > > around and their possession remains legal. > > Therefore, the cause must lie elsewhere within > > society: it may be a deficiency in either > > education or upbringing - or some combination > of > > both - or some other factor(s) we have yet to > > identify. Whatever the cause, it's a disturbing > > development. I've already stated how I think it > > should be addressed in an earlier post. > > > > > And "...trained by the authorities to kill > with > > a > > > single stab to the heart..."? I think you > have > > > been reading too many Andy McNabb novels. > > > > The Army's Basic Combat Training currently > > includes the technique of creeping up behind an > > enemy soldier or sentry and muffling their > cries > > with the left hand whilst thrusting a dagger > held > > in the right hand upwards under the ribcage > > piercing the heart and left lung. See attached > > drawing. > > P.S. The attached drawing seems to show a German > soldier buggering a decent British Tommy! No > knife visible. No hand over mouth. The swine! May I correct myself? I believe the kindly Hun is actually performing a Heimlich Manoeuvre upon a poor British squaddy who has got a lump of corned beef stuck in his throat. So hard to tell the difference between silent assassination, buggery and emergency first aid. Good job I never became a paramedic!

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > > Since you have either missed or deliberately > > misinterpreted all my points > > Nope - nothing of the sort. > > > I don't think I'll > > bother re-iterating or clarifying any of them, > > save to point out your own blatant > contradictions. > > Ok, lets look at that: > > > You say that kids carrying knives was normal in > your day, > > I don?t know what you mean by "normal" - that's > your word, not mine. I said some of my peer group > carried knives. > > > that these kids seem to think their behaviour > normal, > > No. I said they didn?t appear to think they were > doing anything wrong. Very different. > (Incidentally, without mens rea there is no crime > of specific intent under English law.) > > > that their behaviour DIDN'T horrify you in > retrospect - > > I said "...as much (in retrospect)" - at the time > it did bother me, as per the original post. > > > yet you then go on to suggest that all this > 'normal', > > 'non-horrifying' behaviour ... > > Your words again, not mine. > > > ... says something terrible abut the state of > our society?????? > > An issue raised in a later post under the caveat > "Further thoughts on this" ... > > > What exactly does it say, if it is so normal and > not horrifying at all? > > Again, those aren't my words. You have > misrepresented and miscomprehended what I said. > There is no contradiction on my part, blatant or > otherwise. > > In response to your question, I think it is > reasonable to assume that knives per se are not > the underlying cause of the recent epidemic of > knife-related crime since they've always been > around and their possession remains legal. > Therefore, the cause must lie elsewhere within > society: it may be a deficiency in either > education or upbringing - or some combination of > both - or some other factor(s) we have yet to > identify. Whatever the cause, it's a disturbing > development. I've already stated how I think it > should be addressed in an earlier post. > > > And "...trained by the authorities to kill with > a > > single stab to the heart..."? I think you have > > been reading too many Andy McNabb novels. > > The Army's Basic Combat Training currently > includes the technique of creeping up behind an > enemy soldier or sentry and muffling their cries > with the left hand whilst thrusting a dagger held > in the right hand upwards under the ribcage > piercing the heart and left lung. See attached > drawing. P.S. The attached drawing seems to show a German soldier buggering a decent British Tommy! No knife visible. No hand over mouth. The swine!

Listen HAL9000, I don't mean to have a go at you but this whole bl**dy thread is getting incredibly dumb - even by EDF standards. You posted an OP in which you expressed "horror" (your words - go back and check) that two youths were launching "frenzied stabbing attacks on a wheelie bin!" (your words again) with six inch knives. I think any reasonable person would assume from your use of the words "horror" and "frenzied stabbing attacks" that you found this behaviour somewhat alarming. The fact that you posted on EDF about the matter suggests that it also caused you some disquiet that you wished to share. You further stated (and I quote your words) "I was somewhat shocked and anxious to get away as quickly as possible so avoided making eye contact. I didn't have a mobile and it took a little while to walk back home because I returned via a different route. I went for a drive around the area later with a camera but the streets are full of similar looking youngsters making their way to the fair at the nearby park." So you were telling us that you were "shocked and anxious" and keen to get away from the location. You were so shocked and anxious that you avoided any confrontation with these youths by avoiding eye contact. And you considered the matter serious enough to take a camera and cruise round the area, I can only assume in the hope of finding these youths and capturing photographic evidence (why else would you have gone back with a camera?) You have now shifted your position to telling us that with hindsight you are not really that horrified (an accurate paraphrasing of your words), that the blades were probably half as long as you had previously reported and, despite the lads being 12 - 15 years old (and therefore under the age of criminal responsibility, and eligible to have any juvenile misdemeanour record sealed upon turning 18 anyway)) you hallucinated the following egregious miscarriage of justice, carried out by the Filth and the jurisprudence system to destroy two innocent lives. "My report would be insufficient to guarantee proper identification. Look at the police and judicial fiasco surrounding the Damilola Taylor case (et al). The risk of yet another great British miscarriage of justice is simply too great given the current hysteria surrounding knife crime, especially in this area. A high-level decision to make an example in this case could lead to their lives being permanently blighted in what is rapidly becoming a corruption-riddled, authoritarian police state. A regime I no longer trust. Their educational and career options would be limited. Their DNA would be entered into the national database. They could lose their liberty. They'd forever be suspects in the eyes of the police. And their travel options would be restricted. They would become second-class citizens in many respects - all for a few minutes of misguided horseplay." Evidently, if your report could not identify the youths concerned, it is almost paranoic to assume that the police would simply scoop two likely lads and frame them for a bit of vandalism. Such a position would be ample reason for not reporting ANY crime ever. If your kids were stabbed would you refuse to report it in case the police got the wrong people (Damilola Taylor, remember?). If your house was broken into would you refuse to report it in case The Man got his evil claws into the wrong person? If you were mugged in the street and didn't get a good look at the person who smashed a brick round your head would you choose to keep mum in case the Rozzers framed the nearest person to the scene? I doubt it. If people have ended up being a little confused about your position perhaps it is because it has been so inconsistent???? And when we get to the stage of discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, and methods of silently eliminating sentries in a thread on knife crime and vandalism in ED I think the plot has been well and truly lost. My only information on the last issue was when I read Bravo Two Zero many years ago and Andy McNabb said that the notion of dispatching anyone with one swift blow was a nonsense, that you cut and cut until the victim bleeds to death. Cheery stuff. I am now off to lie on my bed in a seedy hotel room, drink whiskey and stare at the ceiling fan. We're done here!