Dublin Bus ordered to pay passenger €7,500 over alleged homophobic slurs...

Bobblehats · 22-01-2021 5:30pm

degsie wrote: »

Obviously two dickheads involved in this story.

Well one, fahking primadona that we know of he recorded evidence of himself being very vocal in this.

See these bus drivers, I don’t envy their position in fact I give them a nod like that could me when permitting me to board but some of these men that react like a bound up old ladies could do with restraint

Gatling · 22-01-2021 5:35pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes, from the passengers testimony.

But no actual evidence such as video , CCTV or audio.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:37pm

Gatling wrote: »

But no actual evidence such as video , CCTV or audio.

testimony is evidence. If victim testimony was not considered evidence the criminal justice system would be ****ed. Now you don't like what they are saying but that doesn't change that it is considered evidence from a legal perspective.

Gatling · 22-01-2021 5:38pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

testimony is evidence. If victim testimony

But it's not a court, if I'm correct

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:39pm

Gatling wrote: »

But it's not a court, if I'm correct

it isn't. that doesn't change anything. A lot of cases at that level come down to one persons word against another.

[Deleted User] · 22-01-2021 5:39pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No the problem was the driver allegedly user homophobic slurs. No evidence was offered that he didn't so the WRC found in favour of the passenger.

Even in civil law, the burden of proof is with the complainant though. The complainant cant be considered a non biased witness so really, theres no evidence

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:40pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Even in civil law, the burden of proof is with the complainant though

There was no evidence offerered by the defendant in this case.

Gatling · 22-01-2021 5:42pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A lot of cases at that level come down to one persons word against another.

Then surely no payout should be awarded if it's a one sided action which there is no one to defend the claims while especially if a criminal investigation in on going against the person who made the claim

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:44pm

Gatling wrote: »

Then surely no payout should be awarded if it's a one sided action which there is no one to defend the claims while especially if a criminal investigation in on going against the person who made the claim

think that through for a moment. Somebody brings a case. the party being sued can get off by just not bothering to turn up. Does that sound right to you?

[Deleted User] · 22-01-2021 5:45pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There was no evidence offerered by the defendant in this case.

There doesnt need to be as I just said, burden of proof. You know that.

"If allegation if enough to prove guilt, what of the innocent?"

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:47pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There doesnt need to be as I just said, burden of proof. You know that.

"If allegation if enough to prove guilt, what of the innocent?"

I do know that. One side offers evidence. the other side doesn't bother to turn up. you think the defending side should win?

Gatling · 22-01-2021 5:47pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

think that through for a moment.

Somebody brings a case.

And that someone should have evidence to back up their claims like sworn witness statements ,CCTV or other video

Not just arrive and say this man said something bold to me how much an I getting,

There seems to be a ongoing documented case of harassment going on against the bus driver by the complainant

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 5:48pm

Gatling wrote: »

And that someone should have evidence to back up their claims like sworn witness statements ,CCTV or other video

Not just arrive and say this man said something bold to me how much an I getting

sworn testimony is evidence. I wont be repeating that again. Your issue is that you didn't want this guy to win. If it was somebody you agreed with you wouldn't be taking this tack.

Gatling · 22-01-2021 5:49pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it was somebody you agreed with you wouldn't be taking this tack.

Utter nonsense

Asus X540L · 22-01-2021 6:50pm

Who is this geezer with 75,000 followers?

Can someone post a link?

ednwireland · 22-01-2021 7:00pm

Nermal wrote: »

.

How on earth is it the fault of Dublin Bus or Starbucks if their employees make a balls of dealing with the public?
.

it's totally there fault they should train there staff to deal with it and realise that it's not right in any circumstances they are in a customer facing role representingthe company at the end of the day.
I have to sit through hours of this stuff and get 80% on a simple enough exam admittedly. but some of it will stick.

Quantum Erasure · 22-01-2021 7:55pm

Asus X540L wrote: »

Who is this geezer with 75,000 followers?

Can someone post a link?

here's a link to the WRC judgment

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/january/adj-00016728.html

"Considering the circumstances surrounding this case I have decided to preserve the anonymity of the Complainant and the bus driver against whom the allegations have been made."

[Deleted User] · 22-01-2021 7:59pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I do know that. One side offers evidence. the other side doesn't bother to turn up. you think the defending side should win?

Not if actual evidence is produced obviously. The issue here is the absolute lack of evidence produced. Buses have CCTV for starters and the complainant is not an unbiased witness. My main issue however is that a criminal investigation is ongoing and yet the WRC felt it ok to proceed.

The bus driver shouldnt have attended while his criminal allegation is still being investigated in my opinion.

Is evidence in a WRC hearing actually under sworn oath?

[Deleted User] · 22-01-2021 8:00pm

ednwireland wrote: »

it's totally there fault they should train there staff to deal with it and realise that it's not right in any circumstances they are in a customer facing role representingthe company at the end of the day.
I have to sit through hours of this stuff and get 80% on a simple enough exam admittedly. but some of it will stick.

You were presumable trained by teachers regarding 'there' and 'their' but yet still got it wrong. Thats not the teachers fault.

(Not having a go, using it to make a point)

LeBash · 22-01-2021 8:07pm

fantaiscool wrote: »

If you are having a dispute with someone who is gay, you make your points as well as you can and explain your position. If you think he is actively paying the wrong fare, you have the ability to ensure that he pays the correct fare before you drive the bus. You do not resort to homophobic slurs. Once you resort to that, all gloves are off and I'm happy to hear that the gay individual was able to stand up for himself and get a result.

But he should be fined for not paying the correct fare for each time he refused to do it as well and Dublin Bus should hold the 7.5k until they get it.

Sounds like a pair of gob****es

weldoninhio · 22-01-2021 8:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sworn testimony is evidence. I wont be repeating that again. Your issue is that you didn't want this guy to win. If it was somebody you agreed with you wouldn't be taking this tack.

Sworn testimony?? Who swears you in before you give a statement to a random person? Who swears you in at the WRC? There was no “sworn testimony”. Thankfully you’ve committed to stop spreading lies.

Joe Don Dante · 22-01-2021 8:39pm

Gay lads are such Divas, especially the ones with 75,000 followers on Instagram

fantaiscool · 22-01-2021 8:51pm

Joe Don Dante wrote: »

Gay lads are such Divas, especially the ones with 75,000 followers on Instagram

"Gay lads are such divas" - sweeping generalization that most would find offensive I would say.

BlondeBomb · 22-01-2021 8:55pm

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

The fact this lad has 75,000 Instagram followers says a lot to me about what sort of contribution to society he is making, above anything else.

What’s his Instagram? I’m sure he isn’t being quiet about winning the case.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 9:26pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sworn testimony?? Who swears you in before you give a statement to a random person? Who swears you in at the WRC? There was no “sworn testimony”. Thankfully you’ve committed to stop spreading lies.

You have not got a notion what you are talking about. as per usual. stick to talking about travelers and immigrants.

weldoninhio · 22-01-2021 9:59pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You have not got a notion what you are talking about. as per usual. stick to talking about travelers and immigrants.

Who “swears you in” at the WRC? I’m all ears, educate me.

B.A._Baracus · 22-01-2021 10:05pm

Only my opinion but having read the article I believe the individual (the man) seems to be nutjob. Like a few wires loose in his head.

Recording the driver on Talbot Street and slagging him etc sounds to me like the behaviour of a poncey, mad bloke Remember folks, be wary of the person who records things while sh*t stirring. They're looking to get YOU into trouble and will gladly edit out the parts they say to get that result.

Truth be told he's probably well known to Dublin Bus. The story we are meant to believe from this individual is that he was minding his own business while this vile homophobic Dublin bus driver took exception to him and used homophobic slurs for no reason what so ever .... Does that say correct? Or are we missing something else here

jams100 · 22-01-2021 10:14pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Only my opinion but having read the article I believe the individual (the man) seems to be nutjob. Like a few wires loose in his head.

Recording the driver on Talbot Street and slagging him etc sounds to me like the behaviour of a poncey, mad bloke Remember folks, be wary of the person who records things while sh*t stirring. They're looking to get YOU into trouble and will gladly edit out the parts they say to get that result.

Truth be told he's probably well known to Dublin Bus. The story we are meant to believe from this individual is that he was minding his own business while this vile homophobic Dublin bus driver took exception to him and used homophobic slurs for no reason what so ever .... Does that say correct? Or are we missing something else here

And he got €7,500 so he or someone else will try their luck again.
Why 7,500 too? Why not 8k or 7k?
Do judges just pick arbitrary numbers out of their head?

B.A._Baracus · 22-01-2021 10:30pm

jams100 wrote: »

And he got €7,500 so he or someone else will try their luck again.
Why 7,500 too? Why not 8k or 7k?
Do judges just pick arbitrary numbers out of their head?

Yes. Judges do.
He picked a number out of his head and you are right. Someone else will do the same again upon reading this. Maybe even try the racism angle.

While I do believe this guy is mad. A lot of seemingly nice people will turn scumbags when there's an earner on the cards. Someone could say how they were minding their own business walking down the road when they got viciously berated, then assaulted by a mean, vile man who was out looking for trouble.... Yet this so called aforementioned man was only 3 foot tall :pac:

World is mad. The law is mad

GT89 · 23-01-2021 12:32am

GreeBo wrote: »

The fact that the driver on at least one occasion didnt stop because this person was at the stop is pretty indefensible tbh.

Put yourself in his shoes you are a bus driver and an individual you know has waited for you to finish work in order to verbally abuse you and harass you after you've finished work. Would you stop to pick that individual up?

It's a very effective method used by bus drivers to avoid dealing with potential troublesome passengers. See a group of lads drinking cans at a bus stop wanting to board sail on by. Once every single bus goes past them without stopping they will get the message put away the cans or don't get on the bus.

Dublin Bus ordered to pay passenger €7,500 over alleged homophobic slurs...

Comments